cost

As college athletic departments across the country brace for a new era of sharing revenue directly with their athletes, USC is eliminating a dozen jobs in its athletic department in an effort to reduce costs in the wake of the House vs. NCAA settlement.

Six athletics employees were told late last week that their roles in the department had been eliminated, a person familiar with the decision not authorized to disucss it publicly told The Times. The most senior among them was Paul Perrier, an executive senior associate athletic director, who spent two six-year stints at USC working under three different athletic directors.

Six other vacant roles have also since been eliminated, the person said.

USC is planning to share the maximum of $20.5 million with its athletes that’s permitted by the settlement in 2025, the vast majority of which will go to the football program. That’s no small expenditure — especially for a university in the midst of serious financial issues.

USC, like other schools, continues to explore other revenue streams to help pay for the costs associated with this new landscape of college athletics. USC recently signed a 15-year multimedia rights deal with Learfield that should help ease some of the burden of revenue sharing. Last season, the school sold ad space in the Coliseum end zone to DirecTV.

Some schools have opted to cut sports, in an attempt to reduce costs. But USC has yet to choose that route. Instead, athletic director Jennifer Cohen announced last month that USC would invest revenue-sharing dollars, in some form or fashion, with all 23 of the school’s athletics programs.

Sofia, also known as sofiasttravels, recently shared how she booked a seat on “Ryanair’s cheapest flight” for a day out and was amazed by how much she spent on the adventure

We’ve all had those moments where we just want to jump on a plane and soak up some much-needed sunshine, but one woman recently took this travel dream to new heights. Sofia, who goes by the handle sofiasttravels on TikTok, confessed that she booked herself onto “Ryanair‘s cheapest flight” for a day trip, and was left gobsmacked by how little it cost to spend a day gallivanting in a different country.

In a recent video, Sofia shared her “extreme day trip” adventure – an experiment to see what would happen if she simply hopped on the most affordable flight available. After a bit of digging, she found that the cheapest ticket was for a flight to Pescara in Italy on the day she wanted to travel.

She revealed that this set her back a mere £42 for a return journey from London Stansted Airport. Eager to discover what awaited them, Sofia and a friend jetted off to Italy where they enjoyed breakfast for a bargain €6.20 each, roughly £5.34.

Greeted by a balmy 23°C, they strolled along the beach before indulging in cocktails and snacks, which totalled €7.00 (£6.03). Next on the agenda was lunch, costing them €23.00 per person, approximately £19.82. In a surprising twist, they ended up joining a “stranger’s 18th birthday party”, seemingly having a whale of a time.

Later, they treated themselves to some gelato at €2.50 (£2.15) per serving. Along with browsing the local shops and savouring delicious food, they squeezed in another Aperol spritz before heading home.

After a day packed with excitement, they hopped on their flight back and Sofia declared it was “such a great day out.” It’s truly remarkable what can be achieved within the span of 24 hours.

The video has left scores of viewers astonished since its release, prompting a flurry of questions. One viewer even expressed intentions to embark on a similar adventure soon.

A seasoned traveller shared: “Cheapest flight I’ve taken with Ryanair was a £4 return back in uni. Skipped lectures for a day trip to Dublin.”

Someone else recounted: “Did this once to Copenhagen. It was so tiring, but had the best day.” Another responded: “Wow – looks amazing.”

In another comment, someone mentioned: “I’m flying to Amsterdam and back on the same day. I got a ticket to see the Anne Frank house and I’ll do a boat trip.”

For those unaware, with proper planning, you can explore over 200 destinations across 34 countries on a budget with Ryanair. Daily checks for the lowest fares on European flights make it possible to spontaneously jet off to a variety of places.

Whether for work or leisure, there are countless reasons to book a spur-of-the-moment trip. All it takes is some savvy searching to snag the best deals for your intended travel dates.

The Ryanair website says: “We understand that flexibility is important to our travellers, so we make it easy to compare low cost flights with our Fare Finder. Take advantage of the Ryanair app for a friendly mobile experience and special offers, so you can conveniently plan trips throughout Europe and find important information related to your flight.

“You can plan the logistics of your trip right in one place. Find a hotel, car hire and vacation packages on the official Ryanair site while searching, booking and checking-in for flights.”

Football clubs should pay towards the £70 million cost of policing their matches in the UK, the head of the Metropolitan Police has told the BBC.

Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, the country’s most senior police officer, asked why organisers of events that require policing to support their security do not pay for it, and said there should be “more of a polluter pays approach”.

Sir Mark’s comments came as he called for the creation of 12 to 15 bigger police forces as part of his plans for radical police reforms.

He told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme the current model of 43 forces across England and Wales needed to be reduced to cope with increased demand and overstretched funding.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a 2.3% annual funding increase for policing in England and Wales in last month’s Spending Review. Many forces have criticised the funds as falling “far short”.

Sir Mark said reforms would help police forces, including the Met, “make the best use of the money we’ve got”.

As part of funding concerns, the commissioner also cited the £70 million cost of policing football in the UK, most of which is spent on Premier League matches in England.

“Why isn’t the organiser paying for that, rather than local communities who lose their resources to go to football matches?” he said.

A move to make football clubs pay was previously suggested to the Times by the head of the UK’s football policing unit and later criticised by sports bodies who said it could threaten events and lead to increased ticket prices.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Sir Mark suggested the number of police forces needed to be reduced by two-thirds and said bigger forces would be better able to utilise modern technology.

He added the 43-force model designed in the 1960s had not been “fit for purpose” for at least two decades and hindered “the effective confrontation of today’s threats”.

Speaking to the BBC, the commissioner referred to an “invisible spaghetti” behind police forces that was responsible for “sucking resources and costs”.

“Lots of the smaller forces can’t actually do all the services locally and they’re having to club together and run complicated collaborations,” he said, adding that with “bigger local forces and one national body” they could “cut away” with a lot of that cost and waste.

The commissioner was questioned by Kuenssberg on the likelihood of the reform going ahead, referencing similar Labour plans in 2006 which were dropped following significant opposition.

Sir Mark said reform was “essential”, adding that spending on policing and public safety has dropped substantially over the last decade or more.

“I don’t see that changing dramatically. We’ve got to make the best use of every pound the government can give to us,” he added.

Put to him that he had warned he would have to de-prioritise some crimes, and asked what the force will not investigate, Sir Mark said: “So I don’t want policing activity to fall off the list, and I know that the mayor and the home secretary have pushed hard for the most police funding that we can get.

“We are determined to improve day in and day out experiences of Londoners on the streets. We can only do that if we focus ruthlessly on police work.”

California is a state of contradictions. We lead the nation in environmental regulation, tout our clean energy goals with pride and champion a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Yet despite this green image, our economy — and daily life — still very much run on oil and gas.

Fossil fuels account for roughly 8% of California’s $3 trillion economy — but that’s the first 8%. “If you don’t get that first 8%,” I tell my students, “You don’t get the rest of our economy.” Oil powers everything from trucks to tractors to construction equipment. Without it, you can’t build roads or bridges or get goods to grocery stores. Without refined petroleum products, you don’t make cement, steel, plastics or even the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles.

Despite these realities, California energy policy is leading to the dismantling of the critical infrastructure that supports this essential system. Our state has lost more than 30 refineries in the last few decades. We are now down to just nine major gasoline-producing facilities, and two more are scheduled to close in the coming months, Phillips 66 in Los Angeles and Valero in the Bay Area. Those two plants represent 284,000 barrels of daily production and account for nearly 18% of the state’s total refining capacity.

California sits atop one of the largest untapped reserves in the world, the Monterey Shale. But because of policy and regulation, we import most of our oil — including from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Guyana and Ecuador. California has also imported oil from Russia and Venezuela. Ironically, we have among the world’s cleanest refining standards, but we import fuel from places with lower environmental and labor protections.

All of this is enabled by a supply chain that’s more vulnerable than most realize. We have no major pipelines bringing oil to California. We rely on ships — many from Asia — that take 30 to 40 days to deliver fuel. These foreign tankers pollute at staggering rates. Stunningly, because that pollution happens over international waters, it doesn’t get counted by the California Air Resources Board. Closing a refinery in California and importing more fuel causes a net increase in pollution. And adding to our reliance on foreign oil is risky when global instability is rising.

This isn’t just a self-inflicted energy crisis in the making. It’s also a national security issue.

Military bases in California, Nevada and Arizona depend heavily on in-state refineries for specialized aviation fuel and other petroleum products essential to operations. As refineries shut down, the supply chain narrows, increasing reliance on imports from Asia and elsewhere. These gaps create unacceptable logistical and strategic risks for U.S. military readiness in the western states.

And remember, there are estimated to be hundreds of millions of barrels of accessible oil under our feet. Yet we’ve built an energy model that depends on importing foreign oil and, now, a growing dependency on foreign-supplied gasoline.

This isn’t just unsustainable. It’s also borderline irresponsible.

California’s energy transition is inevitable — but how we get there matters. We can’t pretend fossil fuels are already gone. We still need them for the economy, for mobility, for national security and for the working people who can’t afford a $60,000 electric vehicle or a solar roof.

We have the tools, talent and resources to lead a responsible energy transition, one that leverages our in-state production, balances environmental stewardship with economic pragmatism and protects our most vulnerable communities along the way.

But we have to be honest about where we are. And right now, fossil fuels still power the Golden State.

Especially because of coming refinery rules and a new tax taking effect in July, Californians are set to pay the highest gas prices in the nation. Our prices are inflated by a web of taxes, fees and boutique regulations that has grown thicker and more expensive over time. Even if oil dropped to $0 per barrel and refining were free, Californians would still be paying about $1.82 a gallon at the pump — $1.64 of that from state taxes and fees, plus 18 cents in federal gas tax.

According to CalTrans, Californians drive about 1,200 miles a month. If you’re a working-class Californian and gas goes up 50 cents per gallon, that adds about $500 in annual fuel costs. And because you pay for that with after-tax dollars, you’d need to earn at least an extra $750 just to cover it.

That matters to a construction worker commuting 60 miles a day in a pickup truck. It matters to a single mom cleaning homes across the city or a physical therapist driving to house calls. Most of these people can’t easily trade in their vehicles for Teslas and dodge gasoline hikes. Consumer analysis as noted in CalMatters indicates that the majority of EVs are bought by higher-income Californians living in areas such as Atherton, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

The people hit hardest by rising gasoline prices are the ones least able to afford alternatives. For most Californians, there is no viable mass transit available. People are just stuck spending more and more of their income on the gas-powered vehicles their lives depend on. Our state’s policies punish people for not being able to adapt quickly enough to a green future that’s not yet built. It’s a regressive tax masquerading as environmental action.

Until California realistically bridges the gap between aspirational climate goals and equitable policy execution, the state’s lofty environmental vision will continue to rest uneasily on the shoulders of its most vulnerable.

The new state excise tax adding about 2 cents a gallon went into effect July 1, and CARB is pushing for a new low-carbon fuel standard that could add and potentially major costs to the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel. No one knows exactly how much — not even the board proposing the rules.

At a recent Assembly oversight hearing, CARB officials were asked if they analyzed their regulations for consumer impacts. Their answer: We don’t calculate that. The room went silent. It was a stunning admission — regulators pushing policy without running the math.

No wonder we’re seeing an exodus of working families. By layering new and unclear costs on top of an already overstretched system, CARB and other regulators are creating what could become a self-inflicted economic shock.

And for what? Not environmental progress. California will be forced to source more and more fuel from overseas — at greater environmental and economic cost. By relying on polluting sources and carbon-intensive shipping, we’ve simply outsourced our emissions to other countries. California is not reducing emissions. We are exporting them.

If this sounds reckless, it is. But more than that, it’s unjust.

These policies are not burdening the wealthy. They’re crushing the working class. They’re forcing families to choose between gas and groceries, between job access and housing stability. They’re also outsourcing jobs overseas.

And they’re being implemented by unelected bureaucrats who, by their own admission in testimony before California lawmakers, haven’t calculated the real-world impact.

The people of California deserve better than this. They deserve honesty, transparency and policy grounded in economic realism, not ideological fantasy and environmental dogma. If recent and coming changes become a tipping point, it won’t be because of some unpredictable global event. It will be because we chose not to look before we leaped.

The path forward demands a pause, a recalibration and a return to common sense. Otherwise, this summer could mark not just another price hike — but the day we began losing control of our energy future.

Michael A. Mische is an associate professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business. A former KPMG principal, he is the author of eight books on business and strategy.

WASHINGTON — After an overnight session and hours of floor debate, the House voted Thursday to approve the “Big Beautiful Bill” — clearing its final hurdle in a landmark achievement for President Trump, who wrangled Republican lawmakers to pass the most expensive legislation in history by the Fourth of July.

The 218 to 214 vote, which saw two Republican members side with the Democrats in opposition, was delayed by a record-breaking speech on the House floor by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that lasted eight hours and 44 minutes. “I’m going to take my time,” Jeffries said before launching into a marathon excoriation of the legislation, its Medicaid cuts and its Republican backers. “Shame on this institution if this bill passes.”

The bill encompasses Trump’s domestic agenda, extending tax breaks to millions of American households and businesses that are projected to add trillions to the national debt. The legislation also introduces new tax relief for senior citizens, tip and overtime workers, and new parents.

To offset a fraction of those costs, Republicans approved new barriers to access for Medicaid and cut funding streams under the Affordable Care Act, placing the healthcare of nearly 12 million in jeopardy over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food stamps, was also cut.

It has been a controversial bill within the Republican Party ever since it was conceived at the beginning of Trump’s second term, with fiscal hawks decrying its record contributions to annual deficits, and moderate Republicans fearing its cuts to healthcare would come back to haunt them in future elections.

Speaking with reporters after the vote, senior White House officials said Trump was the “omnipresent force behind the legislation,” crediting his personal relationships with lawmakers on the Hill for its ultimate success.

“I’ve lost count of the number of meetings the president has had,” one White House official said, adding that the bill “satisfies virtually every campaign promise the president made.”

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said that Republicans defied the “doubters and the panicans” to secure passage of legislation that would “add funding for at least 1 million deportations per year.”

Beyond tax relief and healthcare cuts, the bill increases defense spending and adds a historic $150 billion to fund border security and mass deportations, exponentially increasing the budget of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — a fund larger than many national armies.

The president, Leavitt said, would host a “big, beautiful signing ceremony” Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern, marked by fireworks on the National Mall celebrating Independence Day — a deadline he imposed on the Republican caucus to secure passage of the legislation.

It also includes a host of parochial provisions. The bill provides $1 billion for security, planning and other costs for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles, and $30 million for the construction of a sculpture-laden “American Garden of Heroes” to be built at an undetermined location.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office projects the bill could add up to $3.3 trillion to the debt by 2034. Republicans dispute the figure as inflated, arguing the CBO assumes status economic growth, while still other groups say the projection is conservative.

In a statement after the vote, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which has advocated fiscal responsibility for decades, warned the bill “would add more than $4 trillion to the debt, accelerate the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare, and leave us even more vulnerable to the whims of the Treasury markets.”

“In a massive fiscal capitulation, Congress has passed the single most expensive, dishonest, and reckless budget reconciliation bill ever — and, it comes amidst an already alarming fiscal situation,” the group said. “Never before has a piece of legislation been jammed through with such disregard for our fiscal outlook, the budget process, and the impact it will have on the well-being of the country and future generations.”

And yet, despite issuing scathing criticisms of the Senate language for its historic contributions to the debt, opposition from the House Freedom Caucus, also founded to advocate for fiscal responsibility, all but melted away in the early hours of Thursday under intense pressure from the White House.

Several of the Medicaid provisions kick in only after the 2026 midterms, buying Republicans time to sell the bill without facing its real-world consequences before the next election. But Democrats are already campaigning against the legislation as the greatest attack on healthcare since Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, which prompted a Democratic wave in midterms the following year.

The legislation introduces a work requirement for Medicaid enrollment that will require extensive new paperwork for applicants, and restricts state taxes on healthcare providers, known as the “provider tax,” an essential tool for many states in their efforts to supplement Medicaid funding.

Several Republican lawmakers fear that provision could have devastating effects on rural hospitals. The Senate added a rural hospital fund to the bill to help mitigate some of the impacts of the funding cuts.

The bill also rolls back green energy tax credits that have fueled an entire manufacturing workforce in wind and solar energy in states across the country.

The bill passed through the Senate despite bipartisan opposition, with three Republicans joining Democrats to vote against it. House approval of the Senate text Thursday morning occurred barely 24 hours after the upper chamber’s vote.

On Wednesday night, a number of House Republican lawmakers had said openly they would not support a rushed process to approve the bill. But a floor vote on debate rules kept open by House Speaker Mike Johnson throughout the night kept conversations active, and ultimately swayed the holdouts.

Two Republican House members, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted against the final bill, citing its effects to the healthcare system and to the national debt, respectively.

“What a great night it was,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform before the final vote. “One of the most consequential Bills ever. The USA is the ‘HOTTEST’ Country in the World, by far!!!”

In the call with reporters, one White House official also credited Vice President JD Vance for his efforts to secure a victory on the legislation, noting his huddle hours before a final Senate vote on Tuesday with Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a lawmaker who secured exceptional carve-outs for her state in the bill and yet still expressed disappointment with its harshest provisions after voting to approve it.

Democrats will welcome the vice president receiving credit. Several expressed hope to The Times they can tie any successor of Trump’s to unpopular healthcare cuts in 2028.

WASHINGTON — Republicans muscled President Trump’s tax and spending cut bill through the House on Thursday, the final step necessary to get the bill to his desk by the GOP’s self-imposed deadline of July 4th.

At nearly 900 pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations.

Democrats united against the legislation, but were powerless to stop it as long as Republicans stayed united. The Senate passed the bill, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The House passed an earlier iteration of the bill in May with just one vote to spare. It passed the final version 218-214.

Here’s what’s in the bill:

Tax cuts are the priority

Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump’s first term expire. The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill, solidifying the tax cuts approved in Trump’s first term.

It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip, overtime and auto loans. There’s also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to his pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits.

It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit.

A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It’s a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years.

There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research. Proponents say this will boost economic growth.

The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, and the bill would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, mainly due to reductions in Medicaid and food aid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House’s version.

Money for deportations, a border wall and the Golden Dome

The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump’s border and national security agenda, including for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.

Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year.

To help pay for it, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections.

For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security.

How to pay for it? Cuts to Medicaid and other programs

To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back on Medicaid and food assistance for people below the poverty line .

Republicans argue they are trying to right-size the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse.

The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program’s work requirements.

There’s also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services.

More than 71 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.

Republicans are looking to have states pick up some of the cost for SNAP benefits. Currently, the federal government funds all benefit costs. Under the bill, states beginning in 2028 will be required to contribute a set percentage of those costs if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Payment errors include both underpayments and overpayments.

But the Senate bill temporarily delays the start date of that cost-sharing for states with the highest SNAP error rates. Alaska has the highest error rate in the nation at nearly 25%, according to Department of Agriculture data. Sen. Lisa Murkowsk (R-Alaska) had fought for the exception. She was a decisive vote in getting the bill through the Senate.

A ‘death sentence’ for clean energy?

Republicans are proposing to dramatically roll back tax breaks designed to boost clean energy projects fueled by renewable sources such as energy and wind. The tax breaks were a central component of President Biden’s 2022 landmark bill focused on addressing climate change and lowering health care costs.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) went so far as to call the GOP provisions a “death sentence for America’s wind and solar industries and an inevitable hike in utility bills.”

A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles would expire on Sept. 30 of this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.

Meanwhile, a tax credit for the production of critical materials will be expanded to include metallurgical coal used in steelmaking.

Trump savings accounts and so, so much more

A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities.

The bill creates a new children’s savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury.

The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump’s long-sought “National Garden of American Heroes.”

There’s a new excise tax on university endowments and a new tax on remittances, or transfers of money that people in the U.S. send abroad. The tax is equal to 1% of the transfer.

A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated.

One provision bars for one year Medicaid payments to family planning providers that provide abortions, namely Planned Parenthood.

Another section expands the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a hard-fought provision from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for those impacted by nuclear development and testing.

Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for the exploration of Mars, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee.

Additionally, a provision would increase the nation’s debt limit, by $5 trillion, to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills.

Last-minute changes

The Senate overwhelmingly revolted against a proposal meant to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence. Republican governors across the country asked for the moratorium to be removed and the Senate voted to do so with a resounding 99-1 vote.

A provision was thrown in at the final hours that will provide $10 billion annually to rural hospitals for five years, or $50 billion in total. The Senate bill had originally provided $25 billion for the program, but that number was upped to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that reduced Medicaid provider taxes would hurt rural hospitals.

The amended bill also stripped out a new tax on wind and solar projects that use a certain percentage of components from China.

What’s the final cost?

Altogether, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034.

Or not, depending on how one does the math.

Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already “current policy.” Republican senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach.

Under the alternative Senate GOP view, the bill would reduce deficits by almost half a trillion dollars over the coming decade, the CBO said.

Democrats say this is “magic math” that obscures the true costs of the tax breaks. Some nonpartisan groups worried about the country’s fiscal trajectory are siding with Democrats in that regard. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Senate Republicans were employing an “accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

A man recently visited Tenerife but was left completely floored by the cost of living. According to him, he can’t believe how different it is to living in the UK

A British man who ventured to Tenerife on holiday has been completely floored by the cost of living. He recently opened up about the matter in a TikTok video, as he can’t believe just how differently prices compare when shopping in the travel hotspot.

The man, known as deebolar, said the UK “no longer makes sense to him”, after he visited Tenerife. After spending a day exploring the area, he instantly began to notice a major difference between life in the UK, as he said there’s a huge contrast when it comes to the prices of popular every day essentials.

He said: “I’ve been here for 24 hours, and this supermarket is my best friend, bro. For context, €1 is 85p, so you’re seeing €1 here for like two plus litres of Fanta, Coke, 7up.

“I mean, it’s off-brand, but who gives a toss? It’s like 70p/80p – those bottles are like 50p. And eight litres of water for €1.50 – that’s like £1.20, bro.

“[The] UK is not seeing me again, that might be six Desperados for €1.71. It might be one as well, I ain’t got a clue. Anyways, look at this, eight litres of water, two litres of Fanta, look at the price – €2.39.”

Showing some goods on a table to the camera, he added: “Everything on this table, probably like £5 or £6 at most. I’m telling you, it’s nuts.”

The clip was captioned: “I have to go back to the cost of living crisis after this”, and the video has captured the attention of many. However, some people thought he needed to know some vital information.

One said: “Canary Islands have the lowest salary of Spain. This isn’t the paradise you think. Our rents are more than half our salary.” Another wrote: “Cheap for you. Unfortunately, Spanish salaries are every day lower because we pay more taxes and prices are increasing.”

A third replied, saying: “Nowhere is objectively cheap in this world. What is cheap for you might be expensive for the locals. This applies everywhere.”

Someone else asked: “Which supermarket is this? Going next week.” A fith also replied: “UK is expensive. Spain is cheaper, always.”

According to EasyFX, some Brits view Tenerife as an “appealing alternative” to the UK, as some see the cost of living as an attractive reason to move abroad. It states: “On average, rent in Tenerife is considerably cheaper than in the UK.

“A one-bedroom apartment in the island’s capital, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, typically costs between €500 and €700 (£415 – £580) per month, compared to the £1,200 to £1,500 minimum you would have to spend to rent an apartment in London, for example.

“Like most places in Europe, the cost of renting in Tenerife will vary depending on the location and property type you decide on. Popular areas like Santa Cruz, and La Laguna and tourist hotspots such as Los Cristianos and Costa Adeje tend to have higher rental prices.

“For those who prefer to cook at home, Tenerife’s grocery prices are another highlight and much more affordable than the UK. Supermarkets such as Mercadona, Hiperdino and Lidl, offer competitive prices, while local markets provide fresh produce and regional specialties at great rates.

“Shopping at farmer’s markets throughout Tenerife can yield even fresher produce at lower prices, making it an attractive option if you want to stick to a budget without compromising on quality.”

Meanwhile, the average salary in Tenerife is thought to come in at around €32,239 (£27,849.18) per year, with skilled professions like healthcare, education and technical fields generally bringing in between €1,500 (£1,295.75) and €2,000 (£1,727.63) per month. Even though the Canary Islands’ wages have increased a lot since 1978, they are still said to fall behind the Spanish national average.

Warner Music Group will lay off an unspecified number of employees as part of a months-long restructuring plan to cut costs, Chief Executive Robert Kyncl said in a memo to staff Tuesday.

Kyncl said in the memo that the plan to “future-proof” the company includes reducing annual costs by roughly $300 million, with $170 million of that coming from “headcount rightsizing for agility and impact.” The additional $130 million in costs will come from administrative and real estate expenses, he said.

The cuts are the “remaining steps” of a period of significant change at the company, Kyncl said, with previous rounds of layoffs and leadership switch-ups happening in the last two years as he worked to “transform” the company.

“I know that this news is tough and unsettling, and you will have many questions. The Executive Leadership Team has spent a lot of time thinking about our future state and how to put us on the best path forward,” Kyncl said in the internal memo that was reviewed by The Times. “These decisions are not being made lightly, it will be difficult to say goodbye to talented people, and we’re committed to acting with empathy and integrity.”

It’s unclear how many employees will be laid off or what departments will see cuts, but Kyncl emphasized the company will be focused on increasing investments in its artists and repertoire department and mergers and acquisitions.

Hours before the news of layoffs, the company announced a $1.2-billion joint venture with Bain Capital to invest in music catalogs. The collaboration will add to the company’s catalog-purchasing power across both recorded music and music publishing, Kyncl said.

“In an ever-changing industry, we must continue to supercharge our capabilities in long-term artist, songwriter, and catalog development,” he wrote. “That’s why this company was created in the first place, it’s what we’ve always been best at, and it’s how we’ll differentiate ourselves in the future.”

In 2024, Warner Music laid off 600 employees, or approximately 10% of its workforce, and in 2023, 270 jobs were cut.

Warner Music Group shares closed at $27.83, up 2.17%, on Tuesday.

Did you know that women’s clothing and personal care products are often priced higher than men’s? It’s been that way for years and there’s even a name for it. Pink Tax. Now with Trump implementing widespread tariffs, how will this impact women’s goods and jobs?

This week on Now You Know, we talk to Prachi Agarwal, a research fellow at the International Economic Development Group at ODI Global. She focuses on trade policy and women in trade, explaining how tariffs work and why they disproportionately impact women.

Labour’s original plan to reform the welfare system was a hasty effort to try to make billions of pounds of cuts to a rapidly growing bill in order to help the chancellor meet her self-imposed rules on government borrowing.

But this latest U-turn raises significant questions about just how stability and credibility-enhancing it really is to tweak financial plans every six months to hit budget targets that change frequently due to a variety of reasons, including things such as the cost of borowing which the government cannot control.

latest dealappears to row back more than half of the annual £5bn earmarked saving from the welfare reforms, by 2029-30.

The planned cut to disability personal independent payment (Pip) eligibility was set to raise the bulk of this saving, £4.5bn.

But now the changes will apply only to new claimants from November 2026, sparing 370,000 current claimants out of the 800,000 identified by the DWP impact assessment.

Another change announced in March, which now only applies to new claimants, involves how Pip applicants are assessed.

Pip assessments involve questions about tasks like preparing and eating food, washing and getting dressed. Each is scored from zero – for no difficulty – to 12 – for the most severe.

They are asked questions about daily tasks and are scored on how difficult they find them. People will need to score at least four points for one activity, instead of qualifying for support across a broad range of tasks.

For example, needing help to wash your hair, or your body below the waist, would be awarded two points, but needing help to wash between the shoulders and waist would equate to four points.

Rebel leader Meg Hillier and ministers have jointly stressed that the new four-point threshold, even when applied to new claimants only, will be a so called “co-production”.

This means they will be drawn up together with disability charities, so how the scoring will be applied is still unclear and suggests the changes may not save as much money as expected.

There will also be a knock-on impact for Carer’s Allowance. It seems plausible that this part will cost about £2bn.

The original universal credit health changes – freezing the health element until 2029-30, and halving it then freezing it for new claimants from next April – would have raised £3bn in 2029-30.

Now 2.25 million existing recipients will see a rise in line with inflation, and the most severe cases out of 730,000 new claimants will no longer see this halved.

This would cost several hundred million, perhaps £1bn.

In addition, the government has promised to pull forward investment in employment, health and skills support in order to frontload support to get those on health benefits back into work.

This was only due to hit next year and be seen at its full £1bn level by 2029. This helps the coherence of the package as a piece of reform rather than cost-cutting.

There are many moving parts here, and it is worth noting that the original costings were highly uncertain and subject to assumptions about changed behaviours. For example, critically, the number of claimants who would successfully say that they were now above the new four-point threshold.

However, it seems likely that the total cost of the overnight deal is more than half of the original £5bn saving – a £2.5-3bn deal.

All will be revealed at the Budget by the government’s financial watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility.

But this is in addition to the £1.25bn cost of the winter fuel payment U-turn, and would either have to come from higher taxes or cuts elsewhere, given the chancellor’s “non-negotiable” borrowing rules.

Los Angeles County’s looming agreement with its biggest labor union is expected to cost a little more than $2 billion over three years — the latest hit to a budget besieged by financial woes.

The cost estimate, provided to The Times on Monday by the county chief executive office, will necessitate more belt-tightening for a government that’s running out of notches.

The deadly January wildfires are expected to cost the county $2 billion. The Trump administration has threatened cuts that would ravage the county’s public health budget. The L.A. County supervisors agreed this year to a historic $4 billion sex abuse settlement — the largest of its kind in U.S. history — and required most departments to make 3% cuts to help pay for it.

The cuts aren’t done, Chief Executive Fesia Davenport warned the supervisors Monday as she walked them through the latest version of the county’s sprawling $49-billion budget.

To pay for salary bumps and bonuses for county workers in the tentative labor agreement, the updated budget slashes $50.5 million, cutting funding for parks, swimming pools and violence prevention, among other programs. Soon, each department will need to make an additional 5.5% cut, said Davenport, whose office drafts the budget and leads labor negotiations.

“We are taking this extraordinary step because we simply have no alternative,” she said.

The supervisors unanimously approved the recommended budget Monday, which included an initial round of cuts to pay for some of the expected labor costs and the multibillion-dollar sex abuse settlement.

Despite their unanimous vote, the supervisors had little nice to say Monday about the plan.

“While the budget may look like it’s healthy, it’s a sick patient,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis.

As a result of the cuts, two probation offices are expected to shutter. County swimming pools will shut down earlier. Regional parks will now close two days a week.

“Like every other Angeleno, I’m mad too,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who noted a petition she had seen on Nextdoor that morning protesting the two-day-a-week closure of Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area in her district.

The county announced last week that it had reached a tentative agreement with SEIU 721, which represents 55,000 county workers. The agreement, which still needs to be ratified by the union membership and the supervisors, includes a $5,000 bonus in the first year, followed by a 2% cost of living adjustment and $2,000 bonus in the second year and a 5% salary increase the third year.

The county is in negotiations with 16 smaller unions. The $2.1-billion price tag assumes that those unions will adopt similar salary increases and bonuses as SEIU 721.

To pay for the new labor costs, the chief executive office said the county will dip into its general fund for $778 million. The remaining $1.2 billion or so will come from federal and state funds meant for staffing costs.

David Green, the head of SEIU 721, said his members were “thrilled” with the tentative contract — the fruit of months of negotiations and a two-day strike this spring.

Last year, the city of Los Angeles agreed to contracts covering 33,000 union workers, many of whom would receive a pay increase of 24% over the next five years. The contracts, which the city estimated would add $3.5 billion in costs over five years, were a contributing factor in a massive budget shortfall that the City Council closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

Green, who negotiated with both the city and county, said comparing the two was like “apples and oranges.”

“The economic climate has gotten worse in a lot of ways,” he said. “I think you felt a little bit of that in L.A. county bargaining.”

County supervisors appeared supportive of the agreement in Monday’s meeting, though quick to pan the overall financial picture.

“This is a budget I don’t like — I don’t think anyone does,” said Hahn.

But it could be worse, she noted.

“I know this is a budget … that won’t put us in the hole,” she said.

Israel and Iran are in the second week of the conflict.

As well as inflicting damage, both countries are putting their economies under strain.

Israel has spent billions of dollars on its war on Gaza and has upped its spending considerably with its largely air-based attacks on Iran.

Iran was already struggling with the years of sanctions and now its oil and gas facilities are being hit.

So can the two nations sustain the conflict? Which is likely to be worst affected?

And will the conflict eventually damage the global economy?

Presenter: Neave Barker

Guests:

Aly-Khan Satchu – Geoeconomic analyst and investor

Eyal Winter – Professor of economics at the Hebrew University and Lancaster University

Nader Habibi – Professor of practice in the economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University

BOSTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from making drastic cuts to research funding provided by the National Science Foundation.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston on Friday struck down a policy change that could have stripped universities of tens of millions of dollars in research funding. The universities argued that the move threatened crucial work in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, semiconductors and other technology fields.

Talwani said the change, announced by the NSF in May, was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.

An email Saturday to the National Science Foundation was not immediately returned.

At issue are “indirect” costs, expenses such as building maintenance and computer systems that aren’t linked directly to a specific project. Currently, the National Science Foundation determines each grant recipient’s indirect costs individually and is supposed to cover actual expenses.

The Trump administration has dismissed indirect expenses as “overhead” and capped them for future awards by the National Science Foundation to universities at 15% of the funding for direct research costs.

The University of California, one of the plaintiffs, estimated the change would cost it nearly $100 million a year.

Judges have blocked similar caps that the Trump administration placed on grants by the Energy Department and the National Institutes of Health.

The city of Los Angeles has racked up nearly $20 million in police costs and other expenses in response to protests that have erupted over federal immigration raids, the city’s top budget analyst said Monday.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo said in a memo to the City Council that the city has incurred at least $19.7 million in costs through June 16. The Los Angeles Police Department has spent $16.9 million, including $11.7 million for overtime.

Other costs include $780,601 to repair damage at City Hall, the LAPD’s headquarters on 1st Street, and other city buildings.

Some estimates, excluding the police, run only through June 13 and the tally is expected to increase.

Protesters have held near-daily demonstrations in downtown L.A. since immigration agents raided a fast-fashion warehouse on June 6. Some protests have become violent and police have deployed tear gas canisters and shot less-lethal munitions. The LAPD said Monday that 575 people have been arrested since the demonstrations started.

President Trump has vowed to carry out the biggest mass deportation operation in U.S. history and called on federal agents to detain and deport undocumented people in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

The additional costs from the protests will strain L.A.’s already-shaky finances. The city is spending more on legal payouts and labor costs, but bringing in less tax revenues due to a variety of reasons, including a drop in tourism.

During protests in 2020 over the murder of George Floyd by a Minnesota police officer, the LAPD spent $40 million on overtime. Also, police actions related to those protests cost the city at least $11.9 million in settlements and jury awards, according to The Times’ analysis in May.

On Monday, a group representing reporters sued the LAPD in federal court over the department’s treatment of media, arguing constitutional and state rights are being violated.

The suit cites multiple instances of officers firing foam projectiles at members of the media and otherwise flouting state laws that restrict the use of so-called less-lethal weapons in crowd control situations and protect journalists covering the unrest.

Times staff writer Libor Jany contributed reporting.

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin dairy farmer alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Monday that the Trump administration is illegally denying financial assistance to white farmers by continuing programs that favor minorities.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court in Wisconsin on behalf of a white dairy farmer, Adam Faust.

Faust was among several farmers who successfully sued the Biden administration in 2021 for race discrimination in the USDA’s Farmer Loan Forgiveness Plan.

The new lawsuit alleges the government has continued to implement diversity, equity and inclusion programs that were instituted under former President Biden. The Wisconsin Institute wrote to the USDA in April warning of legal action, and six Republican Wisconsin congressmen called on the USDA to investigate and end the programs.

“The USDA should honor the President’s promise to the American people to end racial discrimination in the federal government,” Faust said in a written statement. “After being ignored by a federal agency that’s meant to support agriculture, I hope my lawsuit brings answers, accountability, and results from USDA.”

Trump administration spokesperson Anna Kelly did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment.

The lawsuit contends that Faust is one of 2 million white male American farmers who are subject to discriminatory race-based policies at the USDA.

The lawsuit names three USDA programs and policies it says put white men at a disadvantage and violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment by discriminating based on race and sex.

Faust participates in one program designed to offset the gap between milk prices and the cost of feed, but the lawsuit alleges he is charged a $100 administrative fee that minority and female farmers do not have to pay.

Faust also participates in a USDA program that guarantees 90% of the value of loans to white farmers, but 95% to women and racial minorities. That puts Faust at a disadvantage, the lawsuit alleges.

Faust has also begun work on a new manure storage system that could qualify for reimbursement under a USDA environmental conservation program, but 75% of his costs are eligible while 90% of the costs of minority farmers qualify, the lawsuit contends.

A federal court judge ruled in a similar 2021 case that granting loan forgiveness only to “socially disadvantaged farmers” amounts to unconstitutional race discrimination. The Biden administration suspended the program and Congress repealed it in 2022.

The Wisconsin Institute has filed dozens of such lawsuits in 25 states attacking DEI programs in government. In its April letter to the USDA, the law firm that has a long history of representing Republicans said it didn’t want to sue “but there is no excuse for this continued discrimination.”

Trump has been aggressive in trying to end the government’s DEI efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and bring about a profound cultural shift across the U.S. from promoting diversity to an exclusive focus on merit.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

More than 30 million Californians across the state could see their electric bills go up to pay for the devastating Eaton fire, as officials scramble to shore up a state wildfire fund that could be wiped out by damage claims.

One early estimate places fire losses from the Eaton fire at $24 billion to $45 billion. If Southern California Edison equipment is found to have sparked the blaze on Jan. 7, as dozens of lawsuits allege, the damage claims could quickly exhaust the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“Everyone is concerned about this,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford’s climate and energy policy program, who was involved in the fund’s creation. “If we need to put more money into the fund, where will it come from?”

The wildfire fund was created to shield the state’s three big utilities from bankruptcy in the event one was found liable for massive fire damages.

At a meeting last month, members of the state Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund, were told that Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders were being urged to extend a monthly surcharge on electric bills beyond its planned expiration in 2035. The fee, called the non-bypassable charge, adds roughly $3 a month to the average residential bill.

“They are asking the people of California to put more money into the fund,” said council member Paul Rosenstiel, a former investment banker and Newsom advisor, according to a transcript of the meeting. “Some of them are asking for an extension of the non-bypassable charge.”

The fee is paid by customers of the state’s three big for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Rosenstiel didn’t respond to a request for comment. At the meeting, he didn’t say who was lobbying the governor and lawmakers to extend the surcharge to ratepayers.

California utility executives have told their investors they have been talking to Newsom and legislative leaders about shoring up the fund. PG&E executives have said that they have asked that no new money come from utilities or their shareholders, which would likely leave electric customers to pay more.

“We continue to advocate that we don’t think there is a good case that investors should contribute to the fund,” Patti Poppe, PG&E’s chief executive, told Wall Street analysts in an April conference call.

A Siller Skycrane removes Southern California Edison’s tower 208 from a hillside in Altadena in May. The idle transmission tower, suspected of sparking the Eaton fire, will be examined at a lab.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of SoCal Edison’s parent company Edison International, was asked in a recent call with Wall Street analysts about the prospects for legislation that would bolster the wildfire fund.

“Clearly the governor’s office is engaged, as are our legislative leaders,” he said, adding that he was “certainly very encouraged by the level of diligence and engagement that I’m seeing.”

Asked to elaborate, Kathleen Dunleavy, a SoCal Edison spokeswoman, said the utility was not seeking a specific solution to questions of the fund’s durability.

“Our focus is to convey the importance of a strong wildfire fund,” she said. “We are not being prescriptive in how to achieve that.”

This year, the electric bill surcharge is expected to add $923 million to the fund, according to California Public Utility Commission records. If the fee was extended an additional 10 years, it would require customers of the three utilities to pay an additional $9 billion into the fund.

That doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates, who point out customers are already on the hook to contribute half of the $21-billion fund, while also paying higher bills to cover costs such as undergrounding and insulated electric wires.

Those measures are intended to make the electric system safer. Yet despite spending billions of dollars last year on wildfire mitigation, the number of fires sparked by its equipment jumped from 90 in 2023 to 178 last year.

Altadena homes lie in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“We think ratepayers have more than done enough,” said Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN, a consumer group in San Francisco. “My position is that ratepayers should not pay another penny.”

Rosenstiel said at the May meeting that Newsom and legislative leaders were also being asked for the state’s general fund, which pays for schools, healthcare, prisons and other government operations, to contribute to the fund that protects utilities from wildfire claims.

The governor’s office declined to answer questions and said Newsom’s schedule didn’t allow time for an interview.

Newsom has a seat on the Catastrophe Response Council. He was a no-show at the group’s most recent meeting, sending a designee in his place.

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Energy Committee, acknowledged that lawmakers are concerned about the fund but said that they are still considering remedies.

“All options are on the table and are being considered and evaluated,” she said. “I have certainly not arrived at a solution yet.”

The cause of the Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, businesses and other structures in Altadena, remains under investigation.

Edison CEO Pizarro has said a leading theory is that an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze. Video captured flames erupting under an Edison transmission tower on the night of the fire.

If Edison’s equipment is found to have started the inferno, the state’s wildfire fund is expected to cover most of the cost of damages over $1 billion, under a 2019 law that was passed after PG&E went bankrupt from its liability for the deadly 2018 Camp fire.

The first $1 billion in damages from the Eaton fire would be covered by insurance that electric customers paid for.

The total cost of the fire in Altadena won’t be known until dozens of lawsuits make their way through the courts, which could take years.

A February study by UCLA economists Zhiyun Li and William Yu estimated that the fire caused $24 billion to $45 billion in property damages and capital losses, or the cost to replace what was destroyed.

Officials at the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the wildfire fund, told members of the Catastrophe Response Council in a May memorandum that the authority had “undertaken a significant project to evaluate alternatives for extending the durability of the Wildfire Fund in the face of potential large losses.”

To determine how to strengthen the fund, authority officials said they had rehired consultants who worked with Newsom’s office in 2019 to create the fund. The four firms will be paid $4.5 million, which the fund will cover, they said.

Among the consultants is Guggenheim Securities, the investment banking arm of Guggenheim Partners. Another subsidiary of Guggenheim Partners owns stock in the state’s three big utilities.

A recommendation to tap utility customers to replenish the fund, instead of the utility companies themselves, would likely have a big impact on company share prices.

“They [Guggenheim] certainly have a vested interest in the financial success of the utilities,” Toney said.

A spokesman for Guggenheim Securities said the stocks owned by the sister company didn’t pose a conflict, saying it “maintains a robust conflict management program, including strict information barriers between its investment banking department and the rest of Guggenheim Partners.”

Wara at Stanford said if Edison is found responsible for the Eaton fire, the wildfire fund would cover what insurers paid to victims and also pay for property damage not covered by insurance.

For example, families who lost their homes but received insurance payouts lower than the value of their property could seek the balance from Edison, he said. The utility would then seek to recover those sums from the wildfire fund.

The other deadly Los Angeles County inferno that ignited on Jan. 7, the Palisades fire, is not covered by the wildfire fund because Pacific Palisades is served by the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, a municipal utility. The fund only covers blazes ignited by equipment owned by the state’s three biggest investor-owned utilities.

“They have their insurance and that’s it,” Wara said of Palisades fire victims.

At its meeting last month, the state Catastrophe Response Council was informed that insurance claims from the Eaton fire have totaled roughly $15 billion so far.

Adding to the damage bill is the potential cost of lawsuits. The possibility that the fund will pay out large amounts for Eaton fire damages has led to dozens of lawsuits being filed against Edison, even before the official cause has been determined.

Families of Altadena residents who died have filed wrongful-death suits. Edison is also facing lawsuits from L.A. County and other local governments for damages, including to public infrastructure such as water systems. Residents living outside the fire’s borders have filed suit, saying they were harmed by lead and other toxins in the smoke.

If a court found Edison negligent in maintaining its equipment, Wara said, victims could ask for compensation for pain and suffering, which would escalate the cost.

“Then the wildfire fund is out of money,” Wara said.

Pizarro has said that Edison is “committed to a thorough and transparent investigation.”

“Our hearts go out to everyone who has suffered losses,” he said.

The 2019 law that created the wildfire fund, known as AB 1054, greatly limited what Edison would have to pay for any of the claims. The company has told its investors that its maximum liability would be $3.9 billion.

The three utilities are asking legislators to ensure that state law continues to protect them and their shareholders, even if the $21-billion fund runs out of money.

Since the January fires, Edison, PG&E and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, have each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby in Sacramento, according to required regulatory reports they filed for the first three months of the year.

A PG&E lobbyist reported taking Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris to a $267 dinner at Paragary’s, a bistro in Sacramento, on Feb. 3.

Petrie-Norris said the dinner was with Carla Peterman, a former state public utilities commissioner who is now a top PG&E executive. Petrie-Norris said they talked about a planned March hearing on electricity affordability and didn’t discuss the wildfire fund.

The next month, a PG&E lobbyist took Dee Dee Myers and Rohimah Moly, two of Newsom’s top staff members, to the upscale Prelude Kitchen & Bar, which is a short walk from the state Capitol.

Willie Rudman, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, said the wildfire fund wasn’t discussed at the meal. Instead it “was a general meet and greet,” Rudman said, where the governor’s staff and PG&E executives “discussed opportunities for future collaboration.”

PG&E declined to answer questions. Lynsey Paulo, a PG&E spokesperson, said in a statement that the utility’s lobbying expenses were paid with shareholder funds and not money from customers.

“Like many individuals and businesses, PG&E participates in the political process on behalf of our customers and company,” Paulo said.

A BELOVED cafe that served customers classic English breakfasts for nine years has been forced to close due to the cost of living.

The owner said it is “impossible to carry on” in the current climate.

2

Traditional cafe Deb’s Diner in Birmingham posted the sad update on Facebook.

“It is with great sadness that Deb’s Diner has closed it doors for the very last time.

“Due to ill health and the current cost of living crisis, it has become impossible to carry on so we have decided not to renew our lease.

“We would like to thank all of our customers for their continued support over the last nine years, it’s been a wonderful journey.”

Customers commented to express their sadness and to send best wishes.

It comes after the Chancellor’s hike to national insurance contributions and minimum wage for firms kicked in at the start of April.

The NI rise has hit investment, recruitment and prices.

Businesses were dealt the £25 billion ‘Jobs tax’ raid at the Budget with the increased contributions as confidence among entrepreneurs taking a hit.

From April 6, businesses  have to pay a higher rate of employer National Insurance contributions (NICs) of 15% from 13.8%.

The threshold at which they are paid is also being lowered from £9,100 to £5,000.

The Government confirmed it was making the changes in its Autumn Budget last October in a bid to increase revenue.

It also said the move meant it wasn’t increasing taxes for working people.

However, it will have an impact on shoppers and everyday consumers as businesses look to pass on the additional costs.

Figures show that almost a third of businesses affected by the hike are planning to cut jobs or freeze hiring.

It comes on the back of 160,000 part-time retail jobs are on the cusp of going in the next two years due to a rise in Labour costs.

2

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was met with sharp questions and criticism Tuesday by lawmakers who demanded details on his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles, and they expressed bipartisan frustration that Congress has not yet received a full defense budget from the Trump administration.

“Your tenure as secretary has been marked by endless chaos,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told Hegseth. Others, including Republican leaders, warned that massive spending projects such as President Trump’s desire for a $175-billion space-based “Golden Dome” missile defense system will get broad congressional scrutiny.

The troop deployment triggered several fiery exchanges that at times devolved into shouting matches as committee members and Hegseth yelled over one another.

After persistent questioning about the cost of sending National Guard members and Marines to Los Angeles, Hegseth turned to his acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said it would cost $134 million. Hegseth defended Trump’s decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents as they do their jobs.

And he suggested that the use of troops in the United States will continue to expand.

“I think we’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,” he said.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing was the first time lawmakers have been able to challenge Trump’s defense chief since he was confirmed. It is the first of three congressional hearings he will face this week.

Lawmakers take aim at Pentagon’s planned spending

Lawmakers complained widely that Congress hasn’t yet received details of the administration’s first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. And they said they are unhappy with the administration’s efforts to go around Congress to push through changes.

Key spending issues that have raised questions in recent weeks include plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army’s 250th birthday bash, which coincides with Trump’s birthday Saturday.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) quizzed Hegseth on deploying about 700 Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel during immigration raid protests in Los Angeles.

She engaged in a testy back-and-forth with him over the costs of the operation. He evaded the questions but later turned to MacDonnell, who provided the estimate and said it covers the costs of travel, housing and food.

Hegseth said the 60-day deployment of troops is needed “because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we’re not going anywhere.”

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it’s not clear if Trump plans to do it.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, told lawmakers at a separate budget hearing Tuesday that the Marines who have arrived in Los Angeles have not yet been called on to respond. He said they have no arrest authority and are there only to protect federal property and federal personnel.

When asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, whether a possible use of lethal force by the Marines could result in injuries and deaths, Smith said, “I have great faith in my Marines and their junior leaders and their more senior leaders to execute the lawful tasks that they are given.”

Pentagon learns from Ukraine but will cut funding

Committee members pressed Hegseth on Ukraine’s surprise drone attack in early June that destroyed a large number of Russian bomber aircraft. And they questioned the administration’s future funding for Kyiv.

Hegseth said the strikes caught the U.S. off guard and represented significant advances in drone warfare. The attack has the Pentagon rethinking drone defenses “so we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack like that,” he said, adding that the department is learning from Ukraine and is focused on how to better defend its own military airfields.

He acknowledged, however, that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. That cut means that Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia’s onslaught.

“This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,” he said. “We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation’s interests.”

The U.S. to date has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion in military aid since Russia invaded in February 2022.

What Hegseth has focused on so far

The panel zeroed in on funding issues, with only a few mentions of other entanglements that have marked Hegseth’s early months. They touched only briefly on his moves to fire key military leaders and purge diversity programs. And there was no discussion of his use of the Signal messaging app to discuss operational details of strikes in Yemen.

Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he’s making at the Pentagon. He’s been far less visible in the administration’s more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran.

Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women.

He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed support for Ukraine.

Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., contributed reporting.

Climbing Mount Everest is a dream for many adventurers around the world – but the iconic mountain peak in Nepal is not just dangerous to climb, it’s also incredibly expensive

Mount Everest, the towering peak of the Himalayas, soars to a staggering 8,849 metres (29,032ft) above sea level. Each year, approximately 800 intrepid adventurers attempt to conquer its summit, facing numerous hazards from reliance on bottled oxygen to the threat of hypothermia and frostbite.

Climbers typically spend months acclimatising to the harsh conditions as they gradually ascend the mountain. The climb itself is gruelling due to the severe weather, high altitude, and sheer exhaustion that prevents many from reaching the pinnacle.

Since 1953, around 7,000 climbers have successfully reached the summit.

Embarking on this ascent isn’t just perilous, it’s also incredibly expensive. For those who’ve contemplated scaling Mount Everest, a TikTok user named @geogeek2_8 shed light on the true cost of climbing Everest, leaving viewers gobsmacked.

According to the content creator, you’ll need a permit from Nepal which will set you back $11,000 (£8,000). Additionally, you’ll need to employ guides and sherpas to help you navigate the brutal conditions, costing anywhere between $5,000 and $8,000 (between £3,700 and £5,900).

The necessary gear for the trek, ranging from boots to oxygen tanks and high-altitude equipment, can cost anything from $6,000 to $10,000 (£4,400 to £7,400).

And that’s before you’ve even set foot in Nepal. Flights to Lukla Airport, inclusive of grub and porters, can set you back anywhere from $4,000 to $8,000 (£2,900 to £5,900).

All in all, you’re looking at a total cost ranging from $26,000 to $37,000 (£19,300 to £27,462).

However, some reckon the Everest trek costs a fair bit more. According to Alan Arnette, who conquered Everest in 2011 and has reached “just below the Belcony” three other times, for most it will cost between $40,000 to $60,000 to scale Everest, but some people will fork out as much as $200,000.

Alan detailed how various operators compete on either price or luxuries and technologies, and guides have upped their rates. He also factored in budget for things like insurance, hotel, airport transport and jabs.

When quizzed if the price estimate was a tad low, GeoGeek responded: “There are still many less important costs that have not been included.”

From September, those aiming to ascend the world’s tallest peak during peak season (April to May) will have to cough up a hefty $15,000 (£11,100). For those wishing to climb from September to November, the fee is $7,500 (£5,500), and from December to February, it’s $3,750 (£2,700).

Many viewers were left astounded by the steep cost of ascending the famed peak, as seen in the comments on the video. “11k for a permit? Why?” someone questioned.

GeoGeek answered: “Mount Everest is inside Nepal’s territory, and the government regulates all climbs for safety, environmental protection, and revenue.”

Another chimed in: “With that much money I’d pay my bills and pay off loans! and sleep in my bed without being cold or no oxygen.

“People pay all that money to risk death?” questioned yet another baffled commenter. One more admitted their surprise: “Why did I think it was free?” Another wrote optimistically about alternative travel plans: “For that price I could see all of Europe, Asia and do a lower 48 state road trip”.

Three years before the Olympics, LA28 organizers gave International Olympic Committee officials the kind of Games preview that even Hollywood’s best scriptwriters couldn’t plan.

To begin a visit to check on LA28’s planning progress, the IOC coordination commission attended a game at Dodger Stadium and watched Freddie Freeman hit a walk-off double in the 10th inning to defeat the New York Mets in the same stadium that will host Olympic baseball in three years.

The electric celebration, passing grades for an advanced venue plan and a growing corporate sponsorship portfolio keeps LA28 on track approaching the three-year mark until the 2028 Olympics open in a dual-venue ceremony at SoFi Stadium and the Coliseum.

“We are really confident in the progress we’ve made,” LA28 chairman Casey Wasserman said after the coordination committee’s three-day visit. “We’re focused on what we’ve always done to deliver the greatest Games we are capable of delivering in this city in the most fiscally responsible way that pays dividends for every member of our Olympic movement and our community.”

With the city of Los Angeles facing deep financial problems and transportation updates lagging behind schedule, LA28 is under pressure to deliver a completely privately funded Games. The private group says it remains up to the challenge as fundraising for the L.A. Games has been “going gangbusters,” John Slusher, chief executive of LA28’s commercial operation, said in an interview with The Times.

With six new partnerships this year — matching the total number of deals in all of last year — LA28 has contract revenue worth more than 60% of its total $2.5 billion sponsorship goal. Slusher expects an estimated seven to nine more deals coming this year, and the group is on pace to reach its goal of $2 billion in corporate sponsorship dollars by the end of the year, Slusher and Wassserman said.

“I would tell you where I’m sitting today, we feel very confident we can either meet or exceed that $2.5 billion target,” Slusher said, “which I think people would have called a stretch target in November.”

A major partnership with Honda signaled a boon for business as it was the first founding-level partnership for LA28 since Salesforce signed on in 2021. The cloud-based software company backed out of its deal in 2024. The sudden split raised eyebrows about LA28’s fundraising progress, casting doubt whether the committee could fulfill a promise of a privately funded Games that shielded local and state taxpayers from picking up any debt.

But organizers remained undeterred.

Such twists have marked LA28’s long-planned Olympic journey. The L.A. Games were awarded in 2017 in a rare dual-city announcement that also placed the 2024 Games in Paris. Instead of the typical seven-year lead-up time, LA28 preached patience through an unprecedented 11-year planning period.

“More time is always better than less time,” Wasserman said in an interview with The Times. “The only negative of selling is there’s more distance between deals, so everyone’s like, ‘You’re not doing well.’ Which is never how we’ve been feeling. … My view is judge us when we get to the startline on how we did on sponsorship revenue.”

Judgment time is creeping ever closer. The Olympic Games will open on July 14, 2028.

Although the city has agreed to cover the first $270 million in debt incurred from the Games if LA28 goes overbudget, Wasserman said organizers don’t intend to come close to the financial backstop.

According to the latest financial report filed to the city in March, LA28 plans to cover the proposed $7.1 billion cost with about one-third of the projected revenue coming from domestic sponsorships and another one-third coming from ticketing and hospitality.

“The caliber of new domestic partnerships this year highlights the power of the Olympic Games to bring people together, create long-term value and reflect growing national engagement with LA28’s vision,” said Nicole Hoevertsz, the IOC coordination commission chair.

An artist’s rendering of the rowing venue in Long Beach for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. Long Beach is one of several cities that are slated to host events during the Games.

(LA28)

To begin the 2025 sponsorship momentum, LA28 announced an official partnership with AECOM in March as the engineering company will support venue infrastructure for the Games.

Mortgage company Pennymac, mattress brand Saatva, cloud-based data storage company Snowflake and aviation company Archer signed on as official supporters, one tier below a partnership such as AECOM.

While not specifying the financial details, Slusher said he estimated LA28 would make three or four times as much sponsorship revenue this year compared with all of last year.

“Our job is to maximize revenue,” Wasserman said. “I am very confident in our ability to generate, frankly, more revenue that’s ever been generated for a Summer Games in the history of the Olympics. I have no doubt about that.”

While a smaller portion of the budget than sponsorship, merchandise and licensing is gaining momentum as well, Slusher said, as companies clamor for a chance to issue official pins, T-shirts, programs or plush toys.

LA28’s financial report states that it has signed commercial or retail agreements with several companies, including Cisco, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Skims. Licensing and merchandising is projected to bring in $344 million, according to LA28’s latest annual report.

The next major piece will be ticketing, which, with hospitality, is slated to generate $2.5 billion in revenue, a $569 million increase from a June 2024 estimate. LA28 expects to begin registration for the ticket lottery in early 2026.

While LA28 and city officials have hailed the Games as a moment to welcome the world to L.A., concerns about international travel have mounted under the current administration. Delays in visa processing prompted Congressional action ahead of next year’s World Cup. President Trump signed a travel ban Wednesday that bars citizens from 12 countries from entering the United States. On Sunday, the Trump administration deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid protests over immigration raids.

The latest Trump order targeting visitors from 12 countries includes exemptions for certain athletes, including those traveling to the United States for major sporting events, and Wasserman was not worried about visa issues affecting the Games.

“It’s very clear that the federal government understands that that’s an environment that they will be accommodating and provide for,” Wasserman said of the recent travel ban. “So we have great confidence that that will only continue. It has been the case to date and it will certainly be the case going forward to the Games.”

Because Wasserman anticipates the majority of ticket sales to be domestic, he said he is not concerned with a potential drop in revenue if international fans don’t attend amid visa or safety concerns.

But Paris 2024, which sold a record 12.1 million tickets for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, sold about 38% of its Olympic tickets to fans living outside France, according to the IOC. The successful event exceeded its ticketing and hospitality revenue target by $397 million and brought in a roughly $30-million surplus.

Continuing the Olympic movement’s success has been at the top of LA28’s mind while bringing the Games back to L.A. for the first time in more than four decades. The 1984 Games were also privately funded and hailed as a massive success for their $225 million surplus that was invested in youth sports. The opportunity to use existing venues in 2028 dramatically reduces potential costs by avoiding new, permanent construction.

“I fully expect that LA28 will be successful in meeting its revenue goals, and I fully expect that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a financial success,” Paul Krekorian, Los Angeles executive director for the office of major events, said in a statement to The Times. “Twice before, Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics, even in the face of adversity, and both of those Games were a huge success for our city and its residents.”

Still, city leaders face enormous pressure to ensure that streets and sidewalks are safe and accessible for the millions of people expected to visit L.A. during the Games. Mayor Karen Bass recently unveiled a citywide initiative called “Shine L.A.” that encourages volunteers to beautify the city with clean-ups and tree plantings ahead of next year’s World Cup and the Olympics.

With city and federal funding, L.A. has planned to overhaul its public transportation system, including a long-awaited Metro station that opened Friday at Los Angeles International Airport. But other updates such as an electrified bus network, expanded rail lines and the LAX people mover have lagged. While the city’s transportation plan is outside of LA28’s Games operation and budget, Wasserman expressed confidence that L.A. will be able to repeat its transit success from the 1984 Games.

But the Olympics have grown larger than ever. A record 11,198 Olympians will compete in 2028. The Paralympics will be the city’s first. Especially with L.A. still recovering from devastating wildfires and a nearly $1 billion deficit, the threat of taxpayers absorbing any costs for the Games looms large.

With financial momentum growing behind the 2028 Games, Wasserman wants to put worried minds at ease.

“The last thing a taxpayer should be worried about is us,” Wasserman said. “We know how to do this. We are proving that every day and we will prove it all the way throughout the process and we are in every sense of the word, giving to the city, not taking from the city.”