Congress

NEW YORK — As National Guard troops deploy across her city as part of President Trump’s efforts to clamp down on crime, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is responding with relative restraint.

She’s called Trump’s takeover of the city’s police department and his decision to activate 800 members of the guard “unsettling and unprecedented” and gone as far as to cast his efforts as part of an “authoritarian push.”

But Bowser has so far avoided the kind of biting rhetoric and personal attacks typical of other high-profile Democratic leaders, despite the unprecedented incursion into her city.

“While this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can’t say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we’re totally surprised,” Bowser told reporters at a news conference responding to the efforts. She even suggested the surge in resources might benefit the city and noted that limited home rule allows the federal government “to intrude on our autonomy in many ways.”

“My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the District,” said Bowser, who is in her third term as mayor. “And what’s important for the District is that we can take care of our citizens.”

The approach underscores the reality of Washington’s precarious position under the thumb of the federal government. Trump has repeatedly threatened an outright takeover of the overwhelmingly Democratic city, which is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed in 1973 that could be repealed by Congress. Republicans, who control both chambers, have already frozen more than $1 billion in local spending, slashing the city’s budget.

That puts her in a very different position from figures such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Democrats whose states depend on the federal government for disaster relief and other funding, but who have nonetheless relentlessly attacked the current administration as they lay the groundwork for potential 2028 presidential runs. Those efforts come amid deep frustrations from Democratic voters that their party has not been nearly aggressive enough in its efforts to counter Trump’s actions.

“Unfortunately she is in a very vulnerable position,” said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. “This is the sort of thing that can happen when you don’t have the powers that come with being a state. So that’s what we’re seeing right now, the mayor trying to navigate a very tough administration. Because this administration has shown no restraint when it comes to any kind of constitutional barriers or norms.”

A change from Trump’s first term

Bowser’s approach marks a departure from Trump’s first term, when she was far more antagonistic toward the president.

Then she routinely clashed with the administration, including having city workers paint giant yellow letters spelling out “Black Lives Matter” on a street near the White House during the George Floyd protests in 2020.

This time around, Bowser took a different tact from the start. She flew to Florida to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after he won the election and has worked to avoid conflict and downplay points of contention, including tearing up the “Black Lives Matter” letters after he returned to Washington in response to pressure from Republicans in Congress.

The change reflects the new political dynamics at play, with Republicans in control of Congress and an emboldened Trump who has made clear he is willing to exert maximum power and push boundaries in unprecedented ways.

D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson said she understands Bowser’s position, and largely agrees with her conclusion that a legal challenge to Trump’s moves would be a long shot. Trump invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in his executive order, declaring a “crime emergency” so his administration could take over the city’s police force. The statute limits that control to 30 days unless he gets approval from Congress.

“The challenge would be on the question of ‘Is this actually an emergency?’” said Henderson, a former congressional staffer. “That’s really the only part you could challenge.”

Henderson believes the city would face dim prospects in a court fight, but thinks the D.C. government should challenge anyway, “just on the basis of precedent.”

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he believes he can extend the 30-day deadline by declaring a national emergency, but said “we expect to be before Congress very quickly.”

“We’re gonna be asking for extensions on that, long-term extensions, because you can’t have 30 days,” he said. “We’re gonna do this very quickly. But we’re gonna want extensions. I don’t want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.”

Limited legal options

Bowser’s response is a reflection of the reality of the situation, according to a person familiar with her thinking. As mayor of the District of Columbia, Bowser has a very different relationship with the president and federal government than other mayors or governors. The city is home to thousands of federal workers, and the mass layoffs under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have already had a major impact on the city’s economy.

Her strategy has been to focus on finding areas where she and the new administration can work together on shared priorities.

For now, Bowser appears set to stick with her approach, saying Wednesday that she is focused on “making sure the federal surge is useful to us.”

During a morning interview with Fox 5, she and the city’s police chief argued an influx of federal agents linked to Trump’s takeover would improve public safety, with more officers on patrol.

Police Chief Pamela Smith said the city’s police department is short almost 800 officers, so the extra police presence “is clearly going to impact us in a positive way.”

But Nina Smith, the Democratic strategist, said she believes Bowser needs a course correction.

“How many times is it going to take before she realizes this is not someone who has got the best interests of the city at heart?” she asked. “I think there may need to be time for her to get tough and push back.”

Despite Trump’s rhetoric, statistics published by Washington’s Metropolitan Police show violent crime has dropped in Washington since a post-pandemic peak in 2023. A recent Department of Justice report shows that violent crime is down 35% since 2023, reaching its lowest rate in 30 years.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Ashraf Khalil and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.

Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.

In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.

After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.

“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.

Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.

“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Remember “I alone can fix it”? Donald Trump, who made that laughable statement in his 2016 convention acceptance speech, is now testing the theory in Washington.

Trump and his party have been threatening a D.C. takeover for years and made it part of the Republican platform last year. But it was all just empty talk and random uppercase words until a former staffer at the Department of Government Efficiency was reportedly attacked in an attempted carjacking in the wee hours of Aug. 3 in a busy area of bars and restaurants.

It doesn’t matter at all to Trump that D.C.’s violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low last year and is down another 26% so far this year compared with 2024, or that a police report suggests police saw the incident and intervened. This particular victim — a teenage Elon Musk protégé and notorious DOGE operative — gave this particular president the “emergency” he needed to declare a “public safety emergency.”

Of course, he called it “a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.” He has federalized the city’s Metropolitan Police Department and deployed 800 members of its National Guard (to start). Over the weekend he sent 450 federal police officers from 18 agencies to patrol the city.

It’s the second time this year that Trump has played the National Guard card to show who’s boss. He sent 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, ostensibly to restore order amid immigration raids. But the move sparked new tensions, protests and at least one surreal foray by armed, masked agents into a park where children were attending summer camp. It also drew a legal challenge from Newsom, which is unfolding in court this week.

There will be no similar lawsuit in D.C., where I’ve lived for decades. That’s because the U.S. president controls our National Guard. The hard truth is that though Wyoming and Vermont each have fewer people than D.C.’s 700,000-plus residents, D.C. is not a state. It’s still in a semi-colonial status, with a mayor and city council whose actions can be nullified by Congress, and with no voting representation in that Congress.

In fact, Congress accidentally slashed $1.1 billion from D.C.’s budget — our own money, not federal dollars! — in its cost-cutting frenzy last spring. A promised fix never came, forcing cuts that affect public safety and much else. And yet the city’s crime rate has continued to fall.

Compared with California, an economic juggernaut of more than 39 million people located thousands of miles from Washington, D.C. is a minuscule and all too convenient target for an executive aiming to prove his manhood, show off to autocrats in other countries or create headlines to distract from news he doesn’t like.

I could go off on Trump for his lies, overreach and disrespect for D.C. and its right to govern itself. Or the various Republicans who have imposed conservative policies on D.C. for years and now are trying to repeal its home rule law.

But what really enrages me is the lack of Democratic nerve — or even bravado — that has left D.C. so vulnerable to Trump and conservative-run Congresses. Where was the modern-day Lyndon Johnson (the “master of the Senate,” in Robert Caro’s phrase) in 2021, to whip support in the narrowly Democratic Senate after the House passed a D.C. statehood bill for the second year in a row?

Trump has no mastery beyond bullying and bribery — but those tactics are working fine with Congress, corporations, law firms, academia and sovereign nations across the globe. As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it last week: “You have this rock standing in the middle of history called Donald Trump. And he’s saying: ‘Do you want to do it my way, or do you want to be crushed? I prefer you do it my way, but if you have to be crushed, that’s OK.’ ”

Gingrich correctly characterized most responses to Trump as “You know, I’ve always wanted to be part of the team,” and added: “If he can sustain this, he’s moving into a league that, other than Washington and Lincoln, nobody has gotten to the level of energy, drive and effectiveness that we see with Trump.”

Unfortunately, Trump is aiming to speed-raze what Washington and Lincoln built. (He keeps claiming it’s “Liberation Day” for D.C., but the last “Liberation Day” — his April 2 tariff announcements — tanked the stock market.) The only conceivable antidote is to elect a mad-as-hell Democratic Congress in 2026 and, in 2028, an arm-twisting, strong-arming, terror-inspiring Democratic president who’s in a hurry to get things done. Someone who’s forceful, persuasive and resolved to use the power they have while they have it.

The top priorities, beyond reversing as much institutional and constitutional damage as possible, should be structural: Supreme Court term limits and ethics rules with teeth, a national gerrymandering ban, a sensible and uniform national voter ID policy, and minimum national standards for early voting and mail voting — to protect the will of the people and the republic itself.

Equally important, make D.C. the state of Douglass Commonwealth, named after the abolitionist Frederick Douglass rather than the colonizing Christopher Columbus. Rural America has wielded disproportionate power since the late 1800s, when Republicans added sparsely populated states and permanently skewed the Senate. Two new D.C. senators would help correct that imbalance.

The problem is that the next president, or even the next Congress, might arrive too late for D.C. Trump has already begun the federal takeover he has threatened so often for so many years. He took over the Kennedy Center. He took over Congress. We should have expected we’d be next.

Back in March, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) proposed that D.C. seek temporary sanctuary with Maryland, which ceded most of the land to create the capital in the first place. “You’d definitely be safer,” he said he told Mayor Muriel Bowser.

That offer, joke or not, practical or not, is looking increasingly inviting by the day.

Jill Lawrence is a writer and author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” @jilldlawrence.bsky.social

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan visited Capitol Hill just weeks after Inauguration Day, with other administration officials and a singular message: They needed money for the White House’s border security and mass deportation agenda.

By summer, Congress delivered.

The Republican Party’s big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that Trump signed into law July 4 included what’s arguably the biggest boost of funds yet to the Department of Homeland Security — nearly $170 billion, almost double its annual budget.

The staggering sum is powering the nation’s sweeping new Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, delivering gripping scenes of people being pulled off city streets and from job sites across the nation — the cornerstone of Trump’s promise for the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Homeland Security confirmed over the weekend ICE is working to set up detention sites at certain military bases.

“We’re getting them out at record numbers,” Trump said at the White House bill signing ceremony. “We have an obligation to, and we’re doing it.”

Money flows, and so do questions

The crush of new money is setting off alarms in Congress and beyond, raising questions from lawmakers in both major political parties who are expected to provide oversight. The bill text provided general funding categories — almost $30 billion for ICE officers, $45 billion for detention facilities, $10 billion for the office of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — but few policy details or directives. Homeland Security recently announced $50,000 ICE hiring bonuses.

And it’s not just the big bill’s fresh infusion of funds fueling the president’s agenda of 1 million deportations a year.

In the months since Trump took office, his administration has been shifting as much as $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other accounts to pay for immigration enforcement and deportation operations, lawmakers said.

“Your agency is out of control,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Noem during a Senate committee hearing in the spring.

The senator warned that Homeland Security would “go broke” by July.

Noem quickly responded that she always lives within her budget.

But Murphy said later in a letter to Homeland Security, objecting to its repurposing funds, that ICE was being directed to spend at an “indefensible and unsustainable rate to build a mass deportation army,” often without approval from Congress.

This past week, the new Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, along with a subcommittee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, requested a briefing from Noem on the border security components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which included $46 billion over the next four years for Trump’s long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“We write today to understand how the Department plans to outlay this funding to deliver a strong and secure homeland for years to come,” the GOP lawmakers said in a letter to the homeland security secretary, noting border apprehensions are at record lows.

“We respectfully request that you provide Committee staff with a briefing on the Department’s plan to disburse OBBBA funding,” they wrote, seeking a response by Aug. 22.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press the department is in daily discussions with the committee “to honor all briefing requests including the spend plan for the funds allocated” through the new law.

“ICE is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity,” she said. “This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.”

Deportations move deep into communities

All together, it’s what observers on and off Capitol Hill see as a fundamental shift in immigration policy — enabling DHS to reach far beyond the U.S. southern border and deep into communities to conduct raids and stand up detention facilities as holding camps for immigrants.

The Defense Department, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies are being enlisted in what Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, calls a “whole of government” approach.

“They’re orienting this huge shift,” Bush-Joseph said, as deportation enforcement moves “inward.”

The flood of cash comes when Americans’ views on immigration are shifting. Polling showed 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, having jumped substantially from 64% a year ago, according to Gallup. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now.

At the same time, Trump’s approval rating on immigration has slipped. According to a July AP-NORC poll, 43% of U.S. adults said they approved of his handling of immigration, down slightly from 49% in March.

Americans are watching images of often masked officers arresting college students, people at Home Depot lots, parents, workers and a Tunisian musician. Stories abound of people being whisked off to detention facilities, often without allegations of wrongdoing beyond being unauthorized to remain in the U.S.

A new era of detention centers

Detention centers are being stood up, from “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida to the repurposed federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, and the proposed new “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana. Flights are ferrying migrants not just home or to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison but far away to Africa and beyond.

Homan has insisted in recent interviews those being detained and deported are the “worst of the worst,” and he dismissed as “garbage” the reports showing many of those being removed have not committed violations beyond their irregular immigration status.

“There’s no safe haven here,” Homan said recently outside the White House. “We’re going to do exactly what President Trump has promised the American people he’d do.”

Back in February, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, emerged from their private meeting saying Trump administration officials were “begging for money.”

As Graham got to work, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a leading deficit hawk, proposed an alternative border package, at $39 billion, a fraction of the size.

But Paul’s proposal was quickly dismissed. He was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who joined all Democrats in voting against the final tax and spending cuts bill.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom made a ballsy threat this week to Texas legislators who are trying to gerrymander voting maps in favor of Republicans.

“Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California, and they will pay that price,” Newsom said. “They’ve triggered this response. And we’re not going to roll over, and we’re going to fight fire with fire.”

The “we” in that sentence is you, California voters, who may soon be asked to fix the Texas menace via the ballot box. If Newsom has his way, voters in November would face some version of an if/then question: “If Texas cheats on their voting maps, then (and only then) should California cheat on ours?”

In these days of creeping authoritarianism, it’s a fair query, but also one rife with personal interests and risks large enough to remake American democracy, or even inadvertently crush it.

But such is the state of our union that even those determined to preserve it are ready to throw out its basic tenets — myself included, sort of — and cause a national kerfuffle by considering remaking voting maps to supposedly benefit, if not a party, democracy as a whole.

“This is something that we have just never seen before, right?” Mindy Romero told me Tuesday. She’s an assistant professor and the founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

Romero is against gerrymandering, but also agrees that we are in “unprecedented times,” a phrase that doesn’t seem to do justice to the daily trampling of democratic safeguards by our president.

Most of you are aware by now that the Texas Legislature, allegedly after pressure from President Trump, is contemplating redrawing its voting maps in the hopes of scooping up more seats for Republicans in Congress during the 2026 midterms — the very election that Democrats are praying will deliver them control of at least one chamber.

With the possibility that this Texas two-step could hand Trump an even more solidly compliant Congress, Newsom has come up with a plan to gerrymander our own maps. But to make it (hopefully) legal, he needs voters to go along with it because this ain’t Texas, and we don’t ignore rules. We bend them.

Whoever thought redistricting could be this exciting? But stay calm, redistricting nerds: It remains boring to the majority of voters, which is both the problem and the brilliance of the plan — you have to engage voters, but also not so much that they think too deeply.

The difference between Texas and California is our ballot initiative process, which would ultimately make voters responsible for any gerrymandering here. In Texas, it’s backroom stuff.

But will voters go for it? For many, it will come down to simple choices that miss the complexity of what is being asked: California vs. Texas, Newsom vs. Trump, democracy vs. authoritarianism.

Romero warns that once you smash a norm, even for a virtuous reason, it’s hard to get it back. She worries that despite Newsom’s claim that the rigged maps would disappear in 2030, the gerrymandering might remain.

California has one of the best systems in the country right now for nonpartisan redistricting, with an independent commission that draws lines without regard to party.

It was put in place because decades of gerrymandering left voters disenchanted.

In the 1980s, political icon Phillip Burton allegedly wrangled an infamous gerrymander that still shows just how bad things could be. He did it in part to protect the seat of his brother, John Burton ( a colorful fellow who served in both the state Legislature and Congress before becoming chair of the California Democratic Party) creating a district that wound around the Bay Area in a nonsensical fashion to scrape up the necessary votes.

“Oh, it’s gorgeous,” Phillip Burton described that questionable territory to the Washington Post at the time. “It curls in and out like a snake.”

That was just the way business was done before our redistricting commission was put in place in 2008, with a hefty push by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who remains a vocal critic of gerrymandering and who has vowed to fight Newsom’s plan.

But that nonpartisan system was hard won, and in reality, neither party really loved the idea.

“We’ve gone through this and in cooler times,” Romero pointed out. “The Democrats and the Republicans in California did not want independent redistricting. Let’s make that clear. But a lot of people came together and worked towards this.”

So while any upcoming ballot measure will likely focus on the righteousness of fighting fire with fire, it’s also true that the Democratic party and some Democratic politicians would hope to reap personal gain from such a vote.

As much as this might be about saving democracy, politics is always about personal and party gain. Some California state legislators would surely desire to win a newly drawn seat in Congress. And, of course, there are Newsom’s political ambitions.

“It’s really difficult to disentangle people that may be sincerely scared for our democracy” from those “that may be jumping on this, seeing it as a political opportunity. And I think we have to be really honest about that,” Romero said.

That’s the choice that voters will ultimately be asked to make.

But we also can’t ignore the precarious nature of the times, and the reality that our checks and balances are disintegrating. Do we save election integrity and maybe risk democracy, or try to save democracy and risk election integrity?

Two paths lead into the dark. Do voters follow Newsom or Trump?

People thinking about starting a business or retiring early — before they’re old enough for Medicare — may want to wait until November, when they can see just how much their Affordable Care Act health insurance will cost next year. Sharp increases are expected.

Premiums for ACA health plans, also known as Obamacare, on which many early retirees and small-business owners rely for coverage, are going up, partly because of policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and Congress. At the same time, more generous tax subsidies that have helped most policyholders pay for coverage are set to expire at the end of December.

After that, subsidies would return to what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic. Also being reinstated would be an income cap barring people who earn more than four times the federal poverty level from getting any tax credits to help them purchase coverage. Although Congress potentially could act to extend the credits, people weighing optional life changes should factor in the potential cost if lawmakers fail to do so.

“I would hate for people to make a big decision now and then, in a few months, realize, ‘I’m not even going to qualify for a tax credit next year,’” said Lauren Jenkins, an insurance agent whose brokerage helps people sign up for coverage in Oklahoma. “Coupled with the rate increases, that could be significant, especially for someone at or near retirement, when it could easily cost over $1,000 a month.”

Still, how things play out in the real world will vary.

The key factor is income, as the subsidy amount people receive is primarily based on household income and local insurance costs.

People experiencing the biggest dollar increase in out-of-pocket premiums next year will be those who lose subsidies altogether because they earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level. This year, that’s $62,600 for a single person and $84,600 for a couple.

This “subsidy cliff” was removed in the legislation first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to create enhanced subsidies, but it will be back next year if they expire. About 1.6 million people who earn more than 400% of the poverty threshold bought ACA plans this year, many of them getting some tax credits to help with the premiums, according to KFF data. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“A lot of small-biz owners fall around that level of income,” said David Chase, vice president of policy and advocacy for the Small Business Majority, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, which is urging Congress to extend the credits.

And a good chunk of ACA enrollment consists of small-business owners or their employees because, unlike larger firms, most small businesses don’t offer group health plans.

In the Washington metropolitan area, “7 out of 10 people who qualify for lower premiums [because of the tax credits] are small-business owners,” said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority.

Congress must decide by the end of December whether to extend the subsidies a second time. Permanently doing so could cost taxpayers $335 billion over the next decade, but not acting could cause financial pain for policyholders and pose political repercussions for lawmakers.

Because new premiums and smaller subsidies would take effect in January, the potential fallout has some Republican lawmakers worried about the midterm elections, according to news reports.

Republican pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward warned the GOP in a memo that extending the enhanced credits could mean the difference between success and failure in some midterm races, because support for the premium help “comes from more than two-thirds of Trump voters and three-quarters of Swing voters.”

Although supporters credit the enhanced subsidies for a record 24 million sign-ups for this year’s ACA plans, critics have blamed them for instances in which brokers or consumers engaged in improper enrollment.

“The expanded subsidies were a temporary COVID pandemic policy enacted by congressional Democrats on a party-line vote and scheduled to end after 2025,” said Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank. “They have led to tremendous fraud and waste, they reduce employer coverage, and they should be permitted to expire.”

Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, acknowledged that people earning more than 400% of the poverty level would not be happy with losing access to subsidies, but he expects most to stay enrolled because they want to avoid huge medical bills that could threaten their businesses or savings.

“They are middle-class or upper-income people who are self-employed, or early retirees with significant income, which means they have a lot of assets behind that income,” he said. “These are people who view insurance as financial protection.”

He thinks lawmakers would win political support from voters in this category by addressing two of their other major ACA concerns: that annual deductibles are too high and insurers’ networks of doctors and hospitals are too small.

“If you just give these people money by extending subsidies, it’s only addressing one of their problems, and it’s the one they are least upset about,” Haislmaier said. “That is the political dynamics of this.”

Here’s how the expiration of subsidies could play out for some hypothetical consumers.

People in households earning less than four times the poverty rate would still get subsidies — just not as generous as the current ones.

For example, those whose earnings are at the lower end of the income scale — say, just over 150% of the poverty threshold, or about $23,000 — will go from paying a national average of about $2 a month, or $24 toward coverage for the year, to $72 a month, or $864 a year, according to a KFF online calculator.

On the other end of the income spectrum, a 55-year-old Portland, Ore., couple with a household income of $85,000 would take a big hit on the cost of their benchmark plan. They currently pay about $600 a month in premiums — about 8.5% of their household income — with subsidies kicking in about $1,000 to cover the remainder.

Next year, if the tax credits expire, the same couple would not get any federal help because they earn over four times the poverty limit. They would pay the full monthly premium, with no subsidies, which would be about $1,800, based on initial 2026 premium rates filed with state regulators, said Jared Ortaliza, a policy analyst at KFF.

People should begin to see insurance rates late this fall, and certainly by Nov. 1, when the ACA’s open enrollment season begins, said Jenkins, the Oklahoma insurance agent. That gives them time to mull over whether they want to make changes in their plan — or in their lives, such as quitting a job that has health insurance or retiring early. This year, open enrollment extends to Jan. 15. Under new legislation, that open period will shorten by about a month, starting with the 2027 sign-up period.

Those who do enroll for 2026, especially the self-employed and people retiring early, should closely track their incomes during the year, she said.

It would be easy to bust through that income cap, she said.

If they do, they’ll have to pay back any tax credits they initially qualified for. Their income might rise unexpectedly during the year, for example, pushing them over the limit. An income bump could come from drawing down more money from retirement accounts than planned, landing a new customer account, or even from winning big at a casino.

“Maybe they win $5,000 at the casino, but that puts them $500 over the limit for the year,” Jenkins said. “They might have to pay back $12,000 in tax credits for winning a few thousand at the casino.”

Appleby writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers have left Washington for the annual August recess, but a few weeks of relative quiet on the U.S. Capitol grounds can’t mask the partisan tensions that are brewing on government funding and President Trump’s nominees. It could make for a momentous September.

Here’s a look at what’s ahead when lawmakers return after the Labor Day holiday.

A bitter spending battle ahead

Lawmakers will use much of September to work on spending bills for the coming budget year, which begins Oct. 1. They likely will need to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks while they work on a longer-term measure that covers the full year.

It’s not unusual for leaders from both parties to blame the other party for a potential shutdown, but the rhetoric began extra early this year, signaling the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual.

On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent their Republican counterparts a sharply-worded letter calling for a meeting to discuss “the government funding deadline and the health care crisis you have visited upon the American people.”

They said it will take bipartisanship to avert a “painful, unnecessary shutdown.”

“Yet it is clear that the Trump Administration and many in your party are preparing to go it alone and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,” said the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Republicans have taken note of the warnings and are portraying the Democrats as itching for a shutdown they hope to blame on the GOP.

“It was disturbing to hear the Democrat leader threaten to shut down the government in his July 8 Dear Colleague letter,” Thune said on Saturday. “… I really hope that Democrats will not embrace that position but will continue to work with Republicans to fund the government.”

Different approaches from the House and Senate

So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills, mostly along party lines. The Senate has passed three on a strongly bipartisan basis. The House is pursuing steep, non-defense spending cuts. The Senate is rejecting many of those cuts. One side will have to give. And any final bill will need some Democratic support to generate the 60 votes necessary to get a spending measure to the finish line.

Some Democratic senators are also wanting assurances from Republicans that there won’t be more efforts in the coming weeks to claw back or cancel funding already approved by Congress.

“If Republicans want to make a deal, then let’s make a deal, but only if Republicans include an agreement they won’t take back that deal a few weeks later,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a veteran member of the House Appropriations committee, said the Democratic minority in both chambers has suffered so many legislative losses this year, “that they are stuck between a rock and their voting base.” Democrats may want to demonstrate more resistance to Trump, but they would rue a shutdown, he warned.

“The reality would be, if the government were shut down, the administration, Donald Trump, would have the ability to decide where to spend and not spend,” Fleischmann said. “Schumer knows that, Jeffries knows that. We know that. I think it would be much more productive if we start talking about a short-term (continuing resolution.)”

Republicans angry about pace of nominations

Republicans are considering changes to Senate rules to get more of Trump’s nominees confirmed.

Thune said last week that during the same point in Joe Biden’s presidency, 49 of his 121 civilian nominees had been confirmed on an expedited basis through a voice vote or a unanimous consent request. Trump has had none of his civilian nominees confirmed on an expedited basis. Democrats have insisted on roll call votes for all of them, a lengthy process than can take days.

“I think they’re desperately in need of change,” Thune said of Senate rules for considering nominees. “I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations, is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.”

Schumer said a rules change would be a “huge mistake,” especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward.

The Senate held a rare weekend session as Republicans worked to get more of Trump’s nominees confirmed. Negotiations focused on advancing dozens of additional Trump nominees in exchange for some concessions on releasing some already approved spending.

At times, lawmakers spoke of progress on a potential deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home.

“Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

Los Angeles city leaders are at a critical juncture ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics, with potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake.

They are in negotiations with LA28, the private committee overseeing the Games, for the use of the city’s police, traffic officers and other employees during the Olympics and Paralympics.

Millions of visitors are expected to pour into downtown L.A., the Sepulveda Basin and the Westside when the Olympics kick off in July 2028. Security, trash removal, traffic control, paramedics and more will be needed during the 17-day event and the two-week Paralympics the following month.

Under the 2021 Games agreement between LA28 and the city, LA28 must reimburse the city for any services that go beyond what the city would provide on a normal day. The two parties must agree by Oct. 1, 2025, on “enhanced services” — additional city services needed for the Games, beyond that normal level — and determine rates, repayment timelines, audit rights and other processes.

LA28 has billed the Games as a “no cost” event for the city. Depending on how “enhanced services” are defined, the city, which is in a precarious financial state, could end up bearing significant costs. One of the biggest expenses will be security, with the LAPD, as well as a host of other local, state and federal agencies, working together to keep athletes and spectators safe.

Overtime for Los Angeles police officers, and any other major expenses, would be acutely felt by a city government that recently closed a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, in part by slowing police hiring. The city continues to face rising labor costs and diminished revenues from tourism.

At the same time, President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, recently passed by Congress, includes $1 billion for security and planning of the Games. But what those funds will cover — and what will be covered by LA28 — are not yet known.

Against that backdrop, civil rights attorney Connie Rice sent a six-page letter dated July 17 to Mayor Karen Bass and other city leaders, asking questions about the enhanced services agreement and urging the city to take a tough stance. Rice said city staffers reached out to her because they were worried that the agreement wouldn’t adequately protect the city.

“Los Angeles faces multiple fiscal hazards that many current leaders negotiating this and other Olympics agreements, will not be around to face,” Rice wrote. “The City cannot afford an additional $1.5 billion hit in 2028 because city officials inadequately protected taxpayers in 2025.”

Rice’s letter asks if LA28 and the city have resolved differences about the definition of venue “footprints,” or perimeters around sporting events, with the footprint changing depending on whether it’s defined by a blast radius, a security perimeter or other factors.

The letter questioned why LA28 isn’t paying the city up front for costs, using money in escrow, and asked if LA28 has provided the city with a budget for security, transit and sanitation.

Rice, in an interview, said she wants to ensure the Games are indeed “no cost.”

Both Paul Krekorian, who heads Mayor Karen Bass’ major events office, and an LA28 representative declined to directly address Rice’s letter.

“The City and LA28 have been collaborating for years to ensure that all Angelenos benefit from the Games for decades to come,” said Krekorian. “While the [agreement] is currently under negotiation, we fully expect that LA28 will be successful in its fundraising efforts to deliver the Games.”

The city routinely provides police officers and traffic officers for major events, such as Dodgers games and the Grammy Awards. In 2022, the Rams reimbursed the city $1.5 million for resources it provided for the team’s Super Bowl parade, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

Last month, Szabo’s office released a document on the city’s investor website outlining potential liabilities facing the city, including some related to the 2028 Games. The document noted that roughly $1 billion in security costs will have to be paid by the city if they are not covered by LA28 or the federal government.

Jacie Prieto Lopez, LA28’s vice president of communications, told The Times that security and other planning costs haven’t been finalized.

Rice’s letter questioned whether LA28 would cover the cost of security. Prieto Lopez didn’t directly answer when asked by The Times if LA28 will cover the LAPD’s expenses.

“We are grateful that the Administration and Congress recently appropriated $1 billion in security funding and we will continue to work with our partners at the federal, state and local levels, including the City of LA, to ensure a safe, secure and successful Games,” Prieto Lopez said in an email.

How the $1 billion from the Big Beautiful Bill is distributed will be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is focused on preventing terrorism and other threats.

Anita Gore, a spokesperson for the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, told The Times that she expects those funds to be managed by the state through the Homeland Security Grant process.

The Office of Emergency Services is the “coordination hub” for the Games and is overseeing a statewide task force focused on security, traffic management and more, Gore said.

At a recent hearing in Sacramento, LA28 Chief Executive Reynold Hoover said the nonprofit continues to push for federal support for the Games. He said the $1 billion recently approved by Congress will “help us with that initial funding requirements for security.”

Hoover told a Senate subcommittee in June that LA28 is asking the federal government to fully reimburse the public agencies that will provide critical security at the Games.

A representative for the Department of Homeland Security declined to answer questions about how the $1 billion will be used.

Trump’s mercurial nature and past attacks on California make it difficult for some city leaders to gauge how his administration will handle funding for the Games.

Rep. Nellie Pou of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Congressional Task Force for Enhancing Security for Special Events, held a public hearing last month on preparing for the World Cup and Olympics. She told The Times that she has not received any specifics about the $1 billion.

“This administration has withheld and frozen other federal funding appropriated by Congress, so we cannot simply assume that World Cup or Olympic security funding will make it to our communities,” she said.

Krekorian, when asked about Pou’s concerns, said the city “is in direct communication with state and federal partners, as well as LA28, about the allocation of these funds.”

WASHINGTON — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Trump’s legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs.

Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.

“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said in a sign of the panel’s incredulity at a government attorney’s arguments.

Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but contended it was nonetheless lawful.

The 1977 law, signed by President Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.

Trump says the country’s trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law’s protection.

In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified.

“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness,” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, “and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with [it].”

Schumate said Congress’ passage of IEEPA gave the president “broad and flexible” power to respond to an emergency, but that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”

But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump’s maneuver as a “breathtaking” power grab that amounted to saying “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”

No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges’ deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE “DEAD,” WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’’

In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that “a national emergency exists” necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers.

The issue now rests with the appeals judges.

The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday.

The case centers on Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn’t cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump’s first term and continued by President Biden.

The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear.

The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House.

Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.

Wiseman and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York.

Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?

Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that’s before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare’s impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it’s infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder.

The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill’s reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden.

Maybe we wouldn’t keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we’re willing to pay for.

Otherwise, it’s too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That’s because all the benefits and subsidies that we’re unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That’s morally and economically reprehensible.

Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities.

First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we’re this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won’t be enough.

Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive.

Here’s something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between.

This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don’t simply continue what they’ve been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies.

Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It’s why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor.

If the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections.

Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some.

It’s long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be “paid for.” Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.

I suspect that most people aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare.

Until we align Congress’ promises with what we’re willing and able to fund, we’ll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic House members — including four from California — sued the Trump administration Wednesday after lawmakers were repeatedly denied access to immigrant detention facilities where they sought to conduct oversight visits.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Washington, says each plaintiff has attempted to visit a detention facility, either by showing up in person or by giving Homeland Security Department officials advanced notice, and been unlawfully blocked from entering.

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for Homeland Security, said in a statement that visit requests should be made with enough time to prevent interference with the president’s authority to oversee executive department functions, and must be approved by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. McLaughlin said a week’s notice suffices.

“These Members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour; instead, they’re running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails,” she wrote.

Among the plaintiffs are California Reps. Norma Torres of Pomona, Robert Garcia of Long Beach, who is the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles, and Lou Correa of Santa Ana, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.

Also included are Reps. Adriano Espaillat of New York, who is the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee; and Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, who is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

In an interview with The Times, Gomez said there was always an understanding between the executive and legislative branches about the importance of oversight. Under the Trump administration, that has changed, he said.

“We believe this administration, unless they’re faced with a lawsuit, they don’t comply with the law,” he said. “This administration believes it has no obligation to Congress, even if it’s printed in black and white. That’s what makes this administration dangerous.”

In a statement, Correa said that, as a longtime member of the House Homeland Security Committee, his job has always been to oversee Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Until this summer, he said, he fulfilled that role with no issues.

Reports from immigrant detention facilities in recent months have included issues such as overcrowding, food shortages and a lack of medical care. U.S. citizens have in some cases been unlawfully detained by immigration agents.

The lawsuit demands that the Trump administration comply with federal law, which guarantees members of Congress the right to conduct oversight visits anywhere that immigrants are detained pending deportation proceedings. The lawmakers are represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation and American Oversight.

ICE published new guidelines last month for members of Congress and their staff, requesting at least 72 hours notice from lawmakers and requiring at least 24 hours notice from staff before an oversight visit. The guidelines, which have since been taken down from ICE’s website, also claimed that field offices, such as the facility at the Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles, “are not detention facilities” and fall outside the scope of the oversight law.

The agency says it has discretion to deny or reschedule a visit if an emergency arises or the safety of the facility is jeopardized, though such contingencies are not mentioned in federal law.

The lawsuit calls ICE’s new policy unlawful.

A federal statute, detailed in yearly appropriations packages since 2020, states that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”

Under the statute, federal officials may require at least 24 hours’ notice for a visit by congressional staff — but not members themselves.

The lawmakers say congressional oversight is needed now more than ever, with ICE holding more than 56,800 people in detention as of July 13, according to TRAC, a nonpartisan data research organization.

Ten people have died in ICE custody since Trump took office. Earlier this year, the administration moved to close three internal oversight bodies at Homeland Security, but revived them with minimal staff after civil rights groups sued.

Gomez said members of Congress have a duty to determine whether the administration is fulfilling its obligations to taxpayers under the law. The administration’s position that holding facilities inside ICE offices are not subject to oversight is a slippery slope, he said.

“What happens if they set up a camp and they say ‘This is not a detention facility but a holding center?’ For us it’s that, if they are willing to violate the law for these facilities, the potential for the future becomes more problematic,” he said.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday that he believes there is a “legal pathway” for Democrats to present new congressional district maps directly to voters on a statewide ballot, without input from the state’s independent redistricting commission.

Such a move, he suggested, would allow the state to counter Republican efforts to tilt next year’s midterm election by pushing redistricting measures that favor the GOP in conservative states such as Texas. If successful, Republicans would have a better chance of holding their slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and protecting President Trump’s ability to enact his agenda.

“I think the governor could call a special election that the voters of the state of California would participate in, and present to them a pathway forward that’s different than the independent redistricting commission, that has maps presented to them ready [and] tangible and specific, and then the people vote,” Bonta said, adding that his staff had been discussing the matter with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s team.

Republicans, who probably would lose seats if such a ballot measure was approved, were dubious of Bonta’s claim and argued that it is harmful to democracy. GOP Assembly Leader James Gallagher criticized Bonta’s proposal as a “strange legal theory to undermine CA voters.”

“It’s undemocratic, it’s wrong, and it needs to be stopped,” Gallagher said in a social media post Tuesday evening. “If they move forward in this fashion they will rip the state and this nation apart.”

Bonta provided few details about a potential ballot measure aside from saying that new district boundaries could be drawn by the state Legislature and presented to voters in a special election. The measure would ask voters to rescind the power they granted to an independent redistricting commission, at least temporarily.

Presenting maps directly to voters is viewed as an effort to sway Californians who may be leery of letting the Legislature redraw the districts after they vote, according to redistricting experts.

The governor’s office declined to say whether Newsom intends to ask the Legislature to put a map of the proposed districts on the ballot. His team said it is continuing to explore the two pathways he previously outlined — either having state lawmakers redraw the maps, which probably would face legal challenges, or placing the matter on the statewide ballot for California voters to decide.

Redistricting — the esoteric process of redrawing political boundaries — typically occurs once a decade, after the U.S. Census tallies population shifts across the nation. But it’s in the news because Trump — potentially facing the loss of the slim GOP majority in the House — urged Texas to redraw its congressional districts middecade to elect more Republicans in the 2026 midterm election so he can press his agenda during his final two years in office.

California lawmakers, like those in most states, used to gerrymander political boundaries to favor political parties and protect incumbents, often leading to bizarrely shaped districts with voters who sometimes had little in common. But in 2010, voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure to create an independent redistricting commission that focused on drawing congressional districts that consolidated communities of interest, respected minority voting rights and geographically made sense.

The state Republican and Democratic parties opposed the effort because it eroded their power. Now, after the Trump administration is urging GOP states to redraw district lines in a manner that would shore up their party’s control of Congress, Democrats are fighting back. In California, a partisan redrawing of the districts could net their party a half-dozen seats in the state’s 52-member delegation, which currently has nine Republicans.

Several steps would have to occur before any such potential change could be presented to the electorate, notably that the Legislature would have to approve placing the matter before voters in a special election and draw new maps in a compressed schedule. Legal challenges are likely.

“Generally, when the people vote on something, if it’s going to be changed in a significant way and not have additional steps taken by the Legislature in furtherance of what the people voted for, then the people need to vote for that change,” Bonta said, after being asked about the matter during a news conference. His office was working to “have confidence and assurance that there is a legal pathway for California to take action in response to any action that Texas takes. … We want to be confident that it was done lawfully originally, and that we can defend it appropriately in court.”

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that bars Planned Parenthood and other large nonprofit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for a host of unrelated healthcare services.

The measure has threatened clinics across the country that rely on federal funding to operate. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who is helping to lead the litigation, called it a “cruel, backdoor abortion ban” that violates the law in multiple ways.

The states’ challenge comes one day after Planned Parenthood won a major victory in its own lawsuit over the measure in Boston, where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect against Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions, but the new “defund provision” in the bill passed by congressional Republicans earlier this month goes further. It also bars nonprofit abortion providers that generated $800,000 or more in annual Medicaid revenue in 2023 from receiving any such funding for the next year — including for services unrelated to abortion, such as annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that the measure “stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion,” that Congress under the constitution is “free to decline to provide taxpayer funds to entities that provide abortions,” and that Planned Parenthood’s position should not hold sway over that of Congress.

In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, Bonta’s office echoed Planned Parenthood officials in asserting that the provision specifically and illegally targets Planned Parenthood and its affiliate clinics — calling it “a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color.”

Bonta’s office said the measure threatened $300 million in federal funding for clinics in California, where Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider, and “jeopardized the stability” of Planned Parenthood’s 114 clinics across the state, which serve about 700,000 patients annually — many of whom use Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

During a virtual news conference Monday, Bonta noted that federal funds already don’t cover abortions. He said the new provision was “punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion” and “a direct attack on access to essential healthcare for millions who rely on Medicaid.”

“The Trump administration and Congress are actually gutting essential lifesaving care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, simply because Planned Parenthood has spoken out in support of reproductive rights,” Bonta said. “The hypocrisy is really hard to ignore. A party that claims to be defenders of free speech only seem to care about it when it aligns with their own agenda.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured, California will continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state, and will continue to defend healthcare as a human right.”

In their lawsuit, the states argue that the measure is unlawfully ambiguous and violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment, and that it will harm people’s health and increase the cost of Medicaid programs for states by more than $50 million over the next decade.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood also argued that the measure intentionally singled it and its affiliates out for punishment, in violation of their constitutional rights, including free speech.

In granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote Monday that she was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.”

Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that she also was not requiring the federal government “to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.”

Instead, Talwani wrote, her order blocks the Trump administration from “targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program,” as they were likely to prove that “such targeted exclusion violates the United States Constitution.”

In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was “legally passed by both chambers of the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Chief Executive,” and Talwani’s order granting the injunction was “not only absurd but illogical and incorrect.”

“It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the states’ lawsuit.

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, joined Bonta during his news conference. She welcomed the states’ lawsuit, saying “an attack this severe requires a multi-pronged response with both short and long term strategies.”

Hicks said it’s particularly important that California is helping to fight back, given the huge stakes for the state.

“California is the most impacted state across the country because of the volume of patients that we have, but also because of the amount of Medicaid that our state takes,” she said. “It speaks to our values. And this defund provision is certainly [an] attack on values — most heavily on California.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Bonta noted the lawsuit is the 36th his office has filed against the Trump administration in the last 27 weeks.

The potential redrawing of California’s congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, D.C., in next year’s midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States.

Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications.

What is redistricting?

There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the U.S. Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California’s share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history.

After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation’s history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms.

Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California’s infamous “Ribbon of Shame,” a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line.

But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state’s voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021.

Why are we talking about this?

President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year’s midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election.

Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump’s agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, shown with Democratic lawmakers from Texas, speaks during a news conference in Sacramento on Friday.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

What is Texas doing?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state’s Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election.

Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state’s congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats.

Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw “coalition districts” that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews.

Democrats in the Lone Star state’s Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year’s midterm election to hold onto power.

Republicans “play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,” Newsom said of the nation’s history. “We are not going to allow that to happen.”

Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year.

Why is California in the mix?

The Golden State’s congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets.

If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians.

Strange bedfellows

These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies.

Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California’s congressional districts before the midterm election.

“I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of color have an equal opportunity at the ballot box,” said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. “That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally.”

She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes.

“I think it’s patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule,” Sadhwani said.

Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet’s right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened.

“He’s very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved,” said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes “this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters.”

Munger, who was the state GOP’s biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said.

The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade.

“It’s a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state,” the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. “As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections.”

What happens next?

If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options:

• State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state’s office.
• The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge.

Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment.

The Legislature is out of session until mid-August.

Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

SAN FRANCISCO — Two days after she rattled San Francisco’s political scene by acknowledging an unexpected interest in running for Congress, Mayor Dianne Feinstein suddenly and unexpectedly Wednesday evening decided not to run.

“There are simply too many issues critical to the city that cannot be deferred by the distractions of a campaign or postponed until a new mayor can be found,” she said in a written statement.

Chief among those pending issues is the city budget, she said. But the list also includes the city’s homeless, its AIDS crisis, redevelopment projects and a new stadium for its baseball team, the Giants.

“I do not want to leave City Hall with my job incomplete,” she said. “. . . I love this city with my whole heart and I intend to remain as mayor and finish the job.”

Investment in Future

Feinstein’s political consultant, Clint Reilly, sees her decision as an investment in her future. She has expressed an interest in running for governor in 1990.

“She has always been real sensitive to the idea that the legacy of her mayoralty is going to reflect on everything she wants to do in the future,” he said.

Still, the decision not to run for Congress was surprising, if only for its suddenness. Executive Deputy Mayor Hadley Roff said Feinstein made up her mind at the close of business Wednesday and issued her statement an hour later.

Her announcement came only hours after two city supervisors, Harry Britt and Carol Ruth Silver, declared their candidacy for the 5th Congressional District, which was vacated by the Feb. 1 death of Democrat Sala Burton. Other candidates are Supervisor Bill Maher and Democratic activist Nancy Pelosi.

Seen as Front-Runner

Feinstein acknowledged only Monday that her supporters had convinced her to reconsider an earlier decision not to seek the congressional seat. As a proven vote-getter and skilled fund raiser, she immediately was seen as front-runner.

But her campaign would have hurt two political allies–Pelosi and Supervisor John Molinari, who hopes to succeed Feinstein as mayor. Had Feinstein resigned, the Board of Supervisors might have selected someone other than Molinari to fill out her term–and perhaps run again with an incumbent’s advantage in November.

A quick move to Congress–the special primary election is April 7, with a runoff, if needed, on June 2–also would impinge on her personal life, Reilly said. Feinstein is married to investor-adventurer Dick Blum.

“Cumulatively, it all made for a ‘no-go’ rather than a ‘go,’ ” Reilly said. “Also, after 10 years as mayor, she is looking forward to some time off.”

WASHINGTON — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Trump’s Department of Justice for files in the case and hold a deposition of Epstein’s jailed accomplice and former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington, a move widely seen as attempt to avoid politically difficult votes for his GOP caucus on the Epstein matter.

The committee’s moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn-out process.

Here’s what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein’s death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting.

Subpoena for the files

Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its early recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena.

The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing “un-redacted Epstein files.”

As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter.

Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft.

The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), said he told the speaker that “Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that’s what the American people want.”

Depose Maxwell?

Comer has said he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking.

In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if they could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she is likely to be asked about.

Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted two days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week.

Democrats warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted.

“We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,” Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told reporters this week.

Other subpoenas

Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as former U.S. attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under President George W. Bush.

It’s not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will play out, but Comer has said, “We’re going to move quickly on that.”

How will Bondi comply?

Trump has often fought congressional investigations and subpoenas. As with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information.

Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena “depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.”

If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi’s response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress.

It’s practically unheard of for a political party to vote to hold a member of its party’s White House administration in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP.

Calls for disclosure

Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation.

“We can’t allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), a committee member.

The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

California Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom may upend the state’s mandate for independently drawn political districts as part of a brewing, national political brawl over the balance of power in Congress and the fate of the aggressive, right-wing agenda of President Trump and the GOP.

The effort being considered by state Democratic leaders is specifically intended to reduce the number of Republicans in California’s congressional delegation, retaliation for the ongoing actions by GOP leaders in Texas to unseat Democratic representatives in its state, reportedly at Trump’s behest.

“I think this whole thing is a horrible idea all the way around … and I don’t think people fully understand the ramifications of what they’re talking about,” said Republican redistricting expert Matt Rexroad. “Once we get to the point where we’re just doing random redistricting after every election … redistricting won’t be used as a tool to reflect voter interests. It will be used to just bludgeon minority political interests, whether it be Republican or Democrat, after every election.”

Newsom already has been in talks with Democratic legislative leaders and others about reconfiguring California’s congressional district boundaries before the 2026 election.

Doing so probably would require a statewide ballot measure to scrap or temporarily pause the voter-approved, independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission charged with drawing the boundaries of congressional districts based on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. In 2010, Californians voted to create the commission to take partisan politics out of the redistricting process for Congress, two years after they did so for the state Legislature.

Newsom said California may have to take the emergency action if Texas and other GOP-controlled states this year decide to redraw their congressional districts to ensure that Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election. Redrawing of congressional districts typically occurs after the decennial census to reflect population shifts across the nation.

“So they want to change the game,” he said last week. “We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.”

Newsom on Friday plans to meet with six Democratic Texas state lawmakers visiting the state and members of California’s congressional delegation “to push back on Trump and Texas Republicans’ redistricting power grab,” according to the governor’s office.

Redistricting experts in both parties agree that reverting to partisan redrawing of congressional lines in California would make several GOP incumbents vulnerable. The state’s congressional districts could be reconfigured to increase the share of Democratic voters in districts currently represented by Republicans, or in a way that forces Republican officeholders to face off against one another.

Rexroad sees a scenario in which Republicans are so packed into districts that the party would have only three safe seats. Only nine of the state’s 52 congressional districts are currently represented by the GOP.

Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell said five of nine GOP-held districts could be flipped. He said Democrats are in a good position to gain seats because of California’s history of nonpartisan redistricting. In Texas, by comparison, districts already are gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

In California, “Democrats haven’t had partisan line-drawing since the ‘90s,” he said. “So there’s all this partisan gain left on the table for decades. If you ever do crack open the map, there’s just many available to bolster” the party’s existing grip on the delegation.

Rexroad warns that there would be unintended consequences, including weakening safe Republican districts in Texas and leading to a broken system in which lines are redrawn after every election to benefit whichever party controls the White House or various legislative bodies.

Before the creation of the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, California was similar to most other states. Political districts were created by state lawmakers of both parties who often prioritized incumbent protection and gerrymandered oddly shaped districts, such as the infamous “ribbon of shame,” where a 200-mile coastal sliver of a congressional district between Oxnard and the Monterey County line disappeared during high tide.

Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said such districts are why he started the National Democratic Redistricting Committee with former President Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) in 2017.

“Because of our work, we now have the fairest national congressional map the country has seen in a generation, one that allows both parties to compete for the majority in the House,” Holder said Wednesday at a “Stop the Texas Takeover” virtual event hosted by the redistricting committee.

That could fall by the wayside, however, if some states crack open their redistricting process for partisan gain and states controlled by the opposing party retaliate by doing to the same.

California Democrats are considering trying to revisit the independent line-drawing after President Trump and his administration urged Texans to redraw their districts in a way that probably would improve the GOP’s ability to hold control of Congress in next year’s midterm election.

The House is narrowly divided, and the party that wins the White House often loses seats in the body two years later. The loss of a handful of GOP seats would stymie Trump’s plans, potentially making him a lame duck for two years.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for a special session of the state Legislature that includes redistricting and began Monday.

On Tuesday, Abbott said the decision was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw “coalition districts,” which are made up of multiple minority communities.

“New maps will work toward insuring that we will maximize the ability of Texas to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice,” he said in an interview with Fox 4 Dallas-Fort Worth.

“This is shameless, shameless, the mid-decade redistricting that they’re doing at the orders of Donald Trump,” Pelosi said Wednesday at the “Stop the Texas Takeover” event. “And this is what we’re doing in California. We’re saying to the Texans, ‘You shouldn’t be going down this path. We go down this path, we’ll go down together.’”

If California Democrats pursue partisan redistricting in time for next year’s midterm election, the Legislature, in which Democrats hold a supermajority, could place the matter on the ballot during a special election that probably would take place in November. State lawmakers also could opt to make the change through legislation, though that probably would be vulnerable to a legal challenge.

Nonpartisan congressional redistricting was one of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s priorities when it was approved by voters in 2010. Schwarzenegger hasn’t weighed in on the state potentially rescinding the reform. But the director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute, which includes such political reforms among its top priorities, warned that weakening California’s system would be out of sync with the state’s values.

“We’re in a scary position with all this talk of this gerrymandering arms race between Texas and California,” said Conyers Davis, global director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy. “It’s really a race to the bottom for voters in both states and the entire country as a whole. We should be celebrating California’s citizen redistricting commission and looking to expand that model into other states, not looking for political ways to dismember it and erode its powers.”

The state Republican Party, which opposed the creation of the redistricting commission, now supports the body in the face of a proposal that would cost it seats.

“To sort of start to mess with it right at this point in time, it just kind of undermines the whole independent redistricting commission that everybody has come to rely on,” said Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party. “And I don’t know what it will look like constitutionally.”

Asked about Texas, she demurred, saying she was focused on California.

State Democrats, who also opposed the creation of the commission, cheered the potential response to Texas.

“Trump and Republicans — from D.C. to Texas — are attempting to rewrite the rules of our democracy,” said Rusty Hicks, chairman of the California Democratic Party. “With so much at stake, California may be left with little choice but to fight fire with fire to protect and preserve our democracy.”

Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials were set to meet on Thursday with Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The meeting in Florida, which Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said on Tuesday he was working to arrange, is part of an ongoing Justice Department effort to cast itself as transparent following fierce backlash from parts of President Trump’s base over an earlier refusal to release additional records in the Epstein investigation.

In a social media post Tuesday, Blanche said that Trump “has told us to release all credible evidence” and that if Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the Justice Department “will hear what she has to say.”

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Thursday. The person who confirmed the meeting insisted on anonymity to describe a closed-door encounter to the Associated Press.

A lawyer for Maxwell confirmed on Tuesday there were discussions with the government and said Maxwell “will always testify truthfully.”

The House Committee on Oversight issued a subpoena on Wednesday for Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August.

Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence and is housed at a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, Fla. She was sentenced three years ago after being convicted of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls.

Officials have said Epstein killed himself in his New York jail cell while awaiting trial in 2019, but his case has generated endless attention and conspiracy theories because of his and Maxwell’s links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department said it would not release more files related to the Epstein investigation, despite promises that claimed otherwise from Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi. The department also said an Epstein client list does not exist.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Bondi told Trump in May that his name was among high-profile people mentioned in government files of Epstein, though the mention does not imply wrongdoing.

Trump, a Republican, has said that he once thought Epstein was a “terrific guy” but that they later had a falling out.

A subcommittee on Wednesday also voted to subpoena the Justice Department for documents related to Epstein. And senators in both major political parties have expressed openness to holding hearings on the matter after Congress’ August recess.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, has introduced legislation with bipartisan support that would require the Justice Department to “make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” related to Epstein and his associates.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republican majority leader, Rep. Steve Scalise, both of Louisiana, have said they will address whatever outstanding Epstein-related issues are in Congress when they return from recess.

Epstein, under a 2008 nonprosecution agreement, pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution. That allowed him to avert a possible life sentence, instead serving 13 months in a work release program. He was required to make payments to victims and register as a sex offender.

In 2019, Epstein was charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan for nearly identical allegations.

Tucker and Williams write for the Associated Press. Williams reported from Detroit.

WASHINGTON — “Mr. President, this is the gavel used to enact the ‘big, beautiful bill,’” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a White House signing ceremony on the Fourth of July.

“I want you to have it,” he said.

Handing over the gavel delighted President Trump who, seated behind a desk outdoors, immediately tested it out with a few quick thumps.

The moment left a memorable mark on a historic day. The gesture reflected a traditional nod of honor, from one leader to another, a milestone of the Republican Party’s priority legislation becoming law. But the imagery also underscored a symbolic transfer of political power, from Capitol Hill to the White House as a compliant Congress is ceding more and more of its prerogative to the presidency.

Congress gives Trump what he wants

Since Trump’s return to the White House in January, and particularly in the past few weeks, Republicans in control of the House and Senate have shown an unusual willingness to give the president of their party what he wants, regardless of the potential risk to themselves, their constituents and Congress itself.

Republicans raced to put the big package of tax breaks and spending cuts on Trump’s desk by his Independence Day deadline. Senators had quickly confirmed almost all of Trump’s outsider Cabinet nominees despite grave reservations over Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary, Pete Hegseth as the Pentagon chief and others. House Republicans pursued Trump’s interest in investigating his perceived foes, including investigating Democratic President Biden’s use of the autopen.

But at the same time, Congress hit the brakes on one of its own priorities, legislation imposing steep sanctions on Russia over its war on Ukraine, after Trump announced he was allowing President Vladimir Putin an additional 50 days to negotiate a peace deal, dashing hopes for a swifter end to the conflict.

This past week, Congress was tested anew, delivering on Trump’s request to rescind some $9 billion that lawmakers had approved but that the administration wanted to eliminate, including money for public broadcasting and overseas aid. It was a rare presidential request, a challenge to the legislative branch’s power of the purse, that has not been used in decades.

The pressure on Republicans is taking its toll

“We’re lawmakers. We should be legislating,” said a defiant Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, as she refused to support the White House’s demand to rescind money for National Public Radio and others.

“What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, ‘This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We’ll be back with you with another round,’” she said. “I don’t accept that.”

Congress, the branch of government the Founding Fathers placed first in the Constitution, is at a familiar crossroads. During the first Trump administration, Republicans frightened by Trump’s angry tweets of disapproval would keep their criticisms private. Those who did speak up — Liz Cheney of Wyoming in the House and Mitt Romney of Utah in the Senate, among others — are gone from Capitol Hill.

One former GOP senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, who announced in 2017 during Trump’s first term that he would not seek reelection the next year, is imploring Republicans to find a better way.

“The fever still hasn’t broken,” he wrote recently in The New York Times. “In today’s Republican Party, voting your conscience is essentially disqualifying.”

Seeking a ‘normal’ Congress

But this time, the halls of Congress are filled with many Republicans who came of political age with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement and owe their ascent to the president himself. Many are emulating his brand and style as they shape their own.

A new generation of GOP leaders, Johnson in the House and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have pulled closer to Trump. They are utilizing the power of the presidency in ways large and small — to broker deals, encourage wayward lawmakers to fall in line, even to set schedules.

Johnson, R-La., has openly pined for what he calls a “normal Congress.” But short of that, the speaker relies on Trump to help stay on track. When Republicans hit an impasse on cryptocurrency legislation, a Trump priority, it was the president who met with holdouts in the Oval Office late Tuesday night as Johnson called in by phone.

The result is a perceptible imbalance of power as the executive exerts greater authority while the legislative branch dims. The judicial branch has been left to do the heavy lift of checks and balances with the courts processing hundreds of lawsuits over the administration’s actions.

“The genius of our Constitution is the separation of power,” said Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former speaker, in an interview on SiriusXM’s “Mornings with Zerlina.”

“That the Republicans in Congress would be so ignoring of the institution that they represent, and that have just melted the power of the incredibly shrinking speakership” and Senate leadership positions, “to do all of these things, to cater to the executive branch,” she said.

Confronting Trump comes with costs

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., endured Trump’s criticism over his opposition to the tax and spending cuts bill. The senator raised concerns about steep cuts to hospitals, but the president threatened to campaign against him. Tillis announced he would not seek reelection in 2026.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against that bill and the rescissions package despite Trump’s threat to campaign against any dissenters.

One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, appears to be pressing on, unphased. He recently proposed legislation to force the administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, something the president had been reluctant to do.

“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that if the president wants something, you must do it,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in a Senate speech. “We don’t have to do this. We don’t have to operate under the assumption that this man is uniquely so powerful.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

An unusual alliance of Republican lawmakers and animal rights advocates, together with others, is creating storm clouds for a plan to protect one threatened owl by killing a more common one.

Last August, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a plan to shoot roughly 450,000 barred owls in California, Oregon and Washington over three decades. The barred owls have been out-competing imperiled northern spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest, as well as California spotted owls, pushing them out of their territory.

Supporters of the approach — including conservation groups and prominent scientists — believe the cull is necessary to avert disastrous consequences for the spotted owls.

But the coalition argues the effort is too expensive, unworkable and inhumane. They’re urging the Trump administration to cancel it and lawmakers could pursue a reversal through special congressional action.

Last month, The Times has found, federal officials canceled three owl-related grants to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife totaling roughly $1.1 million, including one study that would remove barred owls from over 192,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties.

A female barred owl sits on a branch in the wooded hills, Dec. 13, 2017, outside Philomath, Ore.

(Don Ryan / Associated Press)

Two were nixed before federal funding was allocated and never got off the ground, Peter Tira, a spokesperson for the state wildlife agency, said. Another, a collaboration with University of Maryland biologists to better understand barred owl dispersal patterns in western forests, was nearly complete when terminated.

“Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, we are eliminating wasteful programs, cutting unnecessary costs and ensuring every dollar serves a clear purpose,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in a statement when asked whether the grants had been terminated.

Another lever would be for Congress to overturn the owl-kill plan altogether using the Congressional Review Act.

The Government Accountability Office concluded in a late-May decision that the plan is subject to that act, sometimes used by new presidential administrations to reverse rules issued by federal agencies in the final months of prior administrations. Both chambers of Congress would need to pass a joint resolution to undo it.

In the months leading up to the GAO determination, bipartisan groups of U.S. House members wrote two letters to the secretary of the Interior laying out reasons why the owl-cull plan should not move forward. In total, 19 Republicans and 18 Democrats signed the letters, including seven lawmakers from California — David Valadao (R-Hanford), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), Gil Cisneros (D-Covina), Josh Harder (D-Tracy), Linda T. Sánchez (D-Whittier), Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Adam Gray (D-Merced).

Rep. Troy E. Nehls (R-Texas), an ardent Trump supporter, signed the initial letter, and is “currently exploring other options to end this unnecessary plan, which prioritizes one species of owls over another, and wastes Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,” communications director Emily Matthews said.

Kamlager-Dove said also said earlier this year that she objected to killing one species to preserve another. “And as an animal lover, I cannot support the widespread slaughter of these beautiful creatures,” she said.

If a resolution is introduced, passed and signed by President Trump, the plan will be over. The Fish and Wildlife Service would not be allowed to bring forward a similar rule, unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, which supports reducing the barred owl population, called the specter of the Congressional Review Act “very scary.”

It’s “an intrusion by Congress into areas where we’re relying on high agency expertise and scientific understanding,” he said. “It’s vibes versus science.”

A California spotted owl is shown inside the Tahoe National Forest in California on July 12, 2004.

(Debra Reid / Associated Press)

Wheeler said he believed it was more likely the program would be deprioritized amid budget cuts than eliminated through the Act.

“If we don’t move forward with barred owl removal, it will mean the extinction of the northern spotted owl, and it will likely mean the extinction of the California spotted owl as well,” he said.

Science is on its side, he said. A long-term field experiment showed that where barred owls were killed, the population of spotted owls stabilized.

For animal welfare activist Wayne Pacelle, who has galvanized opposition to the owl-cull plan, it’s a hopeful turn of events.

“Even if they had full funding for this, we don’t think it could possibly succeed,” said Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy. The land area where the barred owls need to be controlled is just too vast, he said. And barred owls from elsewhere, he said, will simply fly in and replace those that are felled.

As few as 3,000 northern spotted owls are left on federal lands. The brown raptors with white spots are listed as threatened under both the California and federal Endangered Species Act.

California spotted owls are also in decline, and federal wildlife officials have proposed endangered species protections for two populations.

The two sides of the fierce debate agree that barred and spotted owls compete for nesting sites and food — such as woodrats and northern flying squirrels.

Barred owls and spotted owls are similar in appearance and can even interbreed. But barred owls are more aggressive and slightly larger, in addition to being more generalist when it comes to what they’ll eat and where they’ll live, allowing them to muscle out their fellow raptors.

Federal wildlife officials and some conservationists consider barred owls invasive.

As Europeans settled the Great Plains, they suppressed fire and planted trees, allowing barred owls to expand westward from their origin in eastern North America, biologists believe.

“I would call this an invasion, and I would call these non-native species,” Wheeler said.

On the flip side, some see the owl arrival along the West Coast as natural range expansion.

There are also conflicting views of the cost of exterminating so many owls.

Opponents estimate it will cost about $1.35 billion, extrapolated from a $4.5-million contract awarded to a Northern California Native American tribe last year to hunt about 1,500 barred owls over four years.

A 2024 research paper, however, concluded that barred owl removal in the range of the northern spotted owl would cost from $4.5 million to $12 million per year in its initial stages, and would likely decrease over time. At $12 million a year, the 30-year plan would run $360 million.

Pacelle’s Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy have also sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in U.S. District Court in Washington state over the plan. Friends of Animals, another animal welfare group, filed suit in Oregon.

Wheeler’s Environmental Protection Information Center has intervened in the suits in defense of the plan, and those cases continue to advance.