Cost

In a state that’s home to nearly 40 million people and the fourth largest economy in the world, the race for California governor has been lost in the shadow of President Trump’s combustible return to office and, thus far, the absence of a candidate charismatic enough to break out of the pack.

For the first time in recent history, there is no clear front-runner with less than five months before the June primary election.

“This is the most wide-open governor’s race we’ve seen in California in more than a quarter of a century,” said Dan Schnur, a political communications professor who teaches at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley. “We’ve never seen a multicandidate field with so little clarity and such an absence of anything even resembling a front-runner.

“There’s no precedent in the modern political era for a campaign that’s this crowded,” Schnur said.

Opinion polls bear this out, with more voters saying they are undecided or coalescing behind any of the dozen prominent candidates who have announced bids.

Former Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) led the field with the support of 21% of respondents in a survey of likely voters by the Public Policy Institute of California released in December. Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, also a Democrat, and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, won the support of 14% of poll respondents. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, also a member of the GOP, won the backing of 10%, while everyone else in the field was in the single digits, though some Democratic candidates who recently entered the race were not included.

Recent gubernatorial campaigns have been dominated by larger-than-life personalities — global superstar Arnold Schwarzenegger, eBay billionaire Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, the scion of a storied California political family.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vaulted into the national spotlight after championing same-sex marriage while he was mayor of San Francisco, has become a national force in Democratic politics and is pondering a 2028 presidential run. Newsom won handily in the 2018 and 2022 races for California governor, and easily defeated a recall attempt during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is barred from running again due to term limits.

Porter cheekily alluded to California’s political power dynamic at a labor forum earlier this month.

“Look, we’ve had celebrity governors. We’ve had governors who are kids of other governors, and we’ve had governors who look hot with slicked back hair and barn jackets. You know what?” Porter said at an SEIU forum in January. “We haven’t had a governor in a skirt. I think it’s just about … time.”

Gubernatorial contests in the state routinely attract national attention. But the 2026 contest has not.

Despite California being at the center of many policies emanating from the Trump administration, notably the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, this year’s gubernatorial race has been overshadowed. Deadly wildfires, immigration raids, and an esoteric yet expensive battle about redrawing congressional districts are among the topics that dominated headlines in the state last year.

Additionally, the race was frozen as former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso weighed entering the contest. All opted against running for governor, leaving the field in flux. San José Mayor Matt Mahan’s entry into the race on Thursday — relatively late to mount a gubernatorial campaign — exemplifies the unsettled nature of the race.

“We’ve made a lot of progress in San José, but getting to the next level requires bold leadership in Sacramento that’s going to take on the status quo,” Mahan said in an interview before he announced his campaign. ”I have not heard anyone in the current field explain how they’re going to help us in San José and other cities across the state end unsheltered homelessness, implement Prop. 36 [a 2024 ballot measure that increased penalties for certain drug and theft crimes], get people into treatment, bring down the cost of housing, the cost of energy.”

A critical question is who donors decide to back in a state that is home to the most expensive media markets in the nation. Candidates have to file fundraising reports on Feb. 2, data that will indicate who is viable.

“I know from first-hand experience that there comes a day when a candidacy is no longer sustainable because of a lack of resources,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist who has worked on national and state campaigns.

“You have to pay the bills to keep the lights on, let alone having enough cash to communicate with our more than 23 million registered voters,” he added. “They don’t have much time to do it. The primary is just months away.”

The state Democratic and Republican conventions are quickly approaching. A Republican may be able to win the GOP endorsement, but it’s unlikely a Democrat will be able to secure their party’s nod because of the large number of candidates in the race.

Political observers expect some Democratic candidates who have meager financial resources and little name identification among the electorate to be pressured to drop out of the race by party leaders so that the party can consolidate support behind a viable candidate.

But others buck the orthodoxy, arguing that the candidates need to show they have a message that resonates with Californians.

“There’s a lack of excitement,” Democratic strategist Hilda Delgado said. “Right now is really about the core issues that will unify Californians and that’s why it’s important to choose a leader that is going to … give people hope. Because there’s a lot of, I don’t want to say depression, but hopelessness.”

Jan. 28 (UPI) — Deploying National Guard and other military troops in U.S. cities cost taxpayers nearly $500 million in the second half of 2025, the Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday.

The cost breakdown includes the cost to activate, deploy and pay National Guard personnel; related operational, logistical and sustainment costs; and other direct and indirect costs of deploying National Guard and other military units, such as the U.S. Marine Corps, the CBO report shows.

Since June, the CBO said the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops and active-duty Marines to the nation’s capital, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, Memphis and Portland, Ore.

The administration also kept 200 National Guard personnel deployed in Texas after they left Chicago.

“CBO estimates that those deployments (excluding the one to New Orleans, which occurred at the end of the year) cost a total of approximately $496 million through the end of December 2025,” the CBO said in a letter to Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

“The costs of those or other deployments in the future are highly uncertain, mainly because the scale, length and location of such deployments are difficult to predict accurately,” the CBO said.

“That uncertainty is compounded by legal challenges, which have stopped deployments to some cities, and by changes in the administration’s policies.”

Merkley is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Budget and asked the CBO to provide a cost breakdown of National Guard deployments in U.S. cities.

“The American people deserve to know how many hundreds of millions of their hard-earned dollars have been and are being wasted on Trump’s reckless and haphazard deployment of National Guard troops to Portland and cities across the country,” Merkley said Wednesday in a prepared statement.

The CBO further estimated the cost for continuing such deployments would be $93 million per month, including between $18 million and $21 million per month per city to deploy 1,000 National Guardsmen in 2026.

The cost breakdown includes healthcare, military pay and benefits, plus lodging, food and transportation costs.

“CBO does not expect the military to incur significant costs to operate and maintain equipment during domestic deployments,” the report said.

“So far, such deployments appear to mainly involve foot patrols conducted by small units, without the extensive types of supporting forces or heavy equipment associated with operations in combat zones.”

CBO officials also do not expect the Department of Defense to incur new equipment costs for the deployments.

The U.S. Air Force general who oversees America’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force sees a long future ahead for the new LGM-35A Sentinel after it eventually enters service. At the same time, he has acknowledged challenges surrounding the Sentinel program, which is still being restructured nearly two years after huge cost overruns triggered a full review. Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor for the missile, says it is now working with the Air Force to try to re-accelerate the program, which is now years, if not decades, behind schedule.

Air Force Gen. Stephen Davis, head of Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), recently discussed Sentinel, as well as the existing Minuteman III ICBMs the new missile is set to replace, among other topics, with TWZ‘s Howard Altman. This was Davis’ first interview since taking command of AFGSC in November.

Today, there are 400 Minuteman IIIs loaded in silos spread across five states. The Air Force’s goal is to replace them, one-for-one, with new Sentinels. In 2020, the Air Force declared Northrop Grumman as the winner of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) competition that led to Sentinel.

“Sentinel is probably the biggest program going on in the Department of War right now, certainly in the Department of the Air Force,” Davis said. “Sentinel brings some important new capabilities that we actually have to deliver for the warfighter, for USSTRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command].”

Much about the new LGM-35A is classified. The Air Force and Northrop Grumman have talked broadly in the past about it offering greater range and improved accuracy, as well as reliability and sustainability benefits, over the aging Minuteman IIIs. The stated plan is for each Sentinel to carry a single W87-1 nuclear warhead inside a Mk 21A re-entry vehicle, but that loading may change in the future, as you can read more about here.

Enabling Peace Through Deterrence

Gen. Davis also called attention to the benefits that are expected to come from Sentinel’s use of open-architecture systems and a supporting infrastructure that is more digital in nature. In general, open architectures, especially software-defined ones, are intended to make it easier to integrate new and improved capabilities and functionality down the line.

“I think Sentinel is going to be a bit easier with some of the things we’re designing into the program, the digital infrastructure, the open architecture,” Davis said. “I think it will make it easier to upgrade and keep that missile relevant. I don’t have any worries about being able to do that in the future.”

The Minuteman III, also known by the designation LGM-30G, first entered operational service in 1970. The missiles, as well as their supporting infrastructure, have received incremental upgrades since then. The design is an evolution of the earlier Minuteman I and II types that entered service in the 1960s. The Air Force did field a newer ICBM, the LGM-118 Peacekeeper, in the 1980s, but withdrew the last of those missiles from service in 2005 as a result of U.S.-Russian arms control agreements. 

LGM-118 MX Peacekeeper ICBM

“We have the challenge of continuing to sustain Minuteman III until we can get Sentinel up online,” Davis said. “We’ve continued to modernize that to keep it relevant. It will continue to sustain it until Sentinel comes on.”

The original program timeline for the Sentinel called for it to begin entering service in 2029. The Minuteman III would continue to serve into 2036 as the Air Force transitioned fully to the new missile.

What the current timeline for Sentinel is now is unknown. In 2024, delays and cost overruns triggered a formal legal requirement for a review of the program, referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy breach, as you can read more about here. This, in turn, prompted an effort to restructure the program that was expected to take 18 to 24 months. At that time, the Pentagon’s Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) projected the total acquisition costs could soar to approximately $140.9 billion, an 81 percent increase over the original estimates, even with the restructuring.

Even then, it had begun to emerge that the bulk of the issues with the Sentinel program were tied to the ground-based infrastructure rather than the missile itself. It has since become clear that the Air Force did not have a full understanding of the magnitude of the physical construction that would be required. This has been compounded by the determination that reusing existing Minuteman III silos is no longer viable, and that entirely new silos will have to be built.

The understanding that it would be possible to reuse substantial parts of the existing Minuteman III infrastructure factored heavily into the original basing plan for Sentinel. The Air Force had considered and rejected a wide range of alternatives, including launchers positioned at the bottom of lakes or in tunnels.

With the Nunn-McCurdy breach, the timeline for replacing Minuteman III has fallen into limbo, at least publicly. Last September, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, released a report saying the Air Force was considering options for extending the service life of Minuteman III out as far as 2050.

During a quarterly earnings call today, Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden discussed Sentinel and said that the restructuring effort is still underway, creating continued timeline uncertainty.

“We are in the middle of supporting the U.S. Air Force as they restructure the Sentinel Program,” Warden said. “Coming out of that, they will firm [up] a schedule that both locks in new time ranges for milestone B [entry into the engineering and manufacturing development phase], initial operating capability, final operating capability.”

“I don’t want to get ahead of the Air Force in talking about that, but certainly, as I have shared, and the Air Force has, as well, we are working to accelerate the timelines that were published coming out of the Nunn-McCurdy breach two years ago,” she continued. “So that is the goal, and we’re making good progress to identifying options to do so. We still believe that the program will be in development for several years and not transitioning into production until later in the decade, and that production will very much be guided by the milestone achievement during development.”

Overall, the Air Force and Pentagon leadership continue to view the Sentinel program as a top national security imperative. The announcement of the GBSD effort to replace Minuteman III and the selection of Northrop Grumman’s design had prompted new discussions about the utility of the ground-based leg of America’s nuclear triad. As it stands now, the primary purpose of America’s silo-based ICBMs is to act as a ‘warhead sponge’ that would force any opponent to expend substantial resources on trying to neutralize it in a future nuclear exchange. It also stands as the fastest nuclear response option in the Pentagon’s strategic portfolio. A the same time, the deterioration in the security situation around the globe, with China drastically expanding its nuclear arsenal and Russia at war with its neighbor in Europe, among other proliferation and strategic weapons development concerns, have bolstered the case for Sentinel and nuclear modernization as a whole.

As AFGSC’s Gen. Davis has now told us, the hope is also that the benefits the Sentinels will bring when they finally do enter service will ensure they remain on guard for decades to come.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com