deficit

The No. 3 UCLA women’s basketball team won its first game of the season, defeating feisty San Diego State 77–53 on Monday at the Honda Center.

The Bruins (1–0) built an eight-point lead in the first quarter, but the unranked Aztecs (0–1) managed to cut the deficit by three by the end of the period.

San Diego State struggled to score in the second quarter when UCLA went on a 12–2 run.

The scoring gap continued to increase as the Bruins extended their lead to 15 points, ending the first half with a 37–22 advantage.

UCLA center Lauren Betts scored 21 points and grabbed four rebounds, guard Gabriela Jaquez recorded a double-double with 15 points and 11 rebounds and guard Charlisse Ledger-Walker, who returned to the court after redshirting last season, contributed 12 points and five assists.

The Bruins opened the third quarter with a 16–0 run. Although the Aztecs fought hard to close the gap, the Bruins maintained control, ending the quarter with a 58–38 lead.

San Diego State pushed UCLA again in the fourth quarter, but the Aztecs couldn’t make a meaningful dent in their deficit.

Aztecs sophomore guard Kaelyn Hamilton came off the bench to lead her team with 11 points, while guards Nat Martinez and Nala Williams scored 10 points apiece.

UCLA will play its home opener Thursday against UC Santa Barbara.

ATLANTA — Vice President George Bush and Sen. Bob Dole, chief rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, clashed over trade policy and derided each other’s plans for reduction of the federal deficit at a presidential campaign debate here Sunday.

“I don’t think we should go down the protectionist road,” Bush declared in warning against tougher trade measures now pending in Congress at the debate staged here in Georgia to focus attention on the candidates’ views in advance of the March 8 Super Tuesday Southern primaries.

“The best answer (to the nation’s trade problems) is open markets,” Bush said, adding that he was concerned about “the inevitability of retaliation” against the United States by foreign trading partners.

But Dole, who is supporting stronger trade measures on Capitol Hill, disagreed sharply. “Every time I hear the word retaliation I am reminded that Japan and South Korea and Taiwan already block Florida oranges and Georgia peaches and Alabama melons.” Dole contended that an Alabama melon would cost about $55 in Japan because of that country’s restrictive trade practices.

‘Talking About Jobs’

“Let’s be realistic,” the Kansas lawmaker said. “We’re talking about American jobs, not protectionism.”

On the issue of the budget deficit, Dole dismissed a four-year budget spending freeze advocated by Bush as a “four-year cop-out” because the plan limits only overall spending rather than specific programs.

“He’s just going to freeze bad programs for four years and not do anything about it,” said Dole, who favors a one-year across-the-board ceiling on all spending programs, except aid for the needy. Dole contended that in four years Bush’s plan would leave the nation with a deficit of $153 billion.

But Bush disputed Dole’s figures and argued that the senator’s proposal “would cut into the muscle of defense.”

“How does your plan work?” Bush demanded of Dole.

“How does your plan work?” Dole shot back.

A Spirited Argument

Bush made his most spirited argument for his deficit plan in an exchange with New York Rep. Jack Kemp, who is vying with Pat Robertson, former religious broadcaster, to become the conservative alternative to either of the two front-runners.

Responding to Kemp’s charge that the budget freeze proposals meant that national security would be sacrificed “on the altar of mindless budgeting,” Bush said: “The freeze I’m talking about provides the President with flexibility.”

“The point is, Jack, you don’t care about deficits, you never have. You don’t think they’re important. And they are public enemy No. 1.”

“George Bush is now making my speech,” grumbled Dole, who has sought to depict himself in the campaign as the chief Republican foe of budget deficits.

Although Kemp and Bush argued about budget policy, the two were by and large in agreement in opposing changes in trade policy in contrast with Dole and Robertson. Trade has become a hot issue in the Super Tuesday Republican presidential campaign in large measure because of the impact of textile imports on the economies of South Carolina and other textile-producing states in this region.

Dole and Robertson both support trade legislation, which Bush and Kemp oppose.

‘Sounds Like Gephardt’

“Your trade talk sounds like Dick Gephardt,” Kemp told Dole at one point, referring to Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, who has based much of his drive for the Democratic presidential nomination on a controversial proposal to give the United States the power to retaliate against unfair foreign trade practices.

Earlier in the debate, Robertson introduced the trade issue into the discussion. “People that I’ve talked to can’t abide the thought that America is going to be No. 2 in the world in the 21st Century,” Robertson said. Decrying the rise of textile imports from China and the Soviet Union, the former broadcaster said: “I don’t believe we can continue to permit the deindustrialization of America.

“I’m for free trade in this country but it’s got to be fair. And I think if those people don’t deal fairly with us, it’s high time we started getting tough with them. I don’t want to preside over Uncle Sucker, I want to preside over Uncle Sam.”

But Kemp promptly took issue with that argument in impassioned terms.

‘Barriers to Imports’

“If we’re going to go to Iowa, Pat and Bob,” he said, addressing Robertson and Dole, “and tell the folks in Iowa we want to boost exports of grain and corn and soybeans and then go to South Carolina, as you both have done, and tell them you’re going to put up barriers to imports, we will be making a mistake under your leadership.”

Kemp charged that such a shift in trade policy would be like “the mistake that was made in 1929 and 1930 when a Republican Congress caused the worst trade war in the history of this world with the Smoot-Hawley tariff act.”

Calling for lower tax rates on labor and capital and stable exchange rates to spur economic growth, the New York congressman warned that putting up trade barriers “is not just protectionist, it is mindless with regard to the fact that we have to compete in an export war.

“So let’s not make the mistake we made in the 1930s.”

Sunday’s debate, like the debate staged here Saturday for Democratic presidential candidates, was sponsored by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal. It brought together all of the 1988 GOP presidential contenders for the first time since the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 16.

Republican Survivors

A prior effort to assemble all the Republican survivors on one platform failed 10 days ago in Dallas when Dole and Robertson refused to participate, charging that the arrangements in Bush’s home state unfairly favored the vice president.

Since winning the New Hampshire primary, Bush has seemed relaxed and confident on the stump, bolstered not only by his victory in the Granite State but also by his financial resources and his reputedly powerful organization in most of the 14 Southern and border Super Tuesday states.

The vice president’s chief rival, Dole, won the South Dakota primary and the Minnesota caucuses last week. But Dole’s satisfaction with those successes was dimmed by evidence of discord within his campaign organization, signaled most notably by the firing of two key advisers, David Keene and Donald Devine, by campaign Chairman William Brock.

Meanwhile Robertson campaign strategists have been concerned about the potential impact on his candidacy of the disclosures of the sexual misadventures of television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart.

For his part, Kemp, short on money and lacking the sort of Southern base Robertson can rely on among evangelical Christians, must win the backing of hard-core conservatives to stay in the race. His first objective is to finish ahead of either Bush or Robertson in the South Carolina Republican primary next Saturday, the results of which are expected to have considerable symbolic impact on the March 8 vote.

When Julie Vanloo drew her second traveling violation before halftime, the crowd’s disapproval rose in unison.

On the floor, with tempers simmering on the Sparks’ bench, a delay-of-game whistle drew another round of jeers from the Crypto.com Arena crowd.

The calls weren’t the only sources of frustration for the Sparks — the team also was trailing the last-place Connecticut Sun by 10 points.

Still, the flare-up might have been what the Sparks needed to rally to a 102-91 victory over the Sun to earn their eighth win in nine games.

“Since the beginning of the season, I’ve been optimistic about what this team would look like and why I want to be here and why I want to continue to be here,” Dearica Hamby said. “[This team is] one of the fastest teams I’ve been with. … We’re not done yet, we’ve got a lot more to accomplish.”

After their deficit swelled to 13 points late in the second quarter, the Sparks (14-15) went on a 14-0 run, trimming the Sun’s lead to 51-49 by halftime.

In the third quarter, Hamby helped the Sparks keep pace with the Sun (5-24). Hamby racked up six points, an assist and a defensive rebound over four minutes.

A three-pointer by Rae Burrell late in the third quarter gave the Sparks a 66-64 lead. The Sun managed to tie it in the fourth quarter before a Cameron Brink three with 8:06 left gave the Sparks the lead for good.

Sparks teammates (from left) Rickea Jackson, Cameron Brink and Rae Burrell react during the fourth quarter Thursday.

(Luke Hales / Getty Images)

“We’ve hung in there and, as I’ve said, didn’t lose sight of the big picture when we had all those injuries and a lot of adversity,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said. “We’ve had a lot of adversity in that sense, and took some tough losses. But it’s a great group. They’re good people and they want this team to do well.”

Julie Allemand was a consistent force throughout the game, finishing with 10 points, 11 assists and 11 rebounds to become the 22nd player in WNBA history to record a triple-double.

“She was just dialing today, she was really good,” Roberts said. “It was impossible in the second half to take her out of the game. … She was just unbelievable.”

From the opening quarter — when Allemand flashed her handle with a flurry of steps, an in-and-out dribble and a hard drive before dishing to Rickea Jackson for a three-pointer at the extended elbow — the Allemand Act didn’t let up.

She proved to be an essential floor general for the Sparks, as the Sun held leading scorer Kelsey Plum to just one point in the first half.

“KP didn’t have a great offensive first half,” Allemand said. “I’m trying as a point guard to see what I need to do to help this team — if it’s scoring, if it’s rebounding, playing defense, offense, depending how [to] fuel my teammates on the court, and I think that’s what I did today.”

Hamby finished with 21 points, five rebounds and four assists and Jackson scored 20 points. Plum surged in the second half to finish with 18 points and Burrell had nine points off the bench.

With Brink back proving to be strong on both ends — she finished with 11 points, five blocks and two rebounds — the Sparks turned Crypto.com Arena’s boos into all cheers by the end of the game.

President Donald Trump’s administration dished out a cold burn to Trump’s ice-cream-loving predecessor, Joe Biden, saying he led the US ice cream industry down an economic rocky road.

“America had a trade surplus in ice cream in 2020 under President Trump’s leadership, but that surplus turned into a trade deficit of $40.6 million under President Biden’s watch,” the Office of the US Trade Representative wrote July 20 on X. The post included a chart that shows the US ice cream trade deficit with Japan, South Africa, the European Union, Brazil, Canada and Turkiye.

The US ice cream trade balance did change dramatically in 2021, the year Biden took office. The trade balance officially flipped negative – which means imports outnumber exports – in 2022 and has remained so since then.

But industry experts caution that US ice cream imports account for a minuscule fraction of all the US ice cream consumed in the US, and exports account for a tiny fraction of all US ice cream produced.

The trade change was driven mostly by a jump in imports. Exports have remained largely unchanged since 2020.

And the cherry on top? Disagreement over which products to classify as “ice cream” also affects data, experts say. For example, the data referenced by the office of the US Trade Representative also includes “edible ice”, which some experts (and dairy defenders) say doesn’t qualify as ice cream.

Removing edible ice shows that “the US is a net exporter by a significant margin of ($193 million) or +85% larger by value,” International Dairy Foods Association Executive Vice President Matt Herrick told PolitiFact via email.

Ice cream imports increase causes US trade deficit

From 1995 to 2020, the US had an ice cream trade surplus, ranging from about $20m to about $160m, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, an online economic data platform. Longtime customers include Mexico, followed by Saudi Arabia and Canada.

In 2021, that surplus nearly vanished, and in 2022 and 2023, the US notched up an ice cream trade deficit of $92m and $33m, respectively.

At first glance, importing frozen foods doesn’t seem practical.

“Shipping refrigerated and frozen products overseas is expensive,” dairy economist Betty Berningat of HighGround Dairy said. “Mexico is the top destination for US dairy exports.”

But many US and European companies have tapped into global markets.

“Consumers may also want a specific treat that is styled after or known to be from another country,” Herrick said.

Italy, the birthplace of gelato, is now the United States’ largest single source of imported ice cream. Italian ice cream imports more than quintupled from about $12m to almost $65m between 2020 and 2021 alone, before decreasing somewhat in 2023, the last year for which data is available.

Some of this stems from increased consumer demand for specialty pints. A report by Mordor Intelligence, a global market research firm, said “product innovation and premiumisation” have become key in the US ice cream industry.

“This trend is particularly evident in the growth of premium pint offerings and individually wrapped novelties that cater to both indulgence and portion control preferences,” the report said.

The US produces far more ice cream than it imports or exports

To get to the pint: The vast majority of ice cream consumed in the United States is made there, not overseas.

The Trump administration is cherry-picking stats from a fraction of a sliver of the US ice cream industry.

According to US Agriculture Department data, US ice cream makers churned out 1.31 billion gallons of ice cream in 2024. This includes regular ice cream, low-fat and nonfat ice cream, sherbet and frozen yoghurt.

By comparison, the US imported 2.35 million gallons of traditional ice cream in 2024 – that’s 0.18 percent of the amount produced domestically, Herrick said.

The US exported 16.4 million gallons of that domestic production, which is also a tiny fraction of 1.31 billion gallons of ice cream – a little more than 1 percent.

Factoring in ice cream mixes, excluding ‘edible ice’ products

Another caveat about the international trade data: It does not include “mixes”, which skews the totals, said Herrick of the International Dairy Foods Association.

Mixes are used to make ice cream shakes and soft-serve products, and they account for a significant portion of US ice cream exports. “Inclusion of such data points would change the picture quite significantly,” said Herrick. “While it is true that traditional ice cream and edible ice exports have seen decreased exports, the same cannot be said for exports of mixes.”

US milk-based drink exports increased 621 percent over the past five years, he said. In 2024, the US exported nearly $35m in mixes to the European Union.

Americans and dairy-based ice cream: A centuries-old love affair melting away?

The White House has churned out plenty of ice cream devotees.

George Washington stocked the capital with ice cream-making equipment. Thomas Jefferson is credited as being the first American to record an ice cream recipe. Ronald Reagan declared July National Ice Cream Month in 1984. Barack Obama even slung scoops back in the day.

Biden, who was often sighted with a cone in hand, proclaimed while visiting Jeni’s Splendid Ice Cream headquarters in 2016: “My name is Joe Biden, and I love ice cream.”

But consumption of regular dairy ice cream – a category that does not include frozen yoghurt, sherbet or nonfat and low-fat ice creams – has been trending down for years.

In 1975, Americans ate an average of 18.2 pounds each of ice cream per year. That figure fell to 11.7 pounds by 2023.

Our ruling

The office of the US Trade Representative purported a summertime scoop: “America had a trade surplus in ice cream in 2020 under President Trump’s leadership, but that surplus turned into a trade deficit of $40.6 million under President Biden’s watch.”

It’s accurate that the US ice cream trade balance had a surplus for a quarter of a century before turning negative while Biden was president.

But the US Trade Representative’s statement makes the US ice cream deficit appear out of cone-trol.

There are three scoops of context on this trade sundae:

The change was driven mostly by a jump in imports. Exports have remained largely unchanged since 2020.

US ice cream imports and exports are a negligible amount compared to domestic production.

There’s also disagreement over which products should or shouldn’t be included in the data set, which can skew trend interpretations. Excluding edible ice products and factoring in ice cream mixes leaves the US with a surplus.

The statement is accurate but needs a sprinkling of clarification and additional details, so we rate it Mostly True.

Louis Jacobson contributed to this report.

For nearly four magical minutes in the first quarter, an upset of the WNBA’s best team seemed scarily possible.

What seemed scarier, perhaps, was that the team doing the damage spent most of the season fighting to crawl out of the league’s cellar.

For those 3 minutes and 59 seconds, the Sparks rattled off 16 consecutive points as Crypto.com Arena transformed into both a basketball spectacle and animated musical. The children in nearly every section of the Sparks’ home smacked their thundersticks like war drums as tiny voices belted out lyrics to songs from “SpongeBob SquarePant,s” “Moana” and “Frozen.”

It was a mini-Disneyland inside the Sparks’ building on Kids Day, the entire bowl pulsating with shrieks, slaps and sugar highs. For a fleeting stretch, it felt like an exhilarating return to the mid-2010s.

Yet just as quickly as the magic appeared, it vanished. So suddenly, and so drastically, the newest “happiest place on earth” lost its shimmer, replaced by cross-court turnovers, limited looks at the rim and the deflation of momentum as the Lynx (18-3) steamrolled to a 91-82 victory over the Sparks (6-14) on Thursday afternoon.

“You give the best team in the league just easy run-out layups,” guard Kelsey Plum said, in regard to the Lynx gathering 22 more shot attempts than the Sparks, “It was tough. We dug ourselves a hole.”

What had been a 16-0 run to build an 18-7 lead in the first quarter turned out to be the only bright spot amid an otherwise sore 36 minutes. Not just for the players, but for the children with their thundersticks that had less and less reason to make noise.

Lynx guard Alanna Smith drifted into open space at the top of the key to score first with a three for the Lynx. Following a Napheesa Collier walk-in floater, Smith propelled her team to an early 7-2 lead after collecting a sharp entry pass and spinning into a floater on the block.

Smith’s early pace and precision hinted at why the Lynx have only three losses all season. But the control they held in those opening moments evaporated, the momentum being painted purple and yellow.

The 16-point show began in unexpected territory. Plum lit the fuse from beyond the arc. Guard Julie Allemand followed suit on the next trip down. Then forward Rickea Jackson made a wide-open baseline look. And it was threes in three straight possessions for a team that doesn’t make a living from distance.

“The ball was moving, it had some zip on it in that first quarter,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said. “Thirteen threes at 48% — Vanloo [guard Julie Vanloo] really helps with that. We’ve been missing that kind of shooter — the kickout and off the dribble,” she added, referring to Vanloo’s five three-pointers.

Yet the lopsided score halfway through the opening quarter had a short lifespan.

What looked like a cushion turned into a trap. After their 16-0 run, the Sparks eased up and the Lynx pounced. Minnesota feasted on sloppy cross-court passes, turning top-of-the-key giveaways into easy transition layups, and worked their way to get back to within four by quarter’s end.

The Lynx erased “deficit” from their dictionary — and just about everything from the Sparks’ playbook. Fueled by nine L.A. turnovers in the second quarter, Minnesota made 11 baskets — nearly as many as the Sparks had shot attempts for a 50-40 halftime lead.

“[Missing] shots that you’re normally not thinking about missing — it can just put a lot of pressure on your offense when you do get an execution,” Roberts said. “But we’ve got to be better defensively, giving up 91 — but they’re really good at whatever it is you do, making it wrong.”

Four minutes in the driver’s seat gave way to the wheels detaching entirely through the remaining two periods. Turnovers mounted, and layups followed as more than a quarter of Minnesota’s points came off miscues.

The Lynx ran away in the third quarter, piling up 30 points — 11 more than the Sparks — to stretch their lead to 80-59. The Sparks threw punches in the fourth and Vanloo caught fire, but the damage was too much for recovery.

Plum finished with 17 points and a game-high 12 assists to lead the Sparks. Jackson added 14 points while Dearica Hamby contributed 12 points and a team-high seven rebounds.

Natisha Hiedeman came off the bench to lead the Lynx with 18 points, while Collier finished with 17 points and a team-high eight rebounds. Courtney Williams had 16 points and a team-high seven assists while Smith scored 15.

WASHINGTON — The changes made to President Trump’s big tax bill in the Senate would pile trillions onto the nation’s debt load while resulting in even steeper losses in healthcare coverage, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new analysis, adding to the challenges for Republicans as they try to muscle the bill to passage.

The CBO estimates that the Senate bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, a nearly $1-trillion increase from the House-passed bill, which the CBO has projected would add $2.4 to the debt over a decade.

The analysis also found that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law, an increase over the estimate for the House-passed version of the bill, which predicts that 10.9 million more people would be without health coverage.

The stark numbers are yet another obstacle for Republican leaders as they labor to pass Trump’s bill by his declared July 4 deadline.

Even before the CBO’s estimate, Republicans were at odds over the contours of the legislation, with some resisting the cost-saving proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid and food aid programs even as other Republicans say those proposals don’t go far enough. Republicans are slashing the programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks put in place during his first term.

The push-pull was on vivid display Saturday night as a routine procedural vote to take up the legislation in the Senate was held open for hours as Vice President JD Vance and Republican leaders met with several holdouts. The bill ultimately advanced in a 51-49 vote, but the path ahead is fraught, with voting on amendments still to come.

Still, many Republicans are disputing the CBO estimates and the reliability of the office’s work. To hoist the bill to passage, they are using a different budget baseline that assumes the Trump tax cuts expiring in December already have been extended, essentially making them cost-free in the budget.

The CBO on Saturday released a separate analysis of the GOP’s preferred approach that found the Senate bill would reduce deficits by about $500 billion.

Democrats and economists decry the GOP’s approach as “magic math” that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks.

In addition, Democrats note that under the traditional estimation system, the Republican bill would violate the Senate’s “Byrd Rule” that forbids the legislation from increasing deficits after 10 years.

In a Sunday letter to Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director Phillip Swagel said the office estimates that the Finance Committee’s portion of the bill, also known as Title VII, “increases the deficits in years after 2034” under traditional scoring.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark healthcare expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12-billion deficit.

It’s the third year in a row the nation’s most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321-billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders.

But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don’t send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday.

The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole.

“It’s balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it’s focused on supporting Californians,” Newsom said in a statement about the budget.

California also faces potential federal cuts to healthcare programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion.

“We’ve had to make some tough decisions,” Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. “I know we’re not going to please everyone, but we’re doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.”

Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually.

“We’re increasing borrowing, we’re taking away from the rainy day fund, and we’re not reducing our spending,” said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. “And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.”

Here’s a look at spending in key areas:

Healthcare

Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded healthcare program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old.

The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom’s proposal in May. Still, it’s a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal healthcare.

Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted “no” on the healthcare changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities.

The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026.

But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called “draconian.”

The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood.

Environment

Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending.

Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state’s long-delayed high-speed rail project. The budget doesn’t make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year.

Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state’s ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently.

Public safety

The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment.

Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pretrial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads.

Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that’s not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program.

Other priorities

Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state’s film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030.

The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense.

But cities and counties won’t see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds.

The budget also doesn’t act on Newsom’s proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state’s water supply.

Nguyễn writes for the Associated Press.

Donald Trump’s coalition has always been a Frankenstein’s monster — stitched together from parts that were never meant to coexist.

Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting “Make America Healthy Again” between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are “tough on the border” until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters.

Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit.

Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel’s bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs.

Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the “Liberation Day” tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an “emergency” and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers.

The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House’s passage of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should’ve torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift.

Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump’s name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein’s files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to “going nuclear.”

But before there was enough time to say “Republican civil war,” Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump’s party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug.

The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding ’em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren’t so keen on losing some of their best employees.

So Trump floated a carve out to protect some “very good, long time workers” in those particular industries.

It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said “no mas.” (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.)

But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the “forever wars.”

In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran’s nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an “unconditional surrender” of the Iranian regime.

This didn’t sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition.

“I think we’re going to see the end of American empire,” warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. “But it’s also going to end, I believe, Trump’s presidency — effectively end it — and so that’s why I’m saying this.”

And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn’t stop there. “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,” he tweeted. “It’s between warmongers and peacemakers.”

Then he named names, alleging that Fox’s Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers.

Trump hit back, calling Tucker “kooky” and repeating his new mantra: “IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.”

It’s tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition.

These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump.

And Trump resists ideological straitjackets.

If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel’s military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull.

There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we’re watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his “gut” or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear.

So if you’re looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn’t one.

There’s only Trump.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Reporting from Sacramento — Less than four years after declaring California’s budget balanced for the foreseeable future, Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday said the state is projected to run a $1.6-billion deficit by next summer — a noticeable shift in the state’s fiscal stability that could worsen under federal spending cuts championed by President-elect Donald Trump.

“The trajectory of revenue growth is declining,” Brown said in unveiling his $179.5-billion plan for the fiscal year that begins in July.

The governor’s sober assessment comes on the heels of several months of lagging tax revenue collections, a change in the state’s fortunes that could stifle his fellow Democrats’ call for additional spending and give fuel to Republican demands for additional cuts.

Brown’s budget advisors lowered the official tax revenue forecast, in part, because of slower than expected growth in wages. They also reduced expectations for sales and corporate taxes because of broader national trends.

Brown proposed to address the deficit primarily by slowing the growth in spending on public schools by $1.7 billion, a change that brings funding down to the minimum required by formulas enshrined in California’s Constitution. The governor also proposed scrapping $1.5 billion worth of spending ideas left over from last year’s budget negotiations, including higher subsidies for child-care programs and awarding new college scholarships to California students from middle-class families.

“To manage unreliability requires prudence,” Brown said of his decisions to address the projected budget shortfall.

The governor’s fiscal blueprint is the ceremonial first pitch in Sacramento’s annual budget writing season, and, as such, the details will shift in coming months to address changing fiscal conditions. That could include any effort by the nation’s ruling Republicans to rethink any of the $105 billion in federal funding promises the state expects to receive for a variety of services.

The most consequential of those is the $16.1-billion subsidy for Medi-Cal, the program offering healthcare to the state’s most needy, provided through the Affordable Care Act. Those funds have helped the state add more than 3.8 million people to the Medi-Cal system, a network of providers that reaches one in every three Californians.

Republican leaders in Congress and the president-elect have vowed to repeal the law championed by President Obama, though they have yet to identify when or how that will happen. That uncertainty is why Brown’s new budget plan does not officially lay out a path forward, though the governor made it clear on Tuesday that he thinks GOP leaders should rethink their political promises in regard to Obamacare.

“That’s very bold and, I think, a move that isn’t very consistent with decency,” the governor said Tuesday.

He also offered national leaders some advice as they weigh the merits of various federal subsidies.

“I don’t think this country needs any more divisive kinds of moves that divide the poor and the rich, split the middle class and all those other things that will be the result if the rhetorical thrust, as suggested in the last few weeks, becomes the operational reality in Washington,” Brown said.

Gov. Jerry Brown often gets his way when it comes to tax revenue forecasts, and that’s a big deal »

But the governor offered a dash of his own brand of raw politics Tuesday by asking legislators to approve an extension of California’s system for buying and trading greenhouse gas pollution credits. That cap-and-trade program faces an uncertain future beyond 2020, as business groups have challenged its legality in court.

On Tuesday, Brown proposed that the Legislature officially reauthorize the program — which would require a supermajority vote in both houses — and hinted that he might otherwise block the spending of $2.2 billion in proceeds from the auctions of those credits.

“Given the fact that the federal government is going in the opposite direction,” Brown said of the climate change debate, “I would think that Californians want to strengthen their own commitment.”

Advocates for social services, though, saw the budget plan as lacking any new strength for the state’s most needy.

“This is just a very conservative budget that really doesn’t do anything to reduce poverty in the state of California,” said Mike Herald of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, who pointed to a lack of new money for welfare assistance efforts or affordable housing.

The governor’s budget also offers less than expected for backers of Proposition 56, last year’s tobacco tax increase earmarked to boost healthcare funding. While Brown pegs the tax’s infusion of new money at $1.2 billion, it is offset by overall sagging tax revenues, and therefore, unlikely to boost the reimbursement rates sought by doctors who treat Medi-Cal patients.

Democrats, in general, sounded positive notes about the governor’s proposal. One key source of early criticism, though, was his plan to phase out the scholarships offered to middle-class students attending University of California and Cal State campuses. The budget proposes to renew scholarships for 37,000 current recipients but offers no new assistance beyond that.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said the plan, coupled with proposed tuition increases, would be unfair.

“We must work to keep college affordable for California students,” he said, “and I will not support burdening them with higher fees and greater student debt.”

In all, Brown’s budget continues a long trend toward allowing additional spending while restraining the political desires of Democrats to do more. And while it doesn’t spell out a specific need to respond to changes pushed by Trump and congressional Republicans that are on the horizon, the governor made clear that all budget decisions in Sacramento are in some way subject to the national debate.

“That’s why we’re going to have to hold on to our hat here,” he said. “It’s going to be a rough ride.”

[email protected]

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast.

Los Angeles Times staff writer Melanie Mason contributed to this report.

ALSO:

Even after voters approved more taxes, California’s budget could be lean in 2017

California’s budget will continue to rely on taxes from the rich under Prop. 55

Updates from Sacramento

California is facing an additional $12-billion state budget shortfall next year, a deficit largely caused by overspending and that Gov. Gavin Newsom said was made worse by President Trump’s federal tariff policy.

“California is under assault,” Newsom said. “The United States of America, in many respects, is under assault because we have a president that’s been reckless.”

Newsom unveiled the forecast during a presentation Wednesday of his $321.9-billion revised spending plan that proposes walking back free healthcare for low-income undocumented immigrants, eliminating Medi-Cal benefits for expensive weight loss treatments and cutting back overtime hours for in-home supportive service workers, among dozens of other trims.

The new deficit comes in addition to $27.3 billion in fiscal remedies, including $16.1 billion in cuts and a $7.1-billion withdrawal from the state’s rainy day fund, that lawmakers and the governor already agreed to make in 2025-26.

The overall $39-billion shortfall marks the third year in a row that Newsom and lawmakers have been forced to reduce funding for state programs after dedicating more money than California has available to spend.

Newsom’s proposed cuts

Among the new cuts Newsom put on the table Wednesday is a call to cut back on his signature policy to provide free healthcare coverage to income-eligible undocumented immigrants.

Newsom is proposing freezing new Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented adult immigrants as of Jan. 1 and requiring those over 18 to pay $100 monthly premiums to receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal.

The cost share will reduce the financial burden on the state and could lower the total number of people enrolled in the healthcare program if some immigrants cannot afford the new premiums. Freezing enrollment may prevent the price tag of the program from continuing to balloon after more people signed up for coverage than the state anticipated.

The changes offer minor savings of $116.5 million next year, with savings growing to $5.4 billion in 2028-29.

The governor is also following the federal government’s lead and cutting $85 million in benefits for Ozempic and other popular weight loss medications from all Medi-Cal coverage plans, while saving $333.3 million by eliminating long-term care benefits for some enrollees.

Newsom wants to cap overtime hours for in-home support service workers, according to his budget, to save $707.5 million next year.

The governor’s budget includes a controversial proposal to grab $1.3 billion in funding in 2025-26 from Proposition 35, a measure voters approved in November that dedicated the revenue from a tax on managed care organizations to primarily pay for increases to Medi-Cal provider rates. The decision is expected to draw pushback from a coalition of doctors, clinics, hospitals and other healthcare groups that supported the proposition, which nearly 68% of voters backed.

Under another cost-saving measure, the governor wants to shift $1.5 billion in funding for Cal Fire from the general fund. Instead, Newsom wants to provide that $1.5 billion from the greenhouse gas reduction fund paid for by proceeds of the state cap-and-trade program next year.

The governor’s budget proposes extending the cap-and-trade program — a first-of-its-kind initiative that sets limits on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy additional credits at auction from the state, and he wants to dedicate at least $1 billion each year to high speed rail.

A spending deficit

The budget marks a continuation of years of overspending in California under the Newsom administration.

After predicting a lofty $100-billion surplus from federal COVID-19 stimulus funding and the resulting economic gains three years ago, Democrats have not reduced spending to match up with a return to normal after the pandemic.

Poor projections, the ballooning cost of Democratic policy promises and a reluctance to make long-term sweeping cuts have added to the deficit at a time when the governor regularly touts California’s place as the fourth largest economy in the world.

State revenues have exceeded expectations since April, but so has state spending.

Despite the shortfall, California has more money to spend than in the prior budget approved in June, and the governor and lawmakers still plan to take $7.1 billion from the state’s rainy day fund to cover the total 2025-26 deficit.

A “Trump Slump”

Though personal income tax and corporate tax receipts in the state came in $6.8 billion above projections through April, Newsom is predicting that overall revenues will be $16 billion lower than they could have been from January 2025 through June 2026 because of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs.

The governor originally released the new information, which his team dubbed the “Trump Slump,” on the eve of the presentation of his revised 2025-26 state budget plan, seeking to blame the president for California’s expected revenue shortfall.

Trump in April implemented a series of tariffs on all imported goods, higher taxes on products from Mexico, Canada and China, and specific levies on products and materials such as autos and aluminum. The president has backed down from some of his tariffs, but Newsom alleges that the policies and economic uncertainty will lead to higher unemployment, inflation, lower GDP projections and less capital gains revenue for California.

California filed a lawsuit last month arguing that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on his own. On Tuesday, the state said it will seek a preliminary injunction to freeze the tariffs in federal court.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office said Tuesday that President Trump’s tariff policies will reduce state revenues in California by $16 billion through next year.

Despite personal income tax and corporate tax receipts in the state coming in $6.8 billion above projections through April, the Newsom administration is predicting that overall revenues will be lower than they could have been from January 2025 through June 2026 because of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs.

The governor released the new information, which his team dubbed the “Trump Slump,” on the eve of the presentation of his revised 2025-26 state budget plan, seeking to blame the president for California’s expected revenue shortfall. His office has not released any additional figures about the state budget.

Newsom is expected on Wednesday to project a deficit for California in the year ahead with Medi-Cal costs exceeding expectations, including his signature policy to provide free healthcare coverage to low-income undocumented immigrants. The new shortfall comes in addition to $27.3 billion in financial remedies, including $16.1 billion in cuts and a $7.1 billion withdrawal from the state’s rainy day fund, that lawmakers and the governor already agreed to make in 2025-26.

The deficit marks the third year in a row that Newsom and lawmakers have been forced to reduce spending after dedicating more money to programs than the state has available to spend. Poor projections, the ballooning cost of Democratic policy promises and a reluctance to make long-term sweeping cuts have added to the deficit at a time when the governor regularly touts California’s place as the fourth largest economy in the world.

Trump implemented a series of tariffs on all imported goods, higher taxes on products from goods from Mexico, Canada and China, and specific levies on products and materials such as autos and aluminum, in April. The president has backed down from some of his tariffs, but Newsom alleges that the policies and economic uncertainty will lead to higher unemployment, inflation, lower GDP projections and less capital gains revenue for California.

California filed a lawsuit last month arguing that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on his own. On Tuesday, the state said it will seek a preliminary injunction to freeze the tariffs in federal court.