debate

“Karen Bass decisively won the debate.”

She was “an assassin,” a “very skilled politician” who “made mincemeat of Nithya throughout the debate, both stylistically and substantively.”

If you think that assessment came from a Bass supporter, think again.

The words come from none other than Spencer Pratt, the erstwhile mayoral candidate, a Republican who routinely referred to Bass as Basura (that’s trash in Spanish) during the primary campaign.

There was no mention of Basura in Pratt’s Substack recap of Wednesday night’s debate before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. To be sure, his post was titled “Surviving the Dumb and Dumber Debate,” but even so Pratt praised the mayor’s performance against Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Not that he was thrilled by the prospect of four more years with Mayor Bass, however.

“A Karen Bass Mayorship is depressing,” he wrote. “A Nithya Raman Mayorship is terrifying.”

Pratt suggested Bass was borrowing from his own playbook, citing her comments saying street vendors shouldn’t be on the sidewalk outside restaurants and her call for the long-term involuntary hospitalization of people on the street who pose a threat to themselves. Bass herself said that backing involuntary hospitalization was a “controversial thing to say.”

Pratt didn’t respond to a text from The Times about whether he was considering endorsing the mayor in the runoff.

Bass is likely to welcome conservative voters during the Nov. 3 general election as she faces off with Raman, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

And it’s not just Pratt who seems to be leaning toward Bass from the right.

Rick Caruso, who ran against Bass in 2022, referred to her as a “very good partner” when he recently celebrated the reopening of his Palisades Village shopping center. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In The Heights

Raman traveled to Boyle Heights Monday to join activists calling for Lineage to leave the neighborhood after the devastating fire at the company’s warehouse in June.

It wasn’t Raman’s first visit to Boyle Heights since the blaze, but it was her first public appearance and news conference.

“Lineage shouldn’t be permitted to open this warehouse again,” Raman said to cheers from the crowd.

Bass followed suit Thursday, after Lineage blew past its own self-imposed deadline for cleanup.

They “do not deserve to rebuild,” Bass said in a statement, while also calling on city lawyers to pursue litigation, a lien and other legal options for cost recovery against Lineage. Bass had already ordered the company’s building permits delayed at the end of July.

Raman was joined at the news conference by Eastside Padres Contra la Privatización and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment — a group that has endorsed her — to call for the closure of the facility.

Raman also called for Lineage to pay for Boyle Heights residents’ healthcare, for environmental testing, cleaning and relocation assistance, lost wages and more.

“Families and taxpayers should not be left with the bill when a corporation runs up the tab,” she said.

Raman’s news conference appeared to draw the ire of at least one council colleague, Ysabel Jurado — who represents Boyle Heights.

Jurado didn’t mention Raman by name, but after winning council support for a motion Wednesday continuing the state of emergency in Boyle Heights, she thanked her colleagues who called and texted before they “did a press conference about the issue.”

Jurado spokesperson Mason Santa Maria declined to say whether the remark was directed at Raman. Raman spokesperson Liz Garcia said Raman was invited to the presser.

Jurado, who has endorsed Bass, did not attend.

No shows at H&H

Raman has been outspoken about her removal from the chairmanship of the council’s housing and homelessness committee, suggesting she is being punished by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson for challenging Bass.

Harris-Dawson rejects that narrative, saying the committee needed a chair who can focus undivided attention on the crisis.

Raman doesn’t officially lose that post until the end of the month. So on Wednesday, she was still listed as chair of the committee’s 2 p.m. meeting. But she wasn’t there, and neither were two of her colleagues.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield took the gavel instead, delaying the session until 3 p.m. in the hope that a third member would show up to join him and Councilmember Tim McOsker, giving the committee a quorum.

An hour later, Blumenfield came back.

“This meeting is going to have to be canceled for today,” he told the audience. “So I apologize for making you wait.”

Raman spokesperson Stella Stahl, in an email, said her boss already had other plans, with the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. debate happening later that same day.

“At the time, Nithya was near Sherman Oaks and had pre-planned campaign activities in advance of the mayoral debate,” Stahl said.

Stahl said the committee had a “last-minute cancellation from a council member who was expected to attend,” but didn’t provide a name.

Jurado, who takes over as chair of the newly renamed homelessness and health committee next month, also wasn’t there. Her spokesperson said Raman’s team was told the previous week that Jurado had a personal matter and couldn’t attend.

Devyn Bakewell, a spokesperson for Councilmember Heather Hutt, said her boss let Raman know Wednesday morning that she would not make it to committee due to a family issue.

The committee won’t meet again until next month. Raman will remain on the panel.

State of play

— SHAM SURVEY: The Times broke the story of the faked poll in the Los Angeles mayor’s race that purported to show Bass leading Raman by around 12 percentage points. The poll was faked as a “social experiment,” according to Median Strategies Polling, the group behind the fake survey. The creator of the fake poll revealed himself to the Guardian on Thursday as 21-year-old Rahil Prakash.

— FLIP IT AND REVERSE IT: The Los Angeles City Council has rescinded camping bans on a dozen locations in Hollywood, Echo Park and Silver Lake at the urging of the area’s council member, Hugo Soto-Martínez, who called the bans ineffective in addressing homelessness.

— THE RUMBLE IN THE VALLEY: Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman slammed each other Wednesday over their handling of homelessness, public safety and many other issues during the first face-to-face debate of the Nov. 3 election campaign.

— THE BEST LANE PLANS: A long-running dispute between cemeteries and bike-lane and safe streets advocates in the San Fernando Valley has escalated to become a campaign issue in the Los Angeles mayoral race.

— LIGHTS, CAMERA, INACTION: Despite improvements to the state’s tax incentive program, Los Angeles and California continue to struggle to keep movies, television series and even game shows from fleeing elsewhere. Production levels have failed to bounce back since the pandemic and the labor strikes by writers and actors, and they remain at historic lows.

— HEALTH WOES: Hundreds of Boyle Heights residents suffered health problems after a fire at a cold storage facility burned stubbornly for days, including respiratory infections, eye disorders and persistent cough, according to a new study.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? This week the mayor’s signature program was in Eunisses Hernandez’s district in Westlake, where it moved 37 people indoors from Ocean View Avenue and Lake Street.
• On the docket next week: After a Saturday meeting, the Democratic Socialists of America will vote next week on whether to endorse Raman for mayor.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Barring some extraordinary event — a health emergency, a career-ending scandal, a killer asteroid destroying all life on earth — Xavier Becerra will be the next governor of California.

That’s not partiality or wish casting on the part of your friendly political columnist. The fact is Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans in California, in both registration and inclination.

The GOP brand has been political poison in this Tahoe-blue bastion for decades now. But under Donald Trump, it’s grown even more toxic. His endorsement, which the president bestowed upon Republican Steve Hilton mid-primary, is the political equivalent of sarin; like the deadly nerve agent, it can kill on contact.

Still, give credit where due.

The gregarious and media-savvy Hilton has been waging an energetic and effervescent run for governor, with multiple appearances a day and frequent updates to his cheeky social media accounts.

“He’s going to San Francisco” — into the bowels of the liberal beast — “he’s going into schools, talking to labor groups,” said Hector Barajas, a campaign spokesman. “He’ll go everywhere.”

Becerra not so much.

The Democrat has appeared here and there since finishing first in the June 2 primary, securing one of two slots in November’s runoff. He’s offered a few modest proposals, including a plan to deliver two free hours of electricity a day to low-income households and a call for stiffer regulation of artificial intelligence.

A sprint vs. a stroll

That said, if Hilton is flat-out running for a job he stands virtually no chance of winning, Becerra is embarked on more of a leisurely stroll toward his all-but-certain perch in Sacramento.

That’s not a terrible thing at this midsummer stage of the race. Once, in the blessed era before the 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of social media, there was a lull in the months after the primary, with campaign activities picking back up around Labor Day.

On Tuesday, during a walking tour of Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo neighborhood, Becerra pushed back on the notion he was taking his election — and California voters — for granted. “If I were trying to coast,” he told reporters, “I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all.”

Becerra’s pace aside, the days between now and the Nov. 3 election offer him plenty of time to spell out what, exactly, he has to offer his home state and how, in a broad sense, he plans to tackle one of the highest profile, most vexing jobs in all of American politics.

At least one of those days should include a face-to-face debate between Hilton and Becerra. The two shared a stage multiple times during the primary season. They have not appeared together since.

More than a half-dozen news organizations have offered to host the gubernatorial rivals in a one-on-one session. Several other groups have proposed forums that would allow them to discuss their differences together in person.

Barajas, the spokesman for Hilton’s campaign, said the Republican hopeful has agreed to each and every invitation.

“He’s got absolutely no problem” appearing anytime or anywhere, Barajas said. “He will go to East L.A.. He will go to South-Central. He will go into the heart of the Central Valley. It doesn’t matter to him.”

That’s no surprise.

When a candidate is an underdog, like Hilton, they’ll typically show up at the opening of an envelope if it means appearing before a crowd. Conversely, a candidate on a seeming glide path to election, like Becerra, will often balk at giving their opponent the exposure afforded by a debate, much less risk harming themselves with a bad performance.

The Democratic front-runner said Tuesday that “there will be debates,” though he didn’t say where or when.

An obligation to voters

There’s a lot of virtue signaling that surrounds the notion of candidate debates.

Far from a high-minded discussion of policy differences, they often devolve into a stale recitation of talking points and pre-scripted zingers. After a while, debates can grow redundant and, frankly, boring as contestants repeat well-worn phrases and replow deeply furrowed ground. Such was the case by the time California’s gubernatorial hopefuls met for their sixth televised debate in the spring.

Most voters — many of whom profess to care oh-so-deeply about issues and matters of great import — don’t even bother tuning in. If they found debates that captivating, shows such as the “PBS NewsHour” would routinely outdraw the latest season of “Love Island USA.”

No matter.

There is an audience, however limited, for debates. Even if they don’t bother watching, many voters read about the encounters afterward, catch snippets online, or glean useful insights from the extensive coverage that follows.

Above all, a willingness to debate is a sign of respect — for voters as well as the political process the candidates are a part of. Minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may play to Becerra’s inherently cautious nature. It also makes sense from a purely strategic standpoint.

But it doesn’t serve the people of California, or give voters their due. This is a campaign for governor. Not a coronation.

Becerra owes California, and Hilton, the chance to take the candidates’ measure side by side before their contest is over. The sooner Becerra commits to a time and place, the better.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump turns to containing the fallout from setbacks in Iran
The deep dive: War was supposed to crush Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance.’ Instead, it’s bloodied but unbroken
The L.A. Times Special: Xavier Becerra won’t deliver the home runs — or strikeouts — racked up by Newsom, Schwarzenegger

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad reelection campaign just got worse after Wednesday night’s debate in Sherman Oaks.

Bass came in as the clear favorite after toying with City Councilmember Nithya Raman the two times they faced off on the debate stage during the primary, as easily as the Dodgers sweeping the Angels.

Her Honor just needed to do more of the same: hail her own accomplishments, deliver well-timed zingers and keep as cool as a cucumber while baiting Raman into self-immolation.

Bass did none of that, while Raman stepped up the way she needed to.

This time, the challenger offered concrete answers instead of word salads. She mostly stuck to the allotted time limits while Bass repeatedly whined that she wasn’t given enough time. Raman effortlessly turned the mayor’s rhetorical traps around like Bugs Bunny twisting Elmer Fudd’s rifle right in his face.

Take the moment when Bass pointed out that Raman had missed the second-most votes among councilmembers during her six years in office. Raman responded that she missed many meetings while representing the city on the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other governmental boards. Bass’ clap-back — that Raman’s colleagues also had other official responsibilities yet “they find their way to work” — drew “ooohs” from the audience at the debate, put on by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

If this were still the primary, Raman would have flustered her way to a non-answer. This time, she calmly said that she must not be such a bad councilmember, since Bass had appointed her to those boards.

“Well, we really need to look at that,” Bass stammered before asking Raman if she was “getting ready to resign” from them.

“I’m sorry?” Raman asked off mic as Bass challenged her to step down from all her boards. “No,” Raman then said firmly before shrugging and letting the moderator move on to the next question.

The moment was par for the mayor’s night.

Again and again, Bass went after Raman in the pettiest, most personal ways. She kept mocking the MIT graduate as a clueless egghead with no idea what’s going on in the city, stating twice that Raman governed as if L.A. were “an academic institution” — a line that sounded like a MAGA talking point and that was originally trotted out by Councilmember Imelda Padilla.

Bass tried to paint Raman as a member of an ineffectual city establishment, not a newcomer, which fell flat, considering that Bass has held one elected office or another for 22 years while Raman has been in politics only since 2020.

Bass frequently resorted to her trademark nervous laughter and repeated obviously crafted lines with all the enthusiasm of someone gulping down cod oil. Her furrowed brow and exasperated looks, which she had effectively used in previous debates, made her come off as embittered, tired and unable to defend the indefensible mess that has been her first term.

At one point, the mayor even compared street taco vendors to homeless encampments, with both supposedly disrupting the fabric of a well-run city.

Somewhere, Jonathan Gold is shaking his head in disgust.

“You have lots of plans and lots of ideas but have done very little,” Bass told Raman at another point.

And what have you done, Mayor Bass?

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass speaks with a woman after the end of a mayoral debate against challenger Nithya Raman in Sherman Oaks.

(David Butow/For the Times)

I’ve really tried to like Bass. Her trajectory from South L.A. activist to nonprofit founder to Sacramento, Washington and City Hall is impressive and important. Yet when Angelenos needed her to rise and succeed as their city faced one crisis after another during these past four years, Bass stumbled and stumbled again. Her flop of a debate performance left her sounding like someone with no vision or kindness — career suicide for someone who has made her reputation on both traits.

At this point, the architects of Bass’ campaign need to burn sage to drive out bad spirits or just bow out altogether. Any time something could go wrong, it has.

Bass placed first in the primary with 34% of the vote — an abysmal number for a Democratic incumbent in a deep blue city. Her campaign’s cynical gambit to boost washed-up reality TV star Spencer Pratt into the general election, because he’d be an easier opponent than Raman, failed. The Lineage fire in Boyle Heights brought back memories of the deadly Palisades inferno, angering a voting bloc Bass desperately needs — Latinos.

Then came news this week that a poll the Bass campaign had promoted, claiming that she held a commanding lead over Raman, turned out to be fake. Bass came out looking like someone incapable of overseeing paint dry, let alone running America’s second-largest city.

And now, this debate.

The audience, which was heavily pro-Bass, eventually started applauding more and more of Raman’s responses. Bass, desperate to trip up her opponent, talked over her so much that the councilmember responded with the line of the night and possibly the race:

“You gotta let me answer, Mayor Bass. This is my time.”

Raman still faces an uphill battle. Nearly all of the city’s power structure — elected officials, labor unions, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, business owners and even the three other democratic socialist councilmembers — has endorsed Bass. The mayor has outpaced Raman in fundraising. Raman has to win over voters who supported Pratt’s conservative stances while not alienating her progressive base. She did herself no favors with the Democratic Socialist of America’s local chapter, which didn’t endorse her in the primary and will decide next week whether to endorse her in the general election, by stating that the city needs to maintain the current size of its police force.

But in Wednesday night’s debate, she offered voters a distinct choice between how she would run L.A. and how Bass has.

Councilmember Nithya Raman speaks with staff and supporters after a mayoral debate with incumbent Karen Bass in Sherman Oaks.

(David Butow/For the Times)

All the mayor could sputter in her closing remarks was that Raman “does not have the support of [any] of her colleagues” — yet another line she had repeated ad nauseum.

When it was her turn, Raman said she keeps hearing from residents “that this city feels rudderless.”

“I have news for you, Angelenos. You’re right,” she continued. “No one is in charge right now.”

Then, instead of launching another fusillade against Bass, Raman went for something few people associate with L.A. nowadays:

Hope.

“You have every right to expect more from your city,” Raman proclaimed, her voice strong and clear. She urged Angelenos to “raise our expectations” of what’s possible and strive for a city that’s “affordable, functional, safe, joyful, ambitious.”

A few months ago, that would have sounded like the delusional ramblings of someone with no chance at winning. After tonight’s debate, Raman seems like L.A.’s final, best chance.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Sen. Darline Graham stumbled in a Tuesday night debate over an elementary question about foreign policy, a signature issue of her late brother. It was a high-profile misstep a week before she faces a runoff election in her bid to hold onto the South Carolina seat to which she was appointed last month.

Graham, a political novice, was asked whether the U.S. has a national security interest in Taiwan and the South China Sea — a longstanding contention of both Democratic and Republican administrations. She struggled to answer before admitting “national security is not my thing.”

“I’m not that informed on national security,” she added.

Her rival in next week’s runoff for the GOP nomination, Rep. Ralph Norman, suggested the answer showed Graham was unqualified for the role.

“By her choice, she’s running for the United States Senate. It’s a six-year term,” Norman said. “You need to get fully versed in what issues you’re going to be dealing with. This isn’t a ‘get training on the job.’ You can’t do that.”

It was a moment that drew a stark contrast to Graham’s brother, Lindsey, who died unexpectedly July 11. It also gave Norman, an established conservative politician, a fresh avenue of attack as he tries to overcome President Trump’s endorsement of Graham in her first campaign. The Republican president is set to visit South Carolina on Friday to campaign for her.

During his decades in the Senate, Lindsey Graham was known for his foreign policy involvement, making countless foreign trips, sometimes as part of a group of U.S. lawmakers meeting with international leaders and observing contentious areas firsthand.

There were multiple trips to Taiwan, including in 2022, when he led a delegation for a two-day visit that included meetings with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and the island’s defense minister.

Darline Graham had been asked, “Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and if so, why or how?”

Graham avoided a direct response, and instead mentioned her brother’s wealth of experience and her desire to lead differently.

“My brother was in the Air Force for 33 years, so I will do everything I can to support the military,” said Graham, who often read during the debate from a legal pad on which she had notes, its pages draped over the front of her lectern. “My dad was in the Army. I’m not a polished politician up here; national security is not my thing, not my area of expertise, but I do support the military.”

As interim senator, Graham is surrounded by many of her brother’s Capitol Hill staff, many of whom worked with him for years on issues foreign and domestic. She’s repeatedly thanked them for getting her up to speed on legislative issues and has pointed to her several weeks on the job as a productive time in which she’s gotten legislation passed, including a Russia sanctions bill named for her brother.

In the wake of her brother’s death, Graham has been asked multiple times about how she would either further or shift away from his intense focus on national security, an attitude that was at the essence of his Senate portfolio.

Asked after the debate by reporters if she wanted another crack at her answer to the moderators’ question, she doubled down, saying she was more focused on South Carolinians’ everyday concerns.

“They’re worried about their pocketbooks more than they’re worried about the South China Sea, quite honestly,” Graham said. “So that’s going to be my biggest focus.”

Graham added that she had spoken multiple times during the debate about the overall national security threat posed by China.

“I realize national security is very important,” Graham said. “I probably said 10 times up there tonight how bad China is, how they’re a national threat to us.”

Taiwan has often been a flash point for aggression from China and international efforts to support its right to self-rule. The U.S. maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity over whether it would defend Taiwan militarily if the mainland invaded, but has committed to bolstering the island’s defense for generations.

Claimed by China as part of its territory, Taiwan sits along a South China Sea global trade route, virtually all of which China claims despite a 2016 arbitration ruling based on the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea that invalidated Beijing’s expansive claims.

During a visit to Manila this week, Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said that American special operations forces are ready to step up warfighting-readiness exercises with counterparts in the Philippines and other countries in Asia to further strengthen a security alliance and help deter a major conflict in the region.

Kinnard and Junkroski write for the Associated Press.

Democrat Xavier Becerra pledged on Tuesday to participate in more than one debate against Steve Hilton, his GOP rival in the California governor’s race.

“We will have debates, and between now and Nov. 3, we will continue to go out there and meet with folks to make sure they have an opportunity to see the candidates,” Becerra told reporters after greeting business owners, community leaders and voters in a walking tour of Little Tokyo. “Voters need to have good information. We’ll make sure they have it, and there will be debates.”

Xavier Becerra, center, who is running for governor of California, talks with Roy Kuroyawagi, owner of Japangeles in Little Tokyo on Tuesday.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Hilton has been needling Becerra for not being as publicly visible on the campaign trail since the two men advanced in the June primary. The British-born conservative strategist and political commentator raises chickens at his Silicon Valley home and has said he named one of them “Xavier.”

“Xavier Becerra wants to be governor while dodging questions from the press and a debate with me,” Hilton posted on the social media platform X earlier this month.”What else do you expect from a lazy, arrogant, entitled ‘empty suit’ 36-year machine politician.”

Becerra held a 55% to 37% lead over Hilton in a UC Berkeley/L.A. Times poll released Thursday. The margin is unsurprising given the edge that Democrats have in voter registration over Republicans in a state that last elected GOP politicians to statewide office in 2006.

Becerra, asked Tuesday about Hilton’s criticism that he was “coasting” to election in the November general election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, rejected the notion.

“Well, if I were trying to coast, I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all and making a nice visit to Little Tokyo,” he said outside of an Asian-fusion gastropub on an oppressively hot, muggy afternoon. “Listen, this is all about making sure voters have a choice. We’ll get out there and make sure we’re front and center with them … even if it’s a little hot.”

Becerra spoke with reporters after visiting Little Tokyo businesses and chatting with locals and visitors.

When a group of young women pledged to vote for him in the gubernatorial race, Becerra urged them to vote against Proposition 39, a ballot measure that would require Californians to provide government-issued identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens.

“Please vote against that. That would deter people from voting,” Becerra said, making a thumbs-down gesture. “I’m not joking.”

Becerra later told reporters that the proposition, which likely California voters oppose, according to polls, is a direct attack on the state’s elections by President Trump.

“The president has insisted on trying to disrupt elections. When he can’t do it in Washington, D.C., he’s trying to do it in our state directly,” Becerra said. “Prop. 39 is President Trump’s effort to try to interfere in our election. We have to resist it. We have to oppose it. And I hope people know that Prop. 39 is just a prop for Donald Trump. And anyone who believes that we have to see more people vote, we have to see robust elections, should be voting against Prop. 39.”

Becerra also enjoyed a little shopping.

At Japangeles, he purchased a ball cap with “L.A.” superimposed over Japanese characters for “Nihon,” what the Japanese call their own country; at Cafe Dulce, he picked up a fruit tart; and at a 123-year-old Japanese confectionery, he bought sweet mango mochi wrapped in a thin, fluffy pancake.

His visit Tuesday came during the community’s annual Nisei Week festival, which celebrates Japanese American culture and history. Becerra represented the area during his time in Congress. He ran into several people he had known over his long political career, including former Los Angeles City Councilmember Jan Perry, and Brian Kito, the third-generation owner of the Fugetsu-Do Bakery.

Kito showed Becerra a picture of the then-congressman swearing him in as a neighborhood council president more than a decade ago.

“It was a nice reunion,” Kito said. “He’s a true gentleman. … I’m hoping nothing but success for him.”

Aug. 11 (UPI) — About 500 South Korean civic, political and religious leaders, North Korean defectors, separated families and academics gathered at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building on Tuesday to reject the permanent division of the Korean Peninsula and call for a national movement for peaceful reunification.

The “Liberation 81 One Korea Unification Rally,” held four days before South Korea marks the 81st anniversary of liberation from Japanese colonial rule, was jointly hosted by Citizens’ Solidarity for One Korea and Rep. Song Seok-jun of the People Power Party, chairman of the National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee.

Participants rallied under the slogan “Two Koreas No! One Korea Yes!” and framed the debate as a choice over whether South Korea should institutionalize the peninsula’s division or preserve reunification as a constitutional objective, a human rights issue and a long-term national vision.

The gathering comes as both Koreas are redefining their relationship.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared in late 2023 that North and South Korea should no longer be regarded as partners pursuing reunification but as two hostile states. North Korea has since revised its constitution to remove references to reunification and define its territory as bordering the Republic of Korea to the south.

In South Korea, President Lee Jae Myung’s administration has pursued a policy of “peaceful coexistence” aimed at reducing tensions and restoring dialogue with Pyongyang.

The shift has been reflected in government policy and education materials.

In March, the National Institute for Peaceful Unification Education, which is affiliated with the Unification Ministry, published its 2026 textbooks incorporating what it described as a “peaceful two-state” framework.

The materials acknowledged the current reality of two separate systems while calling for inter-Korean relations to develop into a cooperative relationship aimed at eventual reunification. The definition of reunification was also revised from one emphasizing integration under a liberal democratic order and market economy to “the process of forming a new, unified community.”

The policy direction became clearer last week when Unification Minister Chung Dong-young presented President Lee with a blueprint for “peaceful coexistence” that includes what the ministry calls a “two-state relationship oriented toward unification,” while leaving the question of eventual reunification to future generations.

The plan also calls for referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and replacing terminology the ministry considers confrontational, including the “main enemy” label.

South Korea has traditionally treated inter-Korean relations as a special relationship rather than ordinary relations between two foreign states, a principle reflected in the 1991 Inter-Korean Basic Agreement.

Organizers of Tuesday’s rally said they support peace and dialogue but argued that institutionalizing the two Koreas as separate states, even under a framework intended to promote peaceful coexistence, could ultimately normalize permanent division.

In welcoming remarks, Song said the South Korean Constitution “clearly aims for peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order,” adding that with North Korea’s nuclear threats and a grave international environment, South Koreans “must not ignore or misjudge the reality of division.”

Jang Man-soon, co-chairman of Citizens’ Solidarity for One Korea and chairman of the Committee for Ten Million Separated Families, said recognizing North Korea as an entirely separate state could conflict with South Korea’s constitutional framework and affect the identity and rights of separated families, people displaced from North Korea and North Korean defectors.

South Korea’s Constitution defines the territory of the Republic of Korea in Article 3 as “the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands.” Article 4 requires the country to seek peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order.

Jang, a second-generation member of a separated family, also questioned whether Pyongyang’s two-state policy could be characterized as mutual respect while North Korea continues to threaten South Korea with nuclear weapons and missiles.

For separated families, he argued, the issue extends beyond diplomatic terminology. Permanently recognizing the peninsula as two foreign states could change how South Korea views people whose hometowns and relatives remain north of the border.

“True peace begins with restoring the freedom and human rights of North Korean residents,” Jang said, according to organizers.

Former lawmaker Thae Yong-ho, who defected after serving as a senior North Korean diplomat, said in a keynote speech that Pyongyang has removed concepts such as national reunification and one Korean people from its constitution and political framework, even as a “peaceful two-state” discourse has emerged in the South.

Thae warned that such an approach “could lead to the permanent division of the Korean Peninsula.”

Speakers also argued that reunification should be viewed as a human rights question involving North Korea’s roughly 25 million people, rather than solely as a territorial or political issue.

Korean American Kenneth Bae, president of New Korea Foundation International, who was detained in North Korea for 735 days, said reunification should mean more than combining two territories.

He said it should reconnect separated families and create conditions in which North Koreans can live with freedom, dignity and basic human rights.

Kang Chol-hwan, head of the North Korea Strategy Center, who spent 10 years in a North Korean political prison camp, called for expanding North Koreans’ access to outside information and making human rights a central part of reunification efforts.

The rally also sought to present an alternative national vision rather than simply oppose a two-state framework.

Seo In-taek, permanent co-chairman of Action for Korea United, proposed a civic movement centered on the “Korean Dream,” a vision of a unified Korea grounded in freedom, human rights, freedom of religion, peace and shared prosperity.

“People are moved not by slogans but by a clear vision they can share,” Seo said, according to organizers.

Seo said reunification should not belong to a single political party, ideology or administration and called for a nationwide civic movement to change perceptions that division is permanent and reunification impossible.

Citizens’ Solidarity for One Korea sent a questionnaire on the two-state debate to all 299 members of the National Assembly on Aug. 4, asking lawmakers about permanent two-state relations and South Korea’s constitutional commitment to peaceful reunification. Eight lawmakers responded, the rally’s moderator announced during the event.

Representatives of youth, Protestant and Buddhist communities, separated families, overseas Koreans and North Korean defectors then took the stage in turn to deliver “One Korea” resolutions pledging a unified Korea grounded in liberal democracy and human rights.

The rally concluded with young representatives born in the two Koreas reading a joint resolution calling for denuclearization, improvements in North Korean human rights and peaceful reunification under South Korea’s constitutional order, followed by a unification performance in which participants sang “Our Wish Is Unification” and chanted “Two Koreas No! One Korea Yes!”

Organizers said the campaign will continue with the 2026 Korean Dream Han River Festival, a public event focused on Korean reunification planned for Oct. 3 at Ttukseom Hangang Park in Seoul.

Washington, DC – A year after United States President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC, opinions are mixed among residents, politicians and experts about the mission’s success.

Thousands of troops were deployed to DC in August 2025 as part of Trump’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force after he declared a crime emergency in the city.

The arrival of the soldiers triggered immediate opposition from many DC residents, with protests throughout the year. The advocacy group Free DC organised 11 days of demonstrations culminating in a protest outside the White House on Tuesday against what the group calls a “hostile military occupation”.

“I think Trump should go ahead and let them go home,” Ybonne Coles, a 60-year-old restaurant worker who was born and raised in the capital, said on a hot August day in Farragut Square as several soldiers patrolled nearby.

“They ain’t doing nothing but walking,” said Coles. “That money could go towards organisations to help people that really need help.”

The deployment has also faced resistance from legal officials, who have questioned its constitutionality.

On September 4, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration over the deployment, which the lawsuit claimed was an illegal use of military force for law enforcement purposes in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled to end the deployment on November 20, but a federal appeals court later granted the administration’s request for a stay on the order as litigation continues.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, whose administration Trump blamed for what he described as soaring crime rates, similarly criticised the legality of the deployment.

“We use the Guard to respond to emergencies. We use the Guard for large-scale events. We do not use the Guard to police our local laws,” Bowser said at a DC conference in October.

As the deployment approached its one-year mark, federal officials announced a “summer surge” of National Guard troops in advance of the 250th anniversary celebrations in the capital, requesting an additional 1,500 troops.

‘Peaceful and tranquil’

Not everyone opposes the National Guard’s presence.

Aaron Taslitz, a 30-year-old teacher who also works as a bike courier in DC, said that, though he would prefer that military resources be used on something more urgent than roaming the streets of the capital, he does feel safer with them around.

“For the most part, they’ve kept things peaceful and tranquil here,” he said, as he took a break from his morning bike ride in Dupont Circle.

Trump has often railed against DC, calling it “one of the most unsafe cities anywhere in the world” and claiming that since the Guard was brought in, crime has dropped by 88 percent.

However, the precise impact of the National Guard’s presence on crime in Washington, DC, remains unclear.

A report from the Niskanen Center in May found that the deployment has had no significant impact on violent crime, which has been in consistent decline in the district over the past few years.

Although the report found notable reductions in property crimes, it showed a limited impact of the troop presence on “opportunistic” crimes.

“They’re not trained police officers,” explained Richard Hahn, a co-author of the report. “The best thing a National Guard member can be, in terms of a crime deterrent, is a sentinel.”

Troop patrol zones have also concentrated in “high-traffic” areas, including tourist hubs like the National Mall and Union Station.

“Violent crime really concentrates in specific places in DC,” said Hahn. “And those are places where, by and large, the Guard was not deployed.”

Currently, 4,636 soldiers are deployed to the DC mission, including nearly 700 from the DC National Guard and thousands from various other state guards, according to a Joint Task Force-DC spokesperson. The largest out-of-state contributors are Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.

Despite the high number of troops, local news stations in DC have reported a notable absence of troops east of the Anacostia River, where several neighbourhoods post some of the highest violent crime rates in the city.

Commanding General Leland D Blanchard II indicated in a news conference on August 3 that patrol zones would shift in the coming weeks, but declined to provide further details.

‘Unnecessary’ use of force

A Senate investigation and report, authored by Senators Gary Peters and Andy Kim in February, also expressed concerns that the deployment risked harming local trust in law enforcement, politicising the armed forces and reducing troop preparedness.

The report further identified a threat to civilian privacy posed by the Guard’s software tools, including social media monitoring systems Meltwater and Cision, and the Palantir Technologies platform Maven Smart System.

The National Guard has also faced multiple lawsuits since the deployment began last August.

On July 29, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim on behalf of retired US Army captain Anna King after members of the Idaho National Guard violently detained her in May for allegedly assaulting an officer two days earlier.

King has denied the allegation and instead believes she was detained for her vocal criticism of the Guard’s presence in the city.

“What you see here is an aggressive use of force that was totally unnecessary and totally disproportionate,” said Michael Perloff, a lawyer representing King, “and this illustrates the broader concerns with the reliance on the National Guard to patrol this district.”

While no official cost has been reported for the first year of the operation, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security reported an annual estimate of $602m.

In July, the Pentagon announced plans to keep the Guard in DC through the end of Trump’s term. According to an estimate obtained by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the deployment will cost an additional $1.4bn from October 2026 to January 2029.

The figure comes on top of an already steep deployment cost so far.

One service member from the Indiana National Guard, who was deployed for a few months as part of the DC mission in November and asked not to be named, expressed mixed feelings about his time patrolling the streets of DC.

“My time there was to help the citizens of DC,” said the soldier, adding that he took pride in providing this service.

“It didn’t matter who they were, what they were doing – I was just there to help in any way that I could,” he said. “I’ve seen people impacted by us in a positive light.”

At other times, though, he said he had his doubts about the mission, noting especially low morale in his unit while they were away from their families during the holiday season.

“There were days when I was like, ‘What are we doing here? We’re not really doing anything.’”

Aug. 7 (Asia Today) — South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said Friday that broader public discussion should come before any government move to routinely use North Korea’s official state name, taking a cautious position on a proposal outlined during a recent presidential policy briefing.

Chung made the remarks during a meeting of the Peaceful Unification Advisory Council, an advisory body under the unification minister, at the government complex in Seoul.

“Because the policy briefing was compressed for time, the explanation that we would proceed only after public discussion was omitted,” Chung said.

He said the ministry had already explained at a media briefing before the presidential report that it did not intend to lead the change unilaterally and that any move should come only after public discussion and greater public acceptance.

President Lee Jae Myung also expressed caution during a government policy briefing Wednesday, saying a proposal for the two Koreas to use each other’s official state names remained open to debate.

South Korea ordinarily refers to the North as North Korea, or “Bukhan” in Korean. North Korea’s official name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, while it commonly refers to itself in Korean as “Joseon.”

The question has political and constitutional implications in South Korea because Seoul does not formally treat inter-Korean relations as conventional state-to-state relations. The two governments, however, have used their official names in numerous inter-Korean agreements over the past several decades.

Chung defended the rationale for discussing the change.

He noted that guidelines issued in 1995 by three South Korean media organizations – the Journalists Association of Korea, the National Union of Media Workers and the Korean Producers and Directors Association – recommended that each side use the other’s official name.

Chung said the guideline has not been consistently followed.

He also cited similar calls from South Korea’s seven major religious organizations, civic groups and the Peaceful Unification Advisory Council, saying broader acceptance by the media would be an important factor in determining whether the terminology becomes more widely used.

Former Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun argued at the meeting that the government should move more actively toward using the official names.

“Since the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement, more than 100 summit agreements and other documents have used the official state names,” Jeong said.

He questioned why South Koreans should be reluctant to use the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in speech when the same name has already appeared in formal documents.

Former Unification Minister Lim Dong-won said using the term “Joseon” may sound new to many South Koreans but is not historically unprecedented.

He said there was a need to gradually change public perceptions of the terminology.

Paik Nak-chung, professor emeritus at Seoul National University, also noted that since the two Koreas joined the United Nations simultaneously in 1991, presidential documents and numerous inter-Korean agreements have used each other’s official state names.

He described the proposal as essentially calling each side by the name already recorded in official documents.

The meeting was also attended by former Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung, National Museum of Korean Literature Director Lim Heon-young and Ham Se-woong, chairman of a memorial organization honoring Korean independence activist Ahn Jung-geun.

The Unification Ministry launched the Peaceful Unification Advisory Council in January as a ministerial advisory body bringing together senior figures and active experts to develop proposals for peaceful coexistence and shared growth on the Korean Peninsula.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260807010002452

A slew of online discourse unfolded last week after Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet shared that a college-aged member of the conservative nonprofit told him, “A burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”

“Yeah, a lot of this is a hangover from COVID and Biden-era inflation, but the lived experience is the same: It just feels like basic things cost too much,” Kolvet wrote in the viral X post, which has racked up more than 3 million views.

The online controversy highlights a deep frustration for young adults in Los Angeles. While politicians appear to be debating inflation for their own ends, students are struggling with the reality of not being able to afford food.

A $20 burrito sounds “unjustifiable” to Klarissa Palacios, who graduated from USC in May with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in law, history and culture. While in school, Palacios interned at various city hall offices and said her hourly salary eventually reached $25 — a key consideration for college students, she said, because many young people determine a meal’s affordability based on how many work hours can pay it off.

With minimum wage in L.A. at $18.42 per hour as of July, college students earning this rate would need to work for more than an hour in order to pay for just one burrito, Palacios pointed out.

“I’m Mexican, so I grew up with free burritos at home, anytime I wanted. $20 is pretty steep,” she said. “I’m expected to eat three times a day. If I’m spending $20 per meal and I work eight hours, then that means I’m only really getting paid five hours.”

Noticing a need for affordable meals, Palacios and fellow USC student Josiah Herfurth spent this past semester hosting $10-per-person lunches at their college apartments, dubbing the offering Cafe 10:31. The idea budded from a survey they sent to fellow members of their campus ministry, which found that the leading reason students weren’t attending post-church lunches at restaurants ranging from In-N-Out to sit-down ramen spots was because they wanted to save money, not for a lack of transportation or time.

So Palacios and Herfurth began paying out of pocket for bulk Costco runs that fed as many as 40 people per event. On the menu? Tacos, chili, hot dogs and conversation.

“It started with being just a USC college student thing, and ended up being just a general young adults thing,” Herfurth said, referring to how word quickly spread to UCLA and Cal State Long Beach students, as well as the young adult community at their church.

Herfurth is used to meal prepping in bulk, and said it’s a common practice among college students hoping to cut costs. He and his roommates would use up to six stove burners at a time to prepare meals together, he said.

“It was always more fun for me when I could share something with someone else, and it also made things cheaper,” Herfurth said. “That was the key to me.”

As the online conversation around food affordability evolved, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) chimed in on X.

“Just hearing about this dumb $20 burrito debate so just thought I’d make the losers on social media angry before going to bed,” Crenshaw wrote. “Stop whining, get a job, eat ramen like the rest of us did in college, on a budget with four roommates.”

But Megan Monroe, who graduated from UCLA in June, said it’s unrealistic to eat packaged ramen like the iconic Cup Noodles brand for every meal.

“Just because someone else did it, doesn’t mean that was the right thing to do,” Monroe said. “Nutrition has come such a long way. … I think it’s for the best that we’re steering toward a better, nutritional diet.”

Still, Monroe is a stickler for keeping her diet affordable.

Even though UCLA’s dining halls are recognized as the best in the country, Monroe opted out of the campus meal plan her junior year. Her required freshman and sophomore year plans came out to about $9 per visit, but when she moved to an off-campus, university-owned housing complex, she had the choice to opt into a plan that would cost about $15 per visit. She deemed it too expensive.

“I was like, I can cook for less than that,” Monroe said.

Since her dining hall days, Monroe now makes one Trader Joe’s trip per week, which usually comes out to about $45. She typically has milk and cereal for breakfast and is known among friends to eat a homemade take on a classic deli combination “360 days of the year”: a cold sandwich, a piece of fruit and a bag of chips.

Monroe does dine out once per week, including for burritos — she favors the $11 burrito at Brother’s Cousins Tacos in Sawtelle.

In a burrito city like L.A., prices can range dramatically, such as Burritos La Palma’s $5 homestyle burritos, where the menu recommends ordering two or three per person for a satisfying meal. When former taco stand El Ruso opened its flagship in Studio City last month, burritos wrapped in 18-inch Sonoran flour tortillas and stuffed with rib-eye or chile Colorado were priced at $20 each. It’s not uncommon to find breakfast burritos that exceed $20, like the $24 wrap with beef machaca and shrimp offered on Daisy Margarita Bar’s weekend brunch menu.

For students at other universities, campus dining varies in affordability.

When Joshua Min started at Cal State Long Beach in 2025, a $315-million renovation project had just shut down its University Student Union through 2028.

In light of the closure shuttering certain food options on campus, the university gathered an array of local food trucks — with most meals within the $15 to $20 range, Min said. Not wanting to spend additional funds, he opted into a meal plan offered for commuter students like himself, with 50 meals for the 16-week semester that came to about $10 per meal.

Min said he had minimal complaints of the food itself; he often filled up his plate with chicken, rice, fruit and vegetables. But he found himself rationing the meal swipes, starting the semester conservatively and ending with extras, which he used by inviting his friends to come with him.

After that semester, Min opted to pack turkey or tuna salad sandwiches for school, using bulk ingredients that his family buys from Costco.

Min said he ultimately was disappointed at Cal State Long Beach’s selection of food trucks, as a student who prioritizes cutting his cost of living.

“It seemed like they just cobbled up these ideas at the last minute,” he said. “I respect the effort, but I think a lot of students were left unheard and hungry.”

Washington, DC – A Senate committee hearing this week has once again shone a spotlight on the political divisions over the United States government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Wednesday’s hearing, held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, continued years of criticism, mainly from Republicans, against immunologist Anthony Fauci, who led the government’s response to the pandemic.

Spearheaded by committee chair Rand Paul, several Republicans rehashed claims that the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, emerged from an infectious disease lab in Wuhan, China, and did not naturally transfer from animals to humans.

Stephen Morrison, the director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the hearing was a reflection of the deep, enduring partisan divides over the issue.

But he added that the meeting with Fauci did little to shed new light on the pandemic after years of investigation, hearings and political posturing.

“There’s no space for any civil discussion around any of these issues. There’s no desire really,” Morrison told Al Jazeera.

“So, what’s the lasting impact of this? I mean, it continues to impose unconscionable pain and suffering on [Fauci] and his family. It doesn’t advance the debate one inch on the whole question of COVID origins and what was past US policy and what should US policy be going forward.”

Wuhan lab leak theory

Wednesday’s hearing was based largely on a previous 520-page report from 2024, created by the Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

That report claimed it was likely that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese research facility. Senator Paul has embraced this viewpoint, as has President Donald Trump.

In April of last year, shortly after Trump took office for his second term, the White House launched a webpage purporting to reveal “the true origins of COVID-19”, largely based on the report.

The site highlighted several claims that experts say pave over the nuanced scientific debate about the origins of the virus.

Drawing on the 2024 report, the White House asserts that SARS-CoV-2 “possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature” and that “data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans”, setting it apart from previous natural pandemics.

Joel Wertheim, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Diego, told Factcheck.org that both claims were false.

While COVID does contain a characteristic to enter cells that is not found in its closest coronavirus relatives, that quality does exist in other coronaviruses more broadly. As Wertheim put it, “It is most certainly found in nature.”

Meanwhile, a pair of studies released in 2022 found at least two unique paths through which initial human infection occurred, contradicting the White House’s claim that the pandemic arose from a “single introduction into humans”.

The White House webpage also focuses on Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) until 2022 and served as the chief medical adviser to former US President Joe Biden, Trump’s election rival.

Biden pre-emptively pardoned him in January 2025, fearing the physician might be arrested under the second Trump administration.

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Trump took the opportunity to renew his derision of Fauci, writing on Truth Social that the medical expert’s “ideas were CRAZY”.

Trump also accused Fauci, without evidence, of orchestrating a cover-up for China, where COVID was first documented. The Republican leader was serving his first term as president when the pandemic began.

Ongoing debate

To be sure, there has been criticism from within the international scientific community that the lab leak theory was discounted too swiftly in the early days of the pandemic, as it became seen as political.

Trump and other world leaders had been quick to use anti-China rhetoric when discussing the virus.

There currently remains no conclusive evidence proving either the lab leak theory or that the virus had a natural origin. The vast majority of infectious disease scientists, including Fauci, have said neither possibility can be ruled out.

Still, a preponderance of experts say evidence indicates that the virus was most likely transferred from an animal, likely a bat, to humans, in a process called zoonotic spillover.

A 2024 survey of virologists and other scientists, conducted by the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI), found most respondents believed natural transmission was considerably more likely than a lab leak, although most acknowledged it was impossible to definitively dismiss the theory.

Following three years of research, a World Health Organization (WHO) advisory board released a report in 2025 that also concluded “the weight of available evidence … suggests zoonotic spillover”.

Still, WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cautioned, “As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak.”

Inside Fauci’s diary

Fauci has long argued the scientific evidence indicates that the virus emerged from natural animal transmission, but he has repeatedly rejected the notion that he has outright dismissed the lab leak theory.

In a 2024 letter to the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, his lawyers maintained (PDF) it was “completely wrong” to say that Fauci had ever called the possibility a “conspiracy theory”.

Instead, they said Fauci and his allies rejected an array of conspiracy theories that have been tied to the lab leak theory, including the idea that he had “sneaked unnoticed into the CIA headquarters to try to convince CIA officials to debunk the lab leak theory”.

Wednesday’s hearing was preceded by the release of entries from Fauci’s private diary, stored on a government computer drive.

They were obtained through Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic and Fauci critic, who passed them along to Senator Paul.

In one entry, Fauci described a claim that he “deliberately” worked with the Chinese to create the virus as a “way-out conspiracy theory”.

He and his legal team have also repeatedly rejected Republican claims that he leveraged millions in grant money to compel scientists to change their views about COVID’s origins.

The White House website, for instance, asserts that Fauci “prompted” an early study on COVID origins to downplay the lab leak theory. No evidence has been presented to support those claims, which have also been rejected by the scientists involved.

Did Fauci mislead?

On Wednesday, several Senate Republicans charged that Fauci’s diary entries showed he had intentionally misled the public by downplaying the possibility the virus had emerged from the Wuhan lab.

Fauci’s supporters, however, have said the diary fails to prove any deliberate attempt to mislead. They argue his public and private statements were consistent in the early days of the pandemic, when scientists’ understanding of the virus was shifting daily.

Fauci’s diary entries indicated he met with a group of experts in February 2020, noting “there was not total agreement” on the likelihood the virus had been created via human manipulation. Senator Paul and others said Fauci did not adequately reflect that view in his public statements.

Republicans also seized on a January 26, 2020, entry in which Fauci wrote that initial data suggests “the first infection was in early December and was not connected” to the wet market in Wuhan.

“Now we know the market was not the source but the amplifier,” he wrote.

During the hearing, Senator Paul said the diary revealed that Fauci was “repeatedly saying in public something different than what he believes in private”.

Fauci’s defenders have pointed to a USA Today interview he gave shortly after the diary entry, floating the idea that the market could have been an “amplifier”. Others have argued the diary entries do not contradict the view that the virus was of natural origins.

Public restrictions

Republicans on Wednesday also focused heavily on Fauci’s role in issuing public guidance about how to slow the spread of the COVID virus.

Several states saw schools close and businesses shutter amid social-distancing recommendations.

But those closures became a political lightning rod and featured prominently in the 2020 presidential elections and 2022 midterm races.

Indeed, new studies have cast doubt on the effectiveness of social distancing rules. Others indicate mask mandates may have been less effective than previously presented, although research still generally supports that masks may slow the spread of the disease.

As NIAID director, Fauci had no direct authority to impose public health mandates, which were typically introduced by state and local officials. While he had a role in issuing federal guidance, his work was part of a wider government effort involving other agencies and officials.

Speaking on Wednesday, Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the Senate panel, accused Republicans of “relitigating history” and seeking to “turn one person into a scapegoat for a crisis that hundreds of officials across the Biden and Trump administrations were responsible for handling”.

Still, Fauci’s diary does contain uncomfortable revelations about how he wielded his high-profile position. In one instance, he recounted how he offered then-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio encouragement to close city schools. He did the same with an aide to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

“I advised De Blasio to go ahead and do it,” he recounted. “I went on to tell him he should close the bars and restaurants in NYC… He said that he would base this on my recommendation.”

Why now?

During the Wednesday hearing, Fauci invoked his constitutional right to remain silent roughly 100 times, drawing significant public scrutiny.

The 85-year-old Fauci, who enjoyed bipartisan support as NIAID director throughout much of his 38 years in the role, decried the hearing as an attempt to entrap him with perjury.

Critics, including several Democrats on the committee, have also questioned the timing of Wednesday’s hearing, which comes just three months before November’s midterm elections.

Republicans are expected to face an uphill battle in maintaining control of the House of Representatives, and they also risk losing their slim control of the Senate in the vote. A defeat in either chamber would serve as a major setback to Trump in his final two years in office.

The party has struggled to find a defining issue to campaign on, amid affordability woes fuelled by the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran.

The hearing also comes at a time when polls have shown public trust in federal health agencies has plummeted since Trump took office.

For instance, a June poll conducted by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the de Beaumont Foundation’s Public Health Listening Lab suggests that just 50 percent of respondents said they trusted recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That marks a decline from 77 percent in the spring of 2025.

About 69 percent also felt that federal health agencies’ recommendations were too influenced by their leaders’ public opinions.

But Morrison, the health policy expert, saw the hearing as a personal attack on Fauci, with Senator Paul and Secretary Kennedy pursuing an ideological “vendetta”.

Fauci, he said, has come to represent for some Republicans the “iconic embodiment of everything that they have come to believe is craven and corrupt in the US government response” to COVID.

He warned that their approach, though, could chill any desire for top scientists to wade into government.

“People will say Tony Fauci could have done things a little differently, he made a few mistakes, and he could have admitted those,” Morrison said.

“But the ‘big but’ is certainly none of that warrants what’s happening here.”

SACRAMENTO — Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is pressuring his Democratic rival, Xavier Becerra, to participate in a series of debates in the weeks leading up the Nov. 3 election to determine California’s next governor.

In a video shared by his campaign Friday, Hilton listed six debate invitations he has received from cable broadcaster CNN and television news stations around the state, beginning in late September.

“I have accepted every single one of these debates,” said Hilton, standing behind a debate-style podium and gesturing at an empty one beside him with Becerra’s name on it . “This guy, Xavier Becerra, has not accepted any of them. That is completely outrageous. We have to have a debate in this governor’s race. So come on, Xavier.”

The video shows Hilton walk out of frame and return with a cardboard cutout of Becerra, which he plunks behind the second podium while urging the candidate to “man up and show up.”

Becerra’s campaign said he will debate Hilton and blasted the Republican for “chasing” publicity.

“Snowflake Steve is melting faster than he can plan another press conference. While he’s there chasing media and doing Donald Trump’s bidding, Xavier Becerra is building a coalition of Californians ready to elect a governor who won’t bring Trump’s chaos to their front door,” Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement to The Times.

Hilton, a British immigrant who once advised a U.K. prime minister, is endorsed by President Donald Trump and finished second in the June open-party primary election with 24.6% of the vote.

Years of hosting a weekly show on Fox News has made Hilton comfortable on camera and the debate stage; he appeared at-ease during a series of debates earlier this year while lobbing attacks at his Democratic opponents and blaming the party for the state’s long list of problems.

Becerra served as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. Before that, he spent four years battling the first Trump administration as California attorney general and more than two decades representing a Los Angeles congressional district.

The longtime Democratic politician became the come-from-behind winner of the primary, finishing with 28.1% of the vote after polling near the middle or bottom of a crowded field for months. His meteoric rise came after another front-runner, former Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out after a former staffer and other women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct.

Becerra has kept a relatively low profile since the election with few public appearances.

Hilton has held several campaign events in recent weeks to court independent and Latino voters. As a Trump-endorsed Republican, he faces a steep climb in California, where the president is deeply unpopular and a GOP candidate has not won a statewide election since 2006.

Last week he accused Democratic leaders of “abandoning” residents in Boyle Heights, where flies, rats and the stench of rotting food have lingered weeks after a frozen food warehouse was damaged by fire.

Hilton also recently took out full-page ads in The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle to make the case to voters who dislike Trump but are dissatisfied with the status quo in California.

NORTHRIDGE — Of course David Duke did not come dressed in sheets. Of course he did not burn crosses on the Cal State Northridge campus. They’re always more clever than that. He wore a dark suit, a bright red tie and his best winning smile. He quoted Shakespeare and recited many of the same gentle, if disingenuous, arguments for ending affirmative action put forward by proponents of Proposition 209.

It was about “fairness,” Duke said. Preferences were by definition a form of discrimination, and discrimination in any form is deplorable. Public safety demands that merit be the only qualification in hiring police officers and firefighters. The debt of history has been paid; it’s time to move forward.

David Duke, in fact, looked and sounded not at all unlike the patron of Prop. 209, Gov. Pete Wilson–with one notable exception. Duke himself was more than eager to point it out. “Wilson,” he said with contempt, “and most of the so-called Republican establishment are afraid to even use the word ‘white people.’ ” They cloak their arguments in what he called “fine words.” They talk around the heart of the matter.

And that’s when the sheets came on.

*

Duke has been reading my mail, it occurred to me as the debate heated up. He has tapped into my telephone service. As he made his own bent case against affirmative action, I closed my eyes and could hear echoes of the many angry letters and answering machine soliloquies I receive from white men who have found in Prop. 209 a vehicle for their frustration.

“What’s wrong,” they ask bluntly, if often anonymously, “with white people sticking up for white people?”

They speak of being “fed up,” of things simply having gone “too far” in the realm of race relations. Almost invariably, they link Prop. 209 to the O.J. Simpson verdict, as if the jury represented the end game of affirmative action. They wrap in immigration–to them another sign of the decline of the American ideal–and lament the “political correctness” they believe has muzzled them.

Duke came to Northridge decidedly unmuzzled. He brought a warning for “white people.” They were becoming “second-class citizens” in, as he put it, their own country: “You have a right to have your children live in a nation that reflects the values of their forefathers, not become more like Mexico, or Haiti, or Zimbabwe. . . . That is where we are headed, and that is what affirmative action is all about.”

At this bilge, most of the students began to hiss. Duke seemed undaunted. He was not speaking to the students. He was speaking to the television cameras. He was speaking to all those anonymous correspondents and callers out there who believe that “white people” are the ones getting the raw deal in America these days. He was reminding them that this is what Prop. 209 really “is all about.” In his view. In their view.

*

Now, the invitation of Duke was a source of great controversy. Wilson and Ward Connerly, chairman of the Prop. 209 campaign, saw it as a political setup, an attempt to lay a guilt-trip-by-association on those who would support Prop. 209. Their opponents no doubt worked to exploit Duke’s appearance, to make wobblers on the issue ask the question: If Duke is for this thing, then why am I?

It’s possible, however, that as a strategy, Duke’s presence could prove to have been too clever. Surely a portion of Prop. 209 supporters has bought honestly into the argument that affirmative action has outlived its purpose, that it has become unnecessarily divisive. Duke’s appearance could only inflame this constituency: Nobody wants to be accused of keeping company with bigots.

At the same time, Duke, without question, does represent the views of those who would eliminate affirmative action to strike a blow for “white people.” How many of these are there? It can’t be said. These are not people who open their hearts to pollsters. They can, however, vote–and their votes will count the same as everybody else. And, Duke’s appearance also worked to rally and reinforce this part of the Prop. 209 base, to quell any confusion that might be created by those soft, pro-Prop. 209 commercials about Martin Luther King and civil rights and all that.

Still, it wasn’t a total loss for the opposition. Perhaps the strongest argument against the initiative is that it simply is too early to abandon the struggle for civil rights, that now is not the time to start dismantling the few, flimsy ladders America has managed to stretch across the racial divide. The demons of racism might be on the run, but the exorcism is hardly complete. A point David Duke, by his mere presence, made abundantly clear.

July 1 (UPI) — Mexico will launch a national debate on artificial intelligence and social media after the 2026 FIFA World Cup concludes in a move aimed at laying the groundwork for future regulatory framework.

President Claudia Sheinbaum said the process will begin after July 19 and will bring together lawmakers, technology experts, academics, media representatives and parents to discuss the impact of digital platforms and artificial intelligence on different areas of society.

Sheinbaum emphasized that the process will be conducted under the government’s stated premise of not infringing on freedom of expression.

Among the issues to be discussed are mental health, protection of children and adolescents, concentration of power among major technology platforms, development of artificial intelligence and the possibility of establishing limits on cellphone use in schools.

“The discussion should be opened on the control of platforms: Who controls them? How many people own these platforms? How is that power concentrated?” the president said during her Tuesday morning news conference.

Sheinbaum also raised the need to examine who controls the development of artificial intelligence, what regulatory frameworks exist in other countries, what benefits they offer and what risks they pose for Mexico.

“It is very important for Mexico to enter this regulatory process without resorting to censorship,” she said.

The announcement prompted immediate reactions on social media, where experts, civil society organizations, academics and users began debating the scope of possible regulation.

While some argued that Mexico’s legal framework needs to be updated to address the challenges posed by digital platforms and artificial intelligence, others expressed concern that poorly drafted legislation could become a tool to limit criticism or restrict freedom of expression.

News outlet Sinaloa Hoy reported that the proposal comes at a time when social media has become the primary source of information and political criticism for young people.

According to opinion polls, including one conducted by consulting firm Enkoll, the president has a 44% disapproval rating among people ages 18 to 24.

Mexican political analyst Juan Ortiz wrote on X that regulation may be necessary, “but a poorly written rule could end up punishing political criticism under the pretext of protecting minors or combating disinformation.”

“In San Luis Potosí, its ‘regulation’ of AI ended with women journalists being detained,” he said.

Mexican attorney Gildo Garza also questioned the announcement, arguing that regulation could become a mechanism to control public discourse.

In a post on X, he warned that previous experiences in Venezuela and Nicaragua show how initial narratives about protection or regulation ultimately resulted in restrictive laws, judicial persecution and punishment of critical voices.

According to a report by the Anáhuac Universities Network, the path toward digital legislation in Mexico has been marked by intense activity in Congress. Since April 2023, lawmakers have introduced 85 legislative initiatives to create laws or amend existing ones to regulate artificial intelligence and the digital environment.

The vast majority of those proposals, 67, have remained stalled or are pending approval. That has been attributed to a lack of consensus, technical complexity and concerns among various sectors that such measures could affect freedom of expression.

A man named Daniel took to Twitter to share his frustration after a fellow passenger refused to swap seats with him so he could sit next to his girlfriend on their flight, sparking a viral plane passenger etiquette debate

What would you say if someone asked to swap seats with you on a flight?

It’s a difficult and touchy topic. We live in an age in which most people who fly will play the easyJet and Ryanair lottery, in which seats are allocated to them at random if they opt not to pay a hefty fee to choose where they sit.

That means that if you end up with a solid spot on a flight, you’ve either forked out for it or your lucky numbers have come in.

I recently wrote about how I played the Ryanair roulette during a trip to Athens and ended up with the best seats on the plane, for both the outbound and return flight. You can read about my unproven but promising technique here.

Tensions rose on a recent flight over seats, and specifically, whether it is acceptable to ask somebody to swap with you. It all kicked off when one man took to Twitter to vent his frustration after a fellow passenger refused to exchange seats with him so he could sit alongside his girlfriend.

Their reason for declining? They simply wanted to enjoy the window view.

But who was in the right here, and who was in the wrong?

In his tweet, the man, named Daniel, wrote: “A boomer refused to swap seats on a flight this morning to let my gf and I sit together on the last day before we’re apart for 2.5 months – because they wanted to look out the window. Strong generational metaphor areas, Shane.”

Hundreds liked his post, yet more than 200 people waded in with their opinions in the comments section.

One user branded him an “entitled brat” saying: “Did you stomp your feet like the spoiled, entitled brat you come across as???”

Another fired back: “Your lack of planning is nobody else’s problem.” A third chimed in: “Your petty complaint has no merit and naming him reflects very much on you, not the boomer.”

A fourth person argued that the poster could have taken steps to avoid the situation unfolding. “There are so many steps you could have taken prior to boarding to ensure you sat next to her if you felt it that important. You put yourself in that situation, not the boomer,” they wrote. Some users noted that it was difficult to fully assess the situation without knowing what the other passenger was thinking or going through at the time.

Following the wave of criticism, Daniel decided to launch a poll to settle the debate once and for all. He asked followers to vote on whether or not it’s acceptable to request a seat swap on a plane.

The final results revealed that 64 percent of those who participated considered it a “reasonable request”, while 36 percent felt you’d be pushing your luck by doing so.

Do you think it’s unreasonable to ask someone to swap seats with you on a plane? Let us know in the comments below.

TIJUANA, Mexico — Vivianne Petit Frere’s brightly painted Haitian restaurant sits blocks from the towering U.S. border wall in Tijuana.

Called Lakou Lakay, the name in Haitian creole means “home,” and it reflects her family’s deepening roots in their adopted homeland where her granddaughter was born two years ago, automatically making her a Mexican citizen.

Like the United States, Mexico extends citizenship to children born within its borders.

President Trump insists the U.S. is the only nation to do so as he seeks to deny birthright citizenship for children whose parents are living in the country illegally or have temporary legal status.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in soon on the constitutionality of his birthright citizenship order. Trump signed it on Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, amid his Republican administration’s broad immigration crackdown. The idea has faced skepticism from conservative and liberal justices alike.

In April, Trump posted on Truth Social: “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

In fact, about three dozen countries, mostly in the Americas, guarantee automatic citizenship to children born on their territory — among them, Canada, Honduras, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and of course, Mexico.

Petit Frere fled Haiti in 2019. She traveled from Brazil and walked through the Panamanian jungle to Mexico chasing the so-called American Dream with the intention of crossing the border and settling with relatives in Florida. But she soon learned that was an illusion, while Mexico opened its doors.

Her restaurant’s name symbolizes in her Haitian culture a shared space affording a sense of belonging. On the walls she has framed signs in Spanish, English and Creole that make clear it is more than an eatery offering tasty traditional Haitian dishes, such as fish with plantains, and rice and beans.

“Every dish tells a story, every detail connects cultures,” one sign says. “We aim to promote an authentic cultural exchange between two peoples with similar historical roots yet where Haitian identity proudly blossoms on Mexican soil.”

In just over five years in Tijuana, Petit Frere has established a thriving business, become fluent in Spanish and is getting a degree in social work.

And she welcomed the first generation Mexican in her family, her granddaughter, Alexca.

There are no figures on how many children born to noncitizens have received Mexican birthright citizenship. Tens of thousands of Haitians are living in Mexico. In 2021, when Mexico saw a significant increase in Haitian migration, at least 10 percent of arriving Haitian women were pregnant, according to the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration.

Citizenship and birth

In the U.S., birthright citizenship was enshrined after the Civil War through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, in part to ensure former slaves would be citizens.

The right was expanded to immigrants’ children in the late 1800s when the Supreme Court ruled nearly anyone born in the U.S. — no matter their parents’ legal status — has citizenship.

The practice, many legal historians believe, dates to the 1600s and 1700s, with European rulers encouraging migration to the expanding American colonies. Those colonists, though, wanted any of their children born overseas to retain European citizenship.

So even as the colonial boundaries shifted “you’re a citizen as long as you’re born within the domain of the king, of the monarch,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University. “But the legal tie between the home country in Europe and the settlers remained strong through the promise of birthright citizenship.”

Dominican Republic removed birthright citizenship

In 2007, the Dominican Electoral Council officially ordered the denial of citizenship to all children born to parents without legal status.

Six years later, a Dominican court applied it retroactively to 1929.

Over a decade later, as many as 130,000 people remained stateless despite passage of a law in 2014 to correct the court decision after it drew strong international condemnation, according to the Center for Migration Studies of New York. The law now impacts the next generation, which remains vulnerable to deportation.

Her growing Mexican family

Petit Frere was born in French Saint Martin, a Caribbean island that does not offer automatic birthright citizenship. She and her mom, who is Haitian, were deported to Haiti when she was 6.

Petit Frere left Haiti seeking a better life. She was dismayed to discover when her teenage daughter left Haiti to be reunited with her in Tijuana three years later, she was nearly five months pregnant. She had been a teen mother herself and had hoped for a different path for her daughter.

But Alexca, a bubbly toddler who giggles and runs about, has conquered her grandmother’s heart. Petit Frere said she’s grateful her granddaughter was born in Mexico rather than Haiti, where surging gang violence has left more than 1 in 10 homeless.

A Mexican passport will make travel easier, she said. Few nations allow Haitian passport holders to visit visa-free.

“As a Mexican citizen, she will have more opportunities,” Petit Frere said.

That’s also true for her three nieces who were born in Brazil and were made automatic citizens there, she said.

Petit Frere said she and her daughter had permanent residency in Mexico before her granddaughter was born. But other parents in Tijuana’s Haitian community did not. Mexico allows the parents of children with birthright citizenship to become permanent residents.

“There are a lot of children in Tijuana who are 6, 7, 8 years old now who are Mexican and their parents who are Haitian did not have legal status but now have become permanent residents because their children were born here,” she said.

Petit Frere started paperwork for Mexican citizenship, which would make it easier to expand her business.

Petit Frere also is a community organizer with the Haitian Bridge Alliance, advocating for the Haitian migrant community. She said she hopes to pursue another degree in international migration, possibly through a U.S. university.

“The children of immigrants are proving to be the most outstanding in the world,” she said. Efforts to limit birthright citizenship “could just be out of jealousy,” she said.

Watson writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Tim Sullivan in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

JESY Nelson has shared her twin daughters’ spinal braces with an emotional message ahead of the upcoming Parliament debate.

The mum-of-two made a candid post explaining her daughters now have to wear them every day.

Jesy shared a snap of her twin daughters Ocean and Story’s spinal braces as she urged fans to attend the Parliament debate on SMA screening.

She captioned the image: “Just a reminder that future SMA babies’ lives don’t need to look like this!

“These are Ocean and Story’s spinal braces that [they] now have to wear every day.”

Jesy also shared a snap of the Parliament debate poster and wrote: “I hope to see as many of you there tomorrow. It’s going to be a big day.”

SO BRAND NEW

What Jesy Nelson really thinks of Perrie’s brutal put-down after ‘glow-up’ hol

KATIE’S RAGE

Katie Price slams ‘beggy’ women after Lee Andrews gets saucy snap from fan

It comes after Jesy spoke out about the unjust and “nsane” SMA “postcode lottery” – which “decides if children will be disabled or not.”

The loving mum appeared on social media in a candid video expressing her deep frustrations over ‘unfair’ Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) heel prick testing.

The X Factor star – who has racked up over 150k signatures – is calling for SMA to be tested for at birth regardless of where you live.

The debate is set to take place tomorrow, June 22, and, if granted, SMA screenings will be added for newborns.

The singer’s daughters Ocean Jade and Story Monroe were born prematurely in May last year and were diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type 1.

In the emotional video, the singer said: “I just wanted to come on here to basically chat about a few things that are just so incredibly important to me and I know so many other people.

“Some of you may be aware of the fact that I’ve been trying to get SMA as part of the heel prick test here in England, and thank God for you guys, the signatures got over 150,000 and because of that, it is now going to get debated in parliament this Monday coming up, which is just crazy to me to know that we did that and I just need you guys to know that this has never been debated in parliament before.

“There has been a whole community of people that have been screaming and shouting about this for years and years and years, and it’s never been able to get this far, because it’s been ignored every single time.

“But you guys did it, because you made enough noise and you supported this and you got it there and I cannot thank you guys enough…

“So many thoughts have been going through my mind over this week, because every time I think about it, I’m like, how am I going to Parliament on Monday to debate whether children, future children, are going to be disabled or not?

“That’s how deep it is, because if your child gets this treatment from birth with a simple heel prick test and they get this treatment, you would not even know that they have SMA. 

“That’s how deep it is, right? That is how life-changing this treatment is. You would not even know that your child has SMA, but if they don’t get this treatment and they don’t get the heel prick test, they will go on to be disabled…

“And not only be disabled, but they will go on to have breathing machines, coughing machines, constant operations. It never ever ends.

“And I still can’t believe that in this day and age, when we’ve had three life-changing treatments now for nearly six years, it’s still a thing. It’s still not here in England.

“It is being rolled out in October, but only in certain parts of England.

“How does that make sense? How are we playing postcode lottery with children’s lives? How is that okay? I cannot stress you how important this is.

“This is our future, future children we are deciding on. Mums now that are currently pregnant and maybe about to have a baby that could potentially have this disease. We’re basically going to decide whether they’re going to be disabled or not, like it blows my mind.

“And I just seem to stress this so much, because that’s how deep it is. We are playing with children’s lives and it is not okay.

“It’s not okay to be like, if you live in this area, your child won’t be disabled, but if you live in this area, yeah, they’ll be disabled.

“We’re not doing this anymore. We’ve made too much noise now for this to be ignored.

“Anyway, sorry for getting irate about this, but it makes me so sad to think that my children’s lives could look so different and not only my children’s lives, but so many other families and children are dealing with this across the whole of England.”

Alongside the tear-jerking post, she added: “We have had some amazing news that screening is due to start in October this year, which is a huge step forward!

“But there’s still a big problem… it will only cover 72% of England. That means some babies won’t be screened simply because of where they live.

“A postcode lottery like that just isn’t fair. Every baby deserves the same chance, everybaby’ss life matters!

“On Monday 22nd June, the petition will be debated by MPs in Parliament. I’ll be there alongside @gileslomax from SMA UK and we’re hoping this debate will help push for screening to be available for every newborn across England.

“We’ll be arriving at 5pm on Monday, and it would mean so much to see as many of you there as possible. We’d love to get a photo together outside Parliament before we head inside.

“Please if you can, tag your MP in the comments and ask them to attend the debate and support universal newborn screening for SMA.

“The areas currently missing out on screening are: Bristol, Cambridge, Portsmouth, Leeds, Liverpool, Oxford.

“No baby should miss out because of their postcode. Let’s keep fighting until every newborn has the same opportunity. Thank you for standing with us every step of the way!”

To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, clinched one of the top spots in California’s gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, earning him the right to challenge veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra in the November election to determine the state’s next governor.

The contest offers voters two starkly different politicians. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump and has wooed his MAGA supporters, blaming Democratic policies for California’s homelessness crisis, high cost of living and other entrenched ills. Becerra campaigned as a battle-tested warrior against the Republican president and a champion of affordable healthcare. He could make history as the state’s first elected Latino governor.

Hilton’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Tuesday, days after Becerra secured one of the top spots and a week after the June 2 election. Under California’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation. According to the latest vote count, which is ongoing, Becerra has a slight edge over Hilton.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, center, flanked by lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, left, and California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin, right, hold a press conference to discuss election and voting reforms at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk headquarters on Tuesday in Norwalk.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Democrat Tom Steyer finished in third place. The hedge fund founder and environmental activist spent $216 million of his own money on his campaign, and now joins the legion of other high-profile, self-funding candidates rejected by California voters.

Becerra heads into the Nov. 3 election with a distinct advantage — Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by an almost 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

The contrast between Becerra and Hilton, both on policy and political personas, couldn’t be more pronounced.

A British immigrant and former political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, Hilton, 56, embraces traditional conservative ideals that have echoed across the country since the days of President Reagan — cutting taxes, weeding out government fraud and waste and promising to unbridle entrepreneurs and homebuilders from stifling state regulation.

But he’s also ventured into MAGA territory, declining to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and promising to extradite California doctors who provide abortion pills to other states for prosecution.

Becerra, 68, came up in Los Angeles politics in the 1980s and has long supported policies to expand protections and resources for immigrants with or without legal status. Married to Harvard-educated OB-GYN Carolina Reyes, Becerra has also staunchly opposed abortion restrictions throughout his career.

In Congress and other positions, Becerra earned a reputation as a cerebral, analytical politician who would fully commit to his positions after taking time to mull them through.

A straight-laced family man with a Catholic upbringing, Becerra was more reserved during the debates — a quiet confidence that drew some voters to support him. He also faced criticism from his rivals for failing to offer detailed housing and healthcare policies.

Hilton, who cuts an unmistakable image with his bald crown and clipped English accent, proved himself as a polished communicator during the debates, skills honed by his years as a Fox News analyst.

Television hosts must translate complex issues into easily digestible sound bites, said Republican strategist Matt Klink. “Most voters want a CliffsNotes version of the issues,” Klink said.

Republican strategist Kevin Spillane credits Hilton’s TV show, “The Next Revolution,” which ran for six years, with boosting his profile, calling Fox News the most important media vehicle within the conservative and Republican framework.

Hilton “understands how politics and how communications work,” Spillane said.

He often appeared relaxed during the gubernatorial debates, at points even complimenting or joking with his rivals as they parried on stage.

At a CBS debate earlier this year, Becerra referred to President Trump, who endorsed Hilton, as the Republican candidate’s “daddy.” Hilton responded with a quip that quickly deflated the attack.

“It would be rather amazing,” said Hilton, at the possibility of being Trump’s son. “My daddy was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team.”

In an interview last week, before the election, Hilton said he enjoyed the debates. “In a weird way, I was sad when we had the last one,” he said. “I’m looking forward to debating whoever it is.”

As a former political advisor to Britain’s Conservative Party, Hilton helped usher in a green, socially liberal strain of conservatism.

He also infuriated colleagues in the coalition government, the British press reported, proposing a stream of unconventional ideas: scrapping maternity leave, abolishing job centers, even buying cloud-bursting technology so Britain would have more sunshine. In 2012, he moved full time to the Bay Area.

Hilton, who founded a nonprofit on California policies, was known for his frequent visits in the last couple of years to the state Capitol for discussions with legislators.

Rival Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who was trailing Steyer in fourth place in the latest vote count, ultimately didn’t seek to appeal to those beyond his rural, MAGA base, Klink said.

By contrast, Hilton presented himself as the “more cosmopolitan” candidate who “can talk to the hedge fund manager or the small-business owner or the Sacramento lobbyist,” said Klink said.

“Hilton was more energized at the end, when it mattered,” said Spillane, contrasting the two Republicans.

Past Republican candidates, including businessman John Cox in 2018 and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in 2010, have self-financed their campaigns with their vast fortunes.

By contrast, Hilton spent just a few million dollars on media advertising, he said in an interview last week.

He said he ignored advice from consultants who told him to do a launch announcement and then unleash a wave of ads in the last month of the campaign.

“I just said, ‘I want to do it the old-fashioned way,’ and that’s what we’ve been doing,” said Hilton in the interview before the election. “We’ve been to nearly every single county…. stepped it up with our town halls.”

Nina Royal, 83, who lives in Los Angeles and is a community advocate for her Tujunga neighborhood, voted for Hilton, saying that he understands California’s problems.

“He’s a realist,” said Royal. “He has a clear view of what needs to be done.”

Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON, June 3 (UPI) — As the Justice Department increases efforts to strip some naturalized Americans of their U.S. citizenship, U.S. senators on Wednesday debated whether such efforts violate the Constitution.

Republicans argued during a Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that it has been too hard to take away citizenship of naturalized citizens. But Democrats oppose increasing denaturalization and said it reflects President Donald Trump‘s broader anti-immigrant agenda.

“When someone lies during that [naturalization] process, conceals material facts, hides criminal conduct, masks allegiance to a foreign enemy or swears loyalty with mental reservation, he commits fraud against the United States,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., chairman of the subcommittee.

Countered Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, a naturalized citizen. “It’s more than astounding, it should be unconstitutional. Let’s be clear. This has never been about law and order for the Republicans. This is all about getting immigrants. It’s about terrorizing immigrant communities.”

The Trump administration has significantly increased denaturalization efforts since the beginning of the president’s second term. Between 1990 and 2017, the government opened 11 denaturalization cases, on average, every year, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Since January, the government has opened 34 denaturalization cases and revoked citizenship of 11 people. This is part of a larger, unprecedented push led by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to review 100 to 200 denaturalization cases per month.

“The Trump administration is right to revive denaturalization,” Schmitt said. Democrats, however, raised alarms that the push will have far-reaching consequences for naturalized Americans who are accused of crimes after becoming citizens.

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said he has no issue denaturalizing citizens who have committed fraud or misled officials during their naturalization process.

“I support that, but I don’t agree that naturalized citizens should be punished for something that happens after they become a citizen,” he said. “It’s the view of the Supreme Court. So, we do not have to reach too far back in our nation’s history to see that a familiar cycle is unfolding.”

The denaturalization campaign has marked a significant shift from previous administrations, which mainly targeted those with links to terrorist organizations or found guilty of war crimes.

But a June 2025 memo from the Department of Justice told government attorneys to expand the campaign to those involved in fraud or sex crimes. The memo later added a broad instruction that attorneys should pursue “any other cases … that the division deems to be sufficiently important.”

A law professor and an attorney pushed back against that tactic.

“The idea is to try to normalize the idea of denaturalization so that they can focus efforts against people who are kind of universally condemned,” said Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “Then it’ll be a smaller step to start using denaturalization against other people.”

Robertson said that she had spoken to many naturalized citizens who now fear their citizenship may be revoked over actions like criticizing the government. She cited growing attacks from lawmakers to denaturalize public figures like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“If they’re threatening these high level people, what protection does an ordinary person have?” Robertson asked rhetorically.

David Leopold, an immigration attorney in Cleveland and former president of the American Immigration Attorney’s Association, said he sees similar fears among many of his naturalized clients. He said some have been stopped at airports and asked about their immigration history, despite having U.S. citizenship.

“This administration has succeeded in doing what a lot of authoritarian governments do, and that is spreading fear,” Leopold said.

Democrat Welch said the Trump administration’s denaturalization push seeks to advance the president’s deportation goals.

“The administration has — it is absolutely clear — a very radical goal. And that is mass deportation of immigrants from our country,” Welch said. “It’s doing real damage to our country, and as part of that effort, we’ve seen the abusive lengths that this administration is willing to go to.”

In January, Schmitt, supported by Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., introduced the SCAM Act, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the denaturalization process.

One notable expansion of the Act would lengthen the statute of limitations from five to 10 years for being able to revoke the citizenship status of naturalized Americans. The bill has yet to face votes.

“I’m proud to co-sponsor the Scam Act because I believe citizenship must be grounded in conduct that confirms rather than contradicts the promises made in connection with the naturalization process,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.