Slovakia and Hungary vexed after Russian oil flows via Ukraine halted by alleged Russian drone strike last month.
Published On 21 Feb 202621 Feb 2026
Share
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has issued Ukraine a two-day deadline to resume the pumping of Russian oil through its territory, threatening to cut off electricity to the war-torn country if this demand is not met.
Fico issued his ultimatum to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday, warning on X that he would ask state-owned company SEPS to halt emergency supplies of electricity if flows of Russian crude via the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline crossing Ukraine are not resumed by Monday.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Slovakia and neighbouring Hungary, which have both remained dependent on Russian oil since the Kremlin launched its invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago, have become increasingly vocal in demanding Kyiv resume deliveries through the pipeline, which was shut down after what Ukraine said was a Russian drone strike hit infrastructure in late January.
The Slovak leader accused Zelenskyy of acting “maliciously” towards his country, alluding to Ukraine’s earlier halting of Russian gas supplies after a five-year-old transit agreement expired on January 1, 2025, which he claimed is costing Slovakia “damages of 500 million [euros; about $589m] per year”.
Describing Zelenskyy’s actions as “unacceptable behaviour”, he said that his refusal to “involve the Slovak Republic in the latest 90 billion euros ($105bn) military loan for Ukraine” had been “absolutely correct”.
Slovakia is a major source of European electricity for Ukraine, needed as Russian attacks have damaged its grid. Energy sector experts say Slovakia provided 18 percent of record-setting Ukrainian electricity imports last month.
EU loan in peril
Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic all opposed the interest-free European Union loan package, which was agreed to by the bloc’s member states back in December to help Ukraine meet its military and economic needs over the coming two years.
While the three nations opposed the package, which replaced a contentious plan to use frozen Russian assets that ran aground over legal concerns, a compromise was reached in which they did not block the initiative and were promised protection from any financial fallout.
However, as tensions mounted over the interrupted supply of Russian oil this week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban threatened on Friday to overturn December’s deal by vetoing the EU loan package.
“As long as Ukraine blocks the Druzhba pipeline, Hungary will block the 90‑billion-euro Ukrainian war loan. We will not be pushed around!” the Hungarian leader wrote on Facebook.
Slovakia and Hungary both received a temporary exemption from an EU policy prohibiting imports of Russian oil over the war in Ukraine.
Ukraine responds
The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs slammed Slovakia and Hungary on Saturday for what it called their “ultimatums and blackmail” over energy issues, saying the two countries are “playing into the hands of the aggressor [Russia]”.
The ministry said that Ukraine had provided information on the damage that resulted from “Russian attacks” on the Druzhba pipeline to Hungary and Slovakia, and that repair work is under way.
In the meantime, it said, it has “also proposed alternative ways to resolve the issue of supplying non-Russian oil to these countries”.
He’s four months removed from disk replacement surgery in his lower back — the same back that has endured six other operations, including spinal fusion in 2017.
Woods won’t be taking part in this week’s Genesis Invitational, a tournament he has hosted since 2020, as he continues to recover from that procedure. The 15-time major championship winner told reporters at Riviera Country Club on Tuesday that he has been able to start taking full golf shots during his training.
Still, the 2026 Masters tournament is less than two months away. So considering everything mentioned above, it would seem pretty unlikely that Woods would be ready to compete in the first major championship of the year.
Right?
Well, a reporter asked Woods quite simply, “Is the Masters off the table for you?”
Woods gave an even simpler answer.
“No,” he said without hesitation or further elaboration. He did give a slight smile after a brief pause, for what that’s worth.
It should come as no surprise that Woods would be doing everything he can to be able to play April 9-12 at Augusta National. He has won the event five times, most recently in 2019.
Woods missed all of the 2025 season as he recovered from a back surgery the previous year and surgery for a ruptured Achilles tendon in March. He spoke Tuesday on the multiple challenges he faces in attempting to return to the PGA Tour and also brought up the possibility of playing on the PGA Champions circuit.
“The disc replacement has been one thing. It’s been a challenge to have had a fused back and now a disc replacement. So it’s challenging,” said Woods, who added that his back is still sore following the most recent procedure.
“And I entered a new decade. So that number is starting to sink in and has [me] thinking about the opportunity to be able to play in a cart. That’s something that, as I’ve said, I won’t do out here on this tour, because I don’t believe in it. But you know, on the Champions tour, that’s certainly an opportunity.”
The Mirror’s data team has crunched the numbers and found where in the country has the highest concentration of pubs – see if your hometown has made the cut in our rankings
Cheers!(Image: Getty Images)
The pub capital of the UK has been crowned, and it’s a beautiful part of the country with cosy inns and rolling hills.
It’s been a rough year for the pub trade. Many are facing increasingly tricky futures. A report by UK Hospitality has warned that six venues will close every day this year without support – a total of more than 2,000. That far outstrips the 378 that closed in 2025, according to the Institute for Licensing. The British Beer and Pub Association worries pubs will need to sell an extra 1.3 billion pints of beer a year to offset surging taxes.
However, as gloomy as the overall picture is, there are still thousands of incredible pubs across the country, and areas where the trade is, if not booming, then thriving in a relative sense.
The Mirror’s data team has crunched the numbers and found that the drinkers in the Derbyshire Dales are more well stocked with pubs than anywhere else in England and Wales. The rural council has a total of 152 pubs and bars within its borders, according to our analysis of government data.
That works out as the equivalent of 25 for every 10,000 adults living there.
That’s the highest rate for any local authority in England and Wales, excluding two areas where extremely low population numbers skew the figures – the City of London (188 pubs and bars, equivalent to 132 per 10,000 adults) and the Isles of Scilly (six pubs, equivalent to 29 per 10,000).
Westminster has the next highest number of pubs relative to its drinking-age population. The London borough’s 407 boozers works out as 23 for every 10,000 resident adults.
Powys also has 23 per 10,000 adults with a total of 259 pubs.
That’s followed by Pembrokeshire with 21 per 10,000 adults, then four council areas with 18 pubs for every 10,000 adults – Westmorland and Furness, North Yorkshire, Gwynedd and Ceredigion.
You can see how many pubs there are for every 10,000 adults in each council area in the country by using our interactive map.
London councils fill the top 10 list of areas with the most pubs relative to their geographic size.The City of London’s 188 pubs and bars works out as the equivalent of 169 for every square mile (with the area famously known as “the Square Mile” being slightly larger than a square mile).
Westminster’s 407 pubs is equivalent to 49 every square mile. In Islington, there are 40 pubs every square mile, while in both Camden there are 29, in Hackney 22 and in both Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham there are 20 every square mile.
Liverpool has the highest density of pubs outside of London. The city’s 502 boozers works out as nearly 12 for every square mile, the 11th highest ratio in England and Wales.
Manchester’s 432 pubs work out at nearly 10 per square mile. Portsmouth’s 139 pubs are nine per square mile, Blackpool’s 114 pubs are also nine per square mile, Norwich’s 127 are eight per square mile, as are Brighton’s 244 pubs and Bristol’s 321.
Taipei agrees to buy some $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment in exchange for 15 percent tariff rate.
The United States and Taiwan have finalised a trade deal to reduce tariffs on Taiwanese exports and facilitate billions of dollars of spending on US goods.
The agreement announced on Thursday lowers the general tariff on Taiwanese goods from 20 percent to 15 percent, the same level as Asian trade partners South Korea and Japan, in exchange for Taipei agreeing to buy about $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Under the deal, Taiwan will eliminate or reduce 99 percent of tariff barriers and provide preferential market access to numerous US goods, including auto parts, chemicals, machinery, health products, dairy products and pork, the office of the US trade envoy said in a statement.
The US will, in turn, exempt a large range of Taiwanese goods from tariffs, including chalk, castor oil, pineapples and ginseng.
Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te said Taipei had secured tariff exemptions for some 2,000 Taiwanese products, hailing the agreement as a “pivotal” moment for the self-governing island’s economy.
Lai said the deal, when various carve-outs are included, would take the average tariff rate on Taiwanese goods to 12.3 percent.
“From familiar items such as Phalaenopsis orchids, tea, bubble tea ingredients (tapioca starch), and coffee, to pineapple cakes, taro, pineapples, and mangoes – these products that represent Taiwan will become more price-competitive in the US market,” Lai said in a statement on social media.
“We aim not only to sell Taiwan’s great flavors overseas, but also to ensure Taiwanese brands truly enter international markets,” he said.
Lai made no mention of Taiwan’s chip industry, a crucial driver of the island’s economy that is estimated to account for up to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Taiwan’s exports rose by 35 percent in 2025 on the back of furious demand for its AI chips, hitting a record $640.75bn.
Thursday’s agreement notably does not include specific commitments from Taiwan to invest in the US chip industry, despite an announcement by US President Donald Trump’s administration last month that Taiwanese firms would pour $250bn into the sector.
A fact sheet released by the Office of the US Trade Representative said the two sides “take note” of the January deal, which included a prior commitment by chip giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing to invest $100bn in the US.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Thursday’s agreement built on the longstanding trade relations between Taiwan and the US and would “significantly enhance the resilience of our supply chains, particularly in high-technology sectors”.
“President Trump’s leadership in the Asia Pacific region continues to generate prosperous trade ties for the United States with important partners across Asia, while further advancing the economic and national security interests of the American people,” Greer said.
Nearly one-third of Taiwan’s exports went to the US in 2025, making the country the island’s biggest market for the first time since 2000.
Mateus Fernandes (West Ham): He’s one of those players that looks like he would infuriate me, both to play with and against. He did all the ratty things really well. He’s got high energy, he’s young, talented and he’s the heartbeat of the team. He gets caught up sometimes in silly moments, trying to buy fouls when he doesn’t really have to. I thought it was his best performance for West Ham this season – a very mature performance.
Nico O’Reilly (Manchester City): I love seeing him play in midfield. He adds the legs and energy into City’s midfield – and obviously he gets his goal there as well. I feel the more he plays in his natural position – with Rodri around him – he’ll be a star, not only for Manchester City but England moving forward as well.
Jacob Ramsey (Newcastle): When Newcastle’s midfield has been torn up because of injury or suspension in the last few weeks, he’s quietly gone about his business. He’s been excellent and made sure he delivers in terms of performances and now goals. I think he’s a real steal for Newcastle.
Cole Palmer (Chelsea): I’m going to give a sympathy vote to Cole Palmer. He was in there last week because he scored a hat-trick against Wolves – but this week: goal, assist, and is a level above everyone else – but what a miss that was. If he scores that goal, Chelsea obviously win the game. He’s a shoo-in. That miss does put a little stain on it, but I thought his overall performance was miles better.
A federal judge on Thursday blocked a Trump administration order slashing $600 million in federal grant funding for HIV programs in California and three other states, finding merit in the states’ argument that the move was politically motivated by disagreements over unrelated state sanctuary policies.
U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, an Obama appointee in Illinois, found that California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota were likely to succeed in arguing that President Trump and other administration officials targeted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for termination “based on arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional rationales.”
Namely, Shah wrote that while Trump administration officials said the programs were cut for breaking with CDC priorities, other “recent statements” by officials “plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’”
Shah found that the states had shown they would “suffer irreparable harm” from the cuts, and that the public interest would not be harmed by temporarily halting them — and as a result granted the states a temporary restraining order halting the administration’s action for 14 days while the litigation continues.
Shah wrote that while he may not have jurisdiction to block a simple grant termination, he did have jurisdiction to halt an administration directive to terminate funding based on unconstitutional grounds.
“More factual development is necessary and it may be that the only government action at issue is termination of grants for which I have no jurisdiction to review,” Shah wrote. “But as discussed, plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that defendants issued internal guidance to terminate public-health grants for unlawful reasons; that guidance is enjoined as the parties develop a record.”
The cuts targeted a slate of programs aimed at tracking and curtailing HIV and other disease outbreaks, including one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, state and local officials said. Some were oriented toward serving the LGBTQ+ community. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said California faced “the largest share” of the cuts.
The White House said the cuts were to programs that “promote DEI and radical gender ideology,” while federal health officials said the programs in question did not reflect the CDC’s “priorities.”
Bonta cheered Shah’s order in a statement, saying he and his fellow attorneys general who sued are “confident that the facts and the law favor a permanent block of these reckless and illegal funding cuts.”
California and three other states sued the Trump administration Wednesday over its plans to slash $600 million from programs designed to prevent and track the spread of HIV, including in the LGBTQ+ community — arguing the move is based on “political animus and disagreements about unrelated topics such as federal immigration enforcement, political protest, and clean energy.”
“This action is lawless,” attorneys for California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota said in a complaint filed in federal court in Illinois against several Trump administration departments and officials, as well as President Trump himself.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding had been allocated to disease control programs in all four states, though California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said California faces “the largest share” of the cuts.
That includes $130 million due to California under a Public Health Infrastructure Block Grant, which the state and its local public health departments use to fund their public health workforce, monitor disease spread and respond to public health emergencies, Bonta’s office said.
“President Trump … is using federal funding to compel states and jurisdictions to follow his agenda. Those efforts have all previously failed, and we expect that to happen once again,” Bonta said in a statement.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the named defendants, has repeatedly turned his agency away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs in the last year, and the Trump administration has broadly attacked federal spending headed to blue states or allocated to initiatives geared toward the LGBTQ+ community.
The White House justified the latest cuts by claiming the programs “promote DEI and radical gender ideology,” but did not explain further. Health officials have said the cuts were to programs that did not reflect the CDC’s “priorities.”
Neither the White House nor Health and Human Services immediately responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit Wednesday.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said the cuts would derail an estimated $64.5 million for 14 different county grant programs, resulting in “increased costs, more illness, and preventable deaths,” the department said.
Those programs focus on response to disasters, controlling outbreaks of diseases such as measles and flu, preventing the spread of diseases such as West Nile, dengue and hepatitis A, monitoring and treating HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, fighting chronic illnesses such as diabetes and obesity, and supporting community health, the department said.
Those cuts would also include about $1.1 million for the department’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, which is focused on detecting emerging HIV trends and preventing outbreaks.
Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department, said slashing the program was a “dangerous” and “shortsighted” move that would leave public health officials in the dark as to what’s happening with the disease on the ground.
Considerable cuts are also anticipated to the City of Long Beach, UCLA and nine community health providers who provide HIV prevention services, including $383,000 for the Los Angeles LGBT Center’s community HIV prevention programs, local officials said.
Leading California Democrats have railed against the cuts. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the move was an unlawful attempt by Trump to punish blue states that “won’t bend to his extremist agenda.”
“His message to the 1.2 million Americans living with HIV is clear: their lives are not a priority, political retribution is,” Padilla said in a statement.
The states argue in the lawsuit that the administration’s decision “singles out jurisdictions for disfavor based not on any rational purpose related to the goals of any program but rather based on partisan animus.”
The lawsuit asked the court to declare the cuts unlawful, and to bar the Trump administration from implementing them or “engaging in future retaliatory conduct regarding federal funding or other participation in federal programs” based on the states exercising their sovereign authority in unrelated matters.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Wednesday to provide $90 million to Planned Parenthood, a move intended to help offset the losses from recent federal cuts targeting abortion providers.
“These cuts were designed to attack and assault Planned Parenthood,” said Newsom, speaking at a news conference near the Capitol. “They were not abortion cuts; they were attacks on wellness and screenings and they were attacks on women’s healthcare.”
The Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed last year by President Trump, blocked federal Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood. More than 80% of the nearly 1.3 million annual patient visits to Planned Parenthood in California were previously reimbursed by Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.
Sen. John Laird, who authored the legislation for the funding, Senate Bill 106, said the measure showed that California won’t back down. “This is us standing up to the immediate cut that was in that bill,” said Laird, (D-Santa Cruz). “This is how we are fighting back.”
Jodi Hicks, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, thanked legislators for their support and said the organization could not survive without support from the state. She said Planned Parenthood would always fight against federal attacks but “needed an army” this time to stand beside them.
During the news conference, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom expressed frustration with reporters for asking off-topic questions and said the media should be more concerned about women’s issues.
“All of these questions have really been about other issues,” she said. “This happens over and over and over again — (and we) wonder why we have such a horrific war on women in this country.”
Planned Parenthood offers a range of services, including abortions, birth control, cancer screenings and testings for sexually transmitted diseases. A coalition of states, including California, filed a lawsuit last year against the Trump administration over the cuts to the nonprofit. The states argue in the ongoing lawsuit that the measure violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment.
Senate Bill 106 has drawn ire from Republicans, who question why funding is going to Planned Parenthood when many hospitals in the state need more financial support.
“For rural Californians, this conversation is about access to care,” Sen. Megan Dahle (R-Bieber) said in a statement from the Senate Republican Caucus. “Hospitals are cutting services or facing closure, forcing families to drive hours for life-saving treatment. State lawmakers should prioritize stability for these communities.”
WASHINGTON — Public health experts warned Tuesday that $600 million in cuts to federal public health funding announced by the Trump administration would endanger one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, leaving communities vulnerable to undetected disease spread.
The grant terminations affect funding for a number of disease control programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, but the vast majority target California, according to congressional Democrats who received the full list of affected programs Monday. The move is the latest in the White House’s campaign against what it called “radical gender ideology” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “It’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate.”
Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC has increasingly turned away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs, claiming they “undermined core American values.”
The stoppage will derail $1.1 million slated for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, according to the president’s budget office.
The program is a “critical” tool used to detect emerging HIV trends, prevent outbreaks before they spread and reduce HIV incidence, said Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department.
“Without this program, we’re flying blind. The first step in addressing any public health threat is understanding what’s happening on the ground,” Simon said. “With HIV in particular, people often have no symptoms for years and can unknowingly spread the virus.”
The White House gave little explanation for the move but claimed the programs it targeted “promote DEI and radical gender ideology.”
Simon pushed back on the claim, calling the move “dangerous” and “shortsighted.”
“It’s particularly dangerous to put your head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem,” Simon said. “The success we’ve had over the past decades comes from finding cases early. … By treating people early, we can prevent transmission.”
Several local front-line service providers were targeted for cuts including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, which is set to lose $383,000 in investments for community HIV prevention programs.
The LGBT Center has not received official notice of the elimination but said the cuts would disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other underserved populations.
“These decisions are not guided by public health evidence, but by politics — and the consequences are real,” said LGBT Center spokesperson Brian De Los Santos. “Any reduction in funding directly affects our ability to provide care, prevention and lifesaving services to the people who rely on us.”
The Trump administration’s announced cuts are likely to face challenges from states and grant recipients.
The LGBT Center succeeded last year in blocking similar grant cancellations stemming from the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction ruling the administration could not use executive orders to “weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds” to bypass statutory funding obligations.
“We stand ready to bring more litigation against this administration if it is required in order to protect our community,” De Los Santos said.
The White House has repeatedly pushed to halt the flow of billions of dollars to California and other states led by Democrats, a strategy that has sharpened partisan tensions and expanded the scope of California’s legal fight against the administration.
Last year, the administration made broad cuts to federal funding for minority-serving institutions, leaving California colleges scrambling to figure out how to replace or do without the money. Federal officials argued that such programs were racially discriminatory.
In June, California congressional Democrats demanded the release of $19.8 million in frozen HIV prevention grants to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That freeze forced the county to terminate contracts with 39 community health providers and nearly shut down HIV testing and other services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.
The administration reversed course after sustained pressure from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) and 22 fellow House Democrats.
“These grants save lives,” Friedman said of recent terminations. “They connect homeless people to care, they support front-line organizations fighting HIV, and they build the public health infrastructure that protects my constituents. Just like I did last time the Trump Administration came after our communities, I won’t stop fighting back.”
In a letter to Kennedy last year, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said that the Cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease.
Kennedy’s motivations are “grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” Garcia wrote.
Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s latest threats to public health funding “a familiar pattern,” and shed doubt on their long-term legal viability.
“The President publicly claims he will rip away public health funding from states that voted against him, while offering no details or formal notice,” Newsom said. “If or when the Trump administration takes action, we will respond appropriately. Until then, we will pass on participating in his attempt to chase headlines.”
SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers on Monday approved a one-time infusion of $90 million for Planned Parenthood and other women’s health clinics, a direct respond to the Trump administration’s cuts to reproductive healthcare and access to abortion providers.
“Trump is tearing down healthcare and increasing costs,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said in a statement. “Democrats are building it up — investing millions in women’s health and maternal care, because families come first in California.”
The legislation providing the funding, SB 106, carried by Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), is intended to help offset the losses from federal cuts that targeted abortion providers. The Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed last year by President Trump, prohibited federal Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood.
The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
California and a coalition of other Democrat-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last year over the provision. More than 80% of the nearly 1.3 million annual patient visits to Planned Parenthood in California previously were reimbursed by Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage to low-income Americans.
Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Clovis) voiced opposition to the legislation Monday.
“Why does Planned Parenthood get a $90-million grant when right now over 60 hospitals in the state of California are on the verge of shutting down?” Tangipa asked, speaking on the Assembly floor. “Hospitals across our state that deliver high quality care to women are on the brink of closure.”
Planned Parenthood offers a range of services, including abortions, birth control and cancer screenings.
SAN FRANCISCO — Gov. Gavin Newsom, barred from running for reelection, still took heat Tuesday during the first debate in California’s 2026 race for governor.
Six Democrats and one Republican on the stage in Newsom’s hometown of San Francisco took direct aim at the governor’s record on homelessness, efforts to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and opposition to an anti-crime ballot measure that Californians overwhelmingly passed two years ago.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who unsuccessfully ran against Newsom for governor in 2018, pointed to state spending on homelessness as an example of ineptitude.
“We spent $24 billion at the state, along with billions more from the counties and the cities throughout the state, and homelessness went on,” he said. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror.”
The televised debate revealed the schism between the moderate and progressive Democrats hoping to replace Newsom, as well as efforts by Steve Hilton, the sole Republican who took part, to coalesce the conservative vote.
Hilton, a former Fox New commentator and British political strategist, called on his top GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, to drop out of the race.
“My Republican colleague Chad Bianco is not here tonight to face these Democrats or his record in 2020, during the Black Lives Matter riots,” Hilton said at the event, which was co-sponsored by the nonprofit Black Action Alliance, which was founded to give Black voters a greater voice in the Bay Area.
Bianco “took a knee when told to by BLM, now he says he was praying,” Hilton said. “Chad Bianco has got more baggage than LAX.”
Bianco was invited to the debate but said he was unable to attend because of a scheduling conflict. His campaign did not respond to requests for comment about Hilton’s attacks.
The, at times, feisty debate came amid a gubernatorial race that thus far has lacked sizzle or a candidate on either side of the aisle who has excited Californians. Public opinion polls show that most voters remain undecided.
Seven of the dozen prominent candidates running to replace Newsom participated in the gathering at the Ruth Williams Opera House in front of a live audience of about 200 people. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) was scheduled to participate but canceled, citing the need to go back to Washington, D.C., for congressional votes. Former Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) also did not attend the debate.
The two-hour clash, at times plagued by audio issues, was hosted by two local Fox News affiliates and moderated by KTVU political reporter Greg Lee and anchor André Senior, as well as KTTV’s Marla Tellez.
Five takeaways from the debate:
Making California affordable again
When grilled about how they planned to tackle the high cost of living in the state — gas prices, rent, utility bills and other day-to-day financial challenges — most of the candidates prefaced their answers by talking about growing up in struggling households, often with immigrant parents who worked blue-collar jobs.
Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said he would stabilize rents and freeze utility and home insurance costs “until we find out why they’re increasing.” California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said he would raise taxes on billionaires and create tax credits to help families afford the high cost of living.
Villaraigosa and Hilton said they would lower gas prices by cutting regulations on California’s oil refineries.
Hilton blamed the state’s high cost of living squarely on Democratic policies. “They’ve been in power for 16 years,” he said. “Who else is there to blame?”
Billionaire hedge fund founder turned climate activist Tom Steyer said he favors rent control. Steyer and former state Controller Betty Yee said they would prioritize zoning and permitting reform to build more housing, particularly near public transit. Both Steyer, a progressive, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate, spoke about using new technology such as pre-fabricated homes to build more affordable housing.
Protecting immigrants
In the wake of the Trump administration’s chaotic immigration raids that started in Los Angeles in June and have spread across the nation — recently resulting in the shooting deaths of two people by federal agents in Minneapolis — the Democrats on stage unanimously voiced support for immigrants who live in California. Some pledged that, if elected, they would use the governor’s office to aggressively push back on President Trump’s immigration policies.
“We’ve got to say no to ICE, and we’ve got to take on Trump wherever he raises his ugly head,” Villaraigosa said.
Steyer, whose hedge fund invested in a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border, and Thurmond both said they support abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Thurmond and Mahan said they support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Politicians politicking
Antonio Villaraigosa, left, talks to Betty Yee during the California gubernatorial candidate debate Tuesday in San Francisco.
(Laure Andrillon / Associated Press)
Amid the debate’s dodging, weaving, yammering and spicy back-and-forth, there were a few moments when the candidates rose above the din.
Villaraigosa, the former two-term mayor of Los Angeles and a former speaker of the California Assembly, insisted that the moderators call him “Antonio” instead of Mayor Villaraigosa.
“It’s my name, everybody. I’m just a regular guy,” he said, prompting a laugh.
Mahan, on the other hand, tried mightily to portray himself as being above the dirty business of politics.
“The truth is that our politics has been oversimplified,” he said. “It’s become this blood sport between populists on both sides, and you deserve real answers, not the easy answers.”
Yee, who has been running on her background as controller and a member of the California Board of Equalization, cast herself as the financial savior the state needs in trying economic times of budget deficits and federal cuts.
“We have not been accountable or transparent with our dollars for a long time,” she said. “Why are we right now and [in successive] years spending more than we’re bringing in? This is where we are. So accountability has to be a tone set from the top.”
The rich guy and the new guy
Steyer, who paints himself as a repentant billionaire devoted to giving away his riches to make California a better place for all, did not directly answer a question about his position on a controversial proposed ballot measure for a new tax on billionaires to fund healthcare. But he said he supported increasing taxes on the wealthy and boasted of having the political backing of bus drivers, nurses and cafeteria workers because he was the rich guy willing to “take on the billionaires for working families.”
Mahan, the latest major candidate to enter the race, wasn’t impressed.
“Tom, I’ve got about 3 billion reasons not to trust your answer on that,” he said, an apparent reference to Steyer’s net worth.
Although he supports closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, Mahan said he opposes the billionaire tax because “it will send good, high-paying jobs out of our state, and hard-working families, in the long run, will all pay more taxes for it.”
Money also spoke Tuesday
Although the battle over campaign fundraising didn’t overtly arise during Tuesday’s debate aside from Mahan’s comment about Steyer, it still was getting a lot of attention. Campaign fundraising disclosures became public Monday and Tuesday.
Unsurprisingly, Steyer led the pack with $28.9 million in contributions in 2025, nearly all of it donations that the billionaire spent on his campaign. Other top fundraisers were Porter, who raised $6.1 million; Hilton, who collected $5.7 million; Becerra, who banked $5.2 million; Bianco, who received $3.7 million in contributions; Swalwell’s $3.1 million since entering the race late last year; and Villaraigosa’s $3.2 million, according to documents filed with the California secretary of state’s office.
Mahan, who recently entered the race, wasn’t required to file a campaign fundraising disclosure, though he is expected to have notable support from wealthy Silicon Valley tech honchos. Former state Controller Betty Yee and state schools chief Tony Thurmond were among the candidates who raised the least, which spurs questions about their viability in a state of more than 23 million registered voters with some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.
Yee defended her candidacy by pointing to her experience.
“All the polls show that this race is wide open. You know, I think voters have had enough. I’ve been around the state. I’ve spoken to thousands of them,” she said. “Enough of the lies, the broken campaign promises, billionaires trying to run the world. You know, look, I’m the adult in the room. No gimmicks, no nonsense, straight shooter, the woman who gets things done. And we certainly can’t afford a leader who thinks grandstanding is actually governing.”
Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Nixon reported from San Francisco. Data and graphics journalists Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee and Hailey Wang contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — President Trump moved quickly this week to negotiate with Democrats to avert a lengthy government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, a sharp departure from last year’s record standoff, when he refused to budge for weeks.
Some Republicans are frustrated with the deal, raising the possibility of a prolonged shutdown fight when the House returns Monday to vote on the funding package. But Trump’s sway over the GOP remains considerable, and he has made his position clear at a moment of mounting political strain.
“The only thing that can slow our country down is another long and damaging government shutdown,” Trump wrote on social media late Thursday.
The urgency marked a clear shift from Trump’s posture during the 43-day shutdown late last year, when he publicly antagonized Democratic leaders and his team mocked them on social media. This time, with anger rising over shootings in Minneapolis and the GOP’s midterm messaging on tax cuts drowned out by controversy, Trump acted quickly to make a deal with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
“Trump and the Republicans know that this is an issue where they’re on the wrong side of the American people and it really matters,” Schumer told reporters Friday after Senate passage of the government funding deal.
Crisis after Minneapolis killings
Senators returned to work this week dealing with the fallout from the fatal shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers, as well as the killing of Renee Good in the city weeks earlier.
Republicans were far from unified in their response. A few called for the firing of top administration officials such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff for policy. Most GOP senators tried to strike a balance, calling for a thorough investigation into Pretti’s killing while backing the hard-line immigration approach that is central to Trump’s presidency.
But many agreed that the shootings threatened public support for Trump’s immigration agenda.
“I’ve never seen a political party take its best issue and turn it into its worst issue in the period of time that it has happened in the last few weeks,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. “Some things have to change.”
Democrats quickly coalesced around their key demands.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said there “was unanimity” around core principles of enforcing a code of conduct for immigration officers and agents, ending “roving patrols” for immigration enforcement actions and coordinating with local law enforcement on immigration arrests.
It helped that Trump himself was looking for ways to de-escalate in Minneapolis.
“The world has seen the videos of those horrible abuses by DHS and rogue operations catching up innocent people, and there’s a revulsion about it,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said.
“The White House is asking for a ladder off the ledge,” he added.
The painful politics of shutdown
Republicans are also trying to promote their accomplishments in office as they ready for the November midterms and the difficult task of retaining control of both chambers of Congress.
But the prospect of a prolonged shutdown shifted attention away from their $4.5-trillion tax and spending cuts law, the centerpiece of their agenda. Republicans had hoped the beginning of this year’s tax season on Monday would provide a political boost as voters begin to see larger tax refunds.
Republicans are also mindful of the political damage from last year’s shutdown, when they took a slightly larger portion of the blame from Americans than Democrats, according to polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
“The shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans,” Trump told Republican senators at the White House in November.
On a practical level, this funding standoff threatened to destroy months of bipartisan work, including long hours over the holiday break, to craft the 12 spending bills that fund the government and many priorities back home.
“We saw what happened in the last government shutdown in regards to how it hurt real, hardworking Americans,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I don’t want that to happen again.”
A two-week funding battle begins
The agreement reached this week, if passed by the House, would avoid a prolonged shutdown and fund nearly every federal department through the end of the budget year in September. But it would not resolve one of the most difficult issues for Congress and the White House: Homeland Security funding.
Instead of a full-year deal, funding for the department was extended for just two weeks, giving lawmakers little time to bridge the deep divides over immigration enforcement.
Democrats are pressing for changes they say are necessary to prevent future abuses, including requiring immigration agents to wear body cameras, carry clear identification, end roving patrols in cities and coordinate more closely with local law enforcement when making arrests. Many Democrats also want tighter rules around warrants and accountability mechanisms for officers in the field.
Those demands have met stiff resistance from Republicans. Some are opposed to negotiating with Democrats at all.
“Republicans control the White House, Senate and House. Why are we giving an inch to Democrats?” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) wrote on social media.
Republican senators said they would take the fight to Democrats by introducing their own bills, including restrictions on “sanctuary cities,” to show their support for Trump’s policies. That term is generally applied to state and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
“We’ve let the issue get away. We’re not leading. We’re trying to avoid losing rather than winning,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who held up the spending bills until Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) agreed to give him a vote on his sanctuary cities bill at a later date.
Thune acknowledged the difficulty of the next two weeks, saying that there are “some pretty significant views and feelings.”
“We’ll stay hopeful,” Thune told reporters about the upcoming fight. “But there are some pretty significant differences of opinion.”
Cappelletti and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.
England’s Justin Rose shot a seven-under-par 65 to extend his lead to four shots at the Farmers Insurance Open while returning Brooks Koepka made the cut in San Diego.
The 45-year-old, who leads Ireland’s Seamus Power, sits on 17 under after breaking his own 36-hole record at the tournament.
Rose shot the round of the day on Friday at the more challenging South Course with an eagle, six birdies and just one bogey.
“I feel like in my career I’ve won on tough golf courses generally, so that’s my M.O., I would say,” said 2025 Masters runner-up Rose, who led by a shot after an opening-round 62.
“It’s the kind of a place I enjoy. It’s one of my favourite tournaments on Tour, just the whole area, the whole atmosphere, the whole vibe.”
Meanwhile, Koepka continued his return to the PGA Tour with a second-round 68 to make the cut on three under.
Five-time major winner Koepka, who agreed a release from his LIV Golf contract at the end of 2025, struggled on the South Course on Thursday, shooting a round of 73.
But on the North Course he found his form in his first PGA Tour event in four years, sinking an eagle putt on the 17th.
“I think [Thursday] I was excited to play, nervous, and kind of didn’t know what to expect, but today felt more normal, I guess,” Koepka said.
“But yeah, I mean, don’t get me wrong, I definitely still got antsy, but I guess maybe a little bit of nerves, just trying to figure it out and test – see where my game’s at too, right? I feel like I’m playing really well. It’s just been a long layoff.”
Xander Schauffele’s streak of making consecutive cuts – the longest active on tour at 72 – came to an end, while Patrick Cantlay, Gary Woodland, Will Zalatoris, JJ Spaun, Max Homa and Ludvig Aberg also all missed the cut.
