Democrat

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla announced Tuesday that he will not run for California governor next year, ending months of speculation about the possibility of the Democrat vying to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It is with a full heart and even more commitment than ever that I am choosing to not run for governor of California next year,” Padilla told reporters outside his Senate office in Washington.

Padilla instead said he will focus on countering President Trump’s agenda in Congress, where Democrats are currently on the minority in both the House and Senate, but hope to regain some political clout after the 2026 midterm elections.

“I choose not just to stay in the Senate. I choose to stay in this fight because the constitution is worth fighting for. Our fundamental rights are worth fighting for. Our core values are worth fighting for. The American dream is worth fighting for,” he said.

Padilla said his decision was influenced by his belief that under President Trump, “these are not normal times.”

“We deserve better than this,” he said.

Many contenders, no clear favorite

Padilla’s decision to bow out of the 2026 governor’s race will leave a prominent name out of an already crowded contest with many contenders but not a clear favorite.

For much of the year, the field was essentially frozen in place as former Vice President Kamala Harris debated whether she would run, with many donors and major endorsers staying out of the game. Harris said at the end of July that she wouldn’t run. But another potential candidate — billionaire developer Rick Caruso — remains a question mark.

Caruso said Monday night that he was still considering running for either governor or Los Angeles mayor, and will decide in the next few weeks.

“It’s a really tough decision,” Caruso said. “Within a few weeks or so, or something like that, I’ll probably have a decision made. It’s a big topic of discussion in the house with my kids and my wife.”

Major Democratic candidates include former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, current California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee and wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the most prominent Republicans running.

Amid fire recovery aftermath, immigration raids and a high-octane redistricting battle, California voters have yet to turn their attention to next year’s gubernatorial matchup, despite the vast power Newsom’s successor will wield. California is now the world’s fourth-largest economy, and policy decisions in the Golden State often have global repercussions. Newsom is nearing the end of his second and final term.

Recent polling shows the contest as wide open, with nearly 4 in 10 voters surveyed saying they are undecided, though Porter had a slight edge as the top choice in the poll. She and Bianco were the only candidates whose support cracked the double digits.

Candidates still have months to file their paperwork before the June 2 primary to replace Newsom.

June incident brought attention

Known for soft-spoken confidence and a lack of bombast, Padilla’s public profile soared in June after he found himself cuffed by federal agents, at the center of a staggering viral moment during a news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Despite identifying himself, Padilla was tackled after trying to interrupt Noem with a question. The manhandling of California’s senior senator was filmed by a staffer and broadcast around the world, provoking searing and widespread condemnation.

Days later, Vice President JD Vance joked about the incident and referred to Padilla — his former Senate colleague — as “Jose Padilla,” a misnaming that Padilla suggested was intentional and others characterized as racist.

The event put Padilla on the national spotlight and rumors of Padilla’s interest in the gubernatorial race ignited in late August.

Padilla told reporters on Tuesday that he received an “outpouring of encouragement and offers of support for the idea” of his candidacy and that he had “taken it to heart”

Alongside his wife, Angela, the senator said he also heard from many people urging him to keep his fight going in Washington.

“Countless Californians have urged me to do everything i could to protect California and the American Dream from a vindictive president who seems hell bent on raising costs for working families, rolling back environmental protections, cutting access to healthcare, jeopardizing reproductive rights and more,” he said.

Padilla said he had listened.

“I will continue to thank them and honor their support by continuing to work together for a better future,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Wick from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Noah Goldberg, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

A prominent lawmaker in the United States has announced he will return donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), highlighting the powerful pro-Israel lobby group’s waning appeal among Democrats.

Congressman Seth Moulton distanced himself from AIPAC on Thursday, citing the group’s support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Moulton is slated to challenge progressive Senator Ed Markey in next year’s Democratic primaries, ahead of the midterm elections.

The move by Moulton, a centrist and strong supporter of Israel, shows that backing from AIPAC is increasingly becoming a political liability for Democrats after the horrors Israel has unleashed on Gaza.

“In recent years, AIPAC has aligned itself too closely with Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s government,” Moulton said in a statement.

“I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission today is to back that government. I don’t support that direction. That’s why I’ve decided to return the donations I’ve received, and I will not be accepting their support.”

For decades, Israel has leveraged its political connections and network of wealthy donors to push for unconditional support for its policies.

In 2022, AIPAC organised a political action committee (PAC) to exert sway in US elections, mostly using its financial might to help defeat progressive candidates critical of Israel in Democratic primaries.

Last year, the group helped oust two vocal critics of Israel in Congress – Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush – by backing their primary challengers with tens of millions of dollars.

I am returning AIPAC donations and refusing to accept any donations or support from them.

The FEC filing I made yesterday reflects that we are returning donations. pic.twitter.com/shBgHmYB1s

— Seth Moulton (@sethmoulton) October 16, 2025

Increased scrutiny

But Israel’s war on Gaza has led to an outpouring of criticisms, with leading rights groups and United Nations investigators calling it a genocide.

In light of that outcry, AIPAC’s role in US politics has come under greater scrutiny, particularly in Democratic circles where support for Israel has slipped to historic lows.

Moreover, AIPAC has endorsed far-right candidates like Congressman Randy Fine – who celebrated the killing of a US citizen by Israel and openly called for starving Palestinians in Gaza – which further alienated some Democrats.

AIPAC’s critics often liken it to the National Rifle Association (NRA), the once-bipartisan gun rights lobby that Democrats now reject nearly universally.

Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for the progressive group Justice Democrats, said AIPAC and its affiliates “are transforming from a lobby that establishment Democrats could rely on to buy a seat in Washington into a kiss of death for candidates who have their support”.

“Our movement’s work to demand the Democratic Party reject AIPAC as a toxic pariah is not only working but ensuring that the pro-genocide Israel lobby’s influence in Washington is waning,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera.

Even on the right of the ideological spectrum, some figures in President Donald Trump’s “America First” movement have been critical of AIPAC’s outsized influence.

In August, the lobby group accused right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of betraying “American values” over her criticism of Israel.

Greene shot back, saying that AIPAC serves the interests of a foreign government. “I’m as AMERICAN as they come! I can’t be bought and I’m not backing down,” she wrote in a social media post.

AIPAC is expected to target some key races in next year’s midterm elections, including the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, where progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing off against staunch Israel supporter Haley Stevens.

In 2022, the lobby group helped Stevens defeat then-Congressman Andy Levin, who hails from a prominent Michigan Jewish family, in a House primary.

While it is one of the better-known lobby groups in the US, AIPAC is among dozens of pro-Israel advocacy organisations across the country, including some that also raise funds for candidates, such as NORPAC.

Throughout the assault on Gaza, AIPAC echoed the falsehood that there is no Israeli-imposed famine in the territory and defended the Israeli military’s genocidal conduct while calling for more US aid to the country.

AIPAC argues that it is a thoroughly American organisation with 100 percent of its funding coming from inside the US. It denies taking direction from Israel.

But the lobby group is almost always in full alignment with the Israeli government.

AIPAC members also often meet with Israeli leaders. The group also organises free trips for US lawmakers to travel to Israel and meet with Israeli officials.

‘It’s interesting’

The pro-Israel group’s unflinching support for Netanyahu’s government puts it at odds with the overwhelming majority of Democrats.

A poll this month from the Pew Research Center showed only 18 percent of Democratic respondents have favourable views of the Israeli government.

Still, Democratic Party leaders have continued to associate with AIPAC and accept its endorsement. In August, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar joined lawmakers on an AIPAC-sponsored trip to Israel.

That same month, AIPAC-endorsed House Minority Whip Katherine Clark earned the group’s praise after walking back comments where she decried the “starvation and genocide and destruction of Gaza”.

California Governor Gavin Newsom – who is widely seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2028 – also skirted a question about AIPAC in an interview this week.

Asked about the organisation on the Higher Learning podcast, Newsom said AIPAC is not relevant to his day-to-day life.

“I haven’t thought about AIPAC, and it’s interesting. You’re like the first to bring up AIPAC in years, which is interesting,” he said.

In response to Moulton’s comments on Thursday, AIPAC issued a defiant statement, accusing the Democrat of “abandoning his friends to grab a headline”.

“His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them,” the group said in a social media post.

The White House says it will release a list of programmes to be cut on Friday after earlier eliminating 4,200 positions at a range of government departments.

President Donald Trump has renewed his threat to cut “Democrat programmes” as the United States government shutdown heads into its fifteenth day without resolution.

“The Democrats are getting killed on the shutdown because we’re closing up programmes that are Democrat programmes that we were opposed to… and they’re never going to come back in many cases,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday, according to ABC News.

Trump said a list of programmes may be released as soon as Friday, although he did not provide further details in his remarks. He said that “Republican programmes” would be safe.

Trump has already used the government shutdown to pause or cut $28bn in federal funding for infrastructure and energy projects in Democrat-leaning states like California, Illinois and New York.

The White House has also started making cuts to the federal workforce. About 4,200 employees from eight government departments and agencies received “reduction-in-force notices” on Friday, according to CNBC.

Major cuts were made at the Treasury Department, the Health and Human Services Department, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some programmes on the chopping block included those historically supported by Republicans as well as Democrats. They included the entire staff of the Treasury Department’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which works with low-income communities, according to CNBC.

There are about 2.25 million civilian federal employees, according to the Congressional Budget Office, of whom some 60 percent work in the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.

Approximately 750,000 federal employees have been on furlough since the shutdown began two weeks ago, while “essential” workers have continued working without pay until they can be reimbursed when the shutdown ends.

The White House says it will take the unusual move of reallocating $8bn in existing funds to keep paying military and coastguard personnel throughout the shutdown, although historically, they also work without pay.

The Senate remains deadlocked over a government spending bill needed to end the shutdown.

A Republican-backed spending bill, which would have extended government funding to November 21, on Monday failed in a vote of 49 to 45, broadly down party lines.

The bill needs 60 votes to pass, but Republicans have failed to sway more Democrats to their side after gaining the support of a few individual legislators. Democrats are blocking the bill to force Republicans to negotiate on healthcare subsidies.

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

There’s a reason for the fearsome redistricting fight raging across America. It’s about Democrats trying to rein in Donald Trump and his rogue-elephant regime.

Or, if you’re the country’s aspiring strongman, it’s about avoiding accountability and sanction.

That’s why Trump and fellow Republicans are trying to rig the midterm election, by gerrymandering congressional lines in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping its tenuous hold on the House past 2026.

California Democrats are seeking payback by redrawing the state’s congressional lines in hopes of swiping five or more GOP-held seats. Voters will have their say on the matter Nov. 4, when they decide Proposition 50.

Of course, there are two branches of Congress. Why, then, is there so much focus on the House? Simply put, it’s because of the steep odds Democrats face trying to win control of the Senate, which are somewhere between slim and none — with slim last seen cinching his saddle before cantering out of town.

Let’s take a moment for a quick refresher.

Every two years, all 435 House seats are on the ballot. Senate terms are staggered and run six years, so roughly a third of the chamber’s 100 seats are up for a vote in each federal election. In 2026, there will be 35 Senate contests.

Most won’t be remotely competitive.

In fact, more than two dozen of those races are effectively over before they begin, given the advantage one party holds over the other. Mississippi, for instance, will send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate the day that Delaware elects a Republican; both will occur right after Trump and Adam Schiff get inked with matching “I Love L.A.” tattoos.

That leaves nine Senate races that are at least somewhat competitive. Of those, three are considered toss-ups: open-seat contests in Michigan and North Carolina and the race in Georgia, where Democrat Jon Ossoff is seeking a second term.

Democrats need to gain four seats to take control of the Senate, meaning even if they win all three of those even-steven races — which is far from certain — they still need to successfully defend seats in Minnesota and New Hampshire and pick up at least one other GOP-held seat.

That’s where the going gets tough.

Kamala Harris won Maine, which suggests Republican Susan Collins could be vulnerable. But the five-term senator has repeatedly managed to hang on, even in good Democratic years.

The three other races are tougher still.

Ohio used to be a major Midwestern battleground, but it’s grown solidly Republican. Democrats landed their prized recruit, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who narrowly lost his 2024 reelection bid and may be the only Democrat with a realistic shot at the seat. Still, he’s facing an uphill fight in the special election against Republican Jon Husted, an ex-lieutenant governor who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance.

In Iowa, where Republican Joni Ernst is retiring, GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson starts out the favorite in another state that’s grown increasingly red. (Hinson, a USC grad and former KABC-TV intern, has taken to trash-talking the Golden State — “I don’t want to see the country look like California” — because that’s what Republicans do these days.)

Which leaves Texas, land of shattered Democratic dreams.

It’s been more than three decades since the party has won a statewide election. Ever since, Democrats have insisted this is the year they’d end their losing streak.

They’ve tried various approaches. A “dream team” that consisted of a slate of Black, white and Latino nominees. A ticket topped by political celebrity Wendy Davis, of filibuster fame. An out-of-nowhere phenom by the name of Beto O’Rourke. All failed.

This time, Democrats are hoping for an assist from the GOP.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn is seeking his fifth term and faces the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, in a primary that’s already grown fierce and ugly.

Paxton is MAGA down to the soles of his feet, which would normally give him a big advantage in a GOP primary. But his history — allegations of bribery and corruption, an impeachment trial, a messy divorce — have left him in bad odor with many Republicans.

The GOP’s Senate campaign committee and Majority Leader John Thune have aggressively thrown their weight behind Cornyn, though Trump has so far remained neutral.

Democrats would love to run against Paxton, given polls suggesting a competitive race if he’s the nominee. First, though, they’ll have to sort out their own primary.

Supporters cheer as state Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) kicks off his campaign for U.S. Senate at Centennial Plaza in Round Rock on Sept. 9.

(Mikala Compton/The Austin American-Statesman / Getty Images)

Colin Allred, the former NFL linebacker who lost in November to Ted Cruz, is running again and faces James Talarico, a state representative and seminarian from the Austin area, who’s became an online sensation with his godly persona and viral take-down of conservative pieties. O’Rourke also hasn’t ruled out another try for Senate.

Garry Mauro, a Democrat and former Texas land commissioner, is clear-eyed in assessing his party’s prospects.

“If you run on the right issues and don’t leave yourself a crazy radical … then I think you have a real chance of building a winning race,” he said. But “to say this isn’t a leaning-R state would be Pollyannish, and I’m not Pollyannish.”

Which means counting on the Lone Star to deliver a Democratic-run U.S. Senate is a bit like trusting a drunken gambler to preserve and protect your rent money.

That’s why Democrats are betting the House in hopes of corralling Trump.

Oct. 2 (UPI) — Rep. Robert Garcia wants the Office of Special Counsel to investigate the Trump administration for alleged Hatch Act violations arising from government shutdown messaging.

Garcia, D-Calif., is the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and on Thursday in a letter to Acting Special Counsel Jamieson Greer said the Trump administration has illegally used government resources to promote false and partisan political messaging.

He said the Trump administration posted false and partisan political messages on at least one federal agency website on Sept. 30 and in emails to federal employees.

“The Hatch Act imposes clear restrictions on the political activity of federal executive branch employees and does not allow activity ‘directed toward the success or failure of a political party, partisan political group or candidate for partisan political office,'” Garcia wrote.

He asked Greer to immediately open an investigation into what he says is “clear misconduct” and a “blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars for political purposes.”

Garcia cited the Department of Housing and Urban Development website’s homepage blaming the “radical left” for causing “massive pain on the American people” on Sept. 30.

He also accused HUD Secretary Scott Turner of violating the Hatch Act by saying, “It is a shame that far-left Democrats are holding our government hostage” in a social media post.

Other agencies have circulated emails to employees that claim the government shutdown is “Democrat-imposed” and blame “radical liberals in Congress” of causing the shutdown that halts critical services for Americans, Garcia said.

The non-profit organization Public Citizen on Wednesday also filed complaints against HUD and the Small Business Administration regarding political messaging, Politico reported.

The Trump administration’s messaging has raised concerns of possible ethics violations.

Ethics experts, though, told Politico the controversial messaging might not violate the Hatch Act but might violate the Anti-Lobbying Act.

A White House spokeswoman on Thursday denied that the Trump administration has violated any federal laws.

“It’s an objective fact that Democrats are responsible for the government shutdown,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Hill.

“The Trump administration is simply sharing the truth with the American people,” she added.

An unnamed White House official also said the Biden administration and Obama administration had targeted Republicans in messaging.

In a message shared with UPI on Thursday, the White House did not directly address Garcia’s Hatch Act violation claim but accused Senate Democrats of wanting to “inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their radical $1.5 trillion demands” approved in an alternative continuing resolution to keep the federal government open.

House Democrats submitted the alternative continuing resolution, which would have funded the federal government through Oct. 31 and would provide “free health insurance for illegal immigrants and others who do not qualify for taxpayer-funded health insurance programs,” according to the White House.

The House Dems’ continuing resolution also would expand premium tax credits and others enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic via Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans that would pay for transgender surgeries and other gender-related therapies and treatments, the White House message said.

SAN JOSE — Matt Mahan didn’t set out to be a scold and pain in Gavin Newsom’s backside.

He doesn’t mean to sound like a wrathful Republican when he criticizes one-party rule in Sacramento. Or a disgruntled independent when he assails a Democratic establishment that’s become, as he sees it, “a club of insiders who take care of each other” and mostly go along to get along.

Maybe because that’s “my diagnosis of it,” said the 42-year-old San José mayor, “I have tried very consciously to not fall into that trap of just wanting to be liked.”

He is, Mahan insists, a Democrat to his core, his roots sunk deep in the loamy soil of working-class Watsonville, where, over the mountains and light years from Silicon Valley, he grew up the son of a mail carrier and a high school teacher.

That makes his candor all the more bracing, and refreshing, at a time when Democrats are struggling nationally to regain their footing and find a meaningful way forward.

“We have become so caught up in our own rhetoric of helping the little guy that we’ve stopped actually checking to make sure that we are doing that,” Mahan said over lunch at a cantina downtown.

Results, he said, are what matter. Not good intentions.

And certainly not the performative pugilism that some, including the hyper-online Newsom, pass off as leadership. “A sugar high,” Mahan called it.

“I think a lot of Democrats are frustrated and feel powerless, and so that rhetoric has this cathartic effect,” he said. “But I don’t know that it actually, over time, moves us toward success, and I mean not just success in society, but even political success, because ultimately, if you’re not offering solutions, I think you can have a hard time getting to a majority position.”

Mahan comes by his outsider status naturally.

In high school, he rode the bus four hours a day — from Watsonville to San José and back again — to attend a college prep academy on a work-study scholarship. (“My golden ticket,” he called it.) He worked on the grounds crew to help pay his way, and continued on to Harvard, where his dorm mates included Mark Zuckerberg. (The two hung out in college and still talk occasionally.)

After a year in Bolivia, helping family farmers, and a stint teaching middle school, Mahan co-founded a social media company that focused on civic engagement and raising money for nonprofits. He was elected to the San José City Council in 2020. Even before his first term was completed, Mahan launched an upstart bid for mayor.

The front-runner was a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, a former San José vice mayor and longtime civic leader. Waging a nothing-to-lose campaign — “we had no endorsements, we had much less money” — Mahan knocked on thousands of doors. He asked voters what they had on their minds.

It turned out to be rudimentary stuff. Potholes. Public safety. A sense they were paying a whole lot of taxes and getting very little in return.

The experience impressed two things upon Mahan: a need for accountability and the importance of voters’ lived experience, as opposed to vague promises, abstract notions and politically fashionable statements.

“I think ultimately political success and policy success comes from offering better ideas and demonstrating impact,” Mahan said, sounding very much like the technocrat he calls himself.

Mahan won the mayor’s race — narrowly, in a major upset — and was reelected two years later in a November 2024 landslide. (The year Mahan was elected, San José voted to shift its mayoral contest to correspond with presidential balloting, which cut his first term in half.)

Soon enough, Mahan found himself at odds with some major Democratic constituencies, including powerful labor unions, which pushed back over wages and a return-to-office policy, and homeless advocates who bristled at Mahan’s focus on short-term housing and threat to arrest homeless people who refused multiple offers of shelter.

“Homelessness can’t be a choice,” Mahan said at a spring news conference announcing the move.

His heresies don’t end there.

Mahan broke with many Democrats by vigorously supporting Proposition 36, the 2024 anti-crime measure that stiffened penalties for repeated theft and crimes involving fentanyl. Despite opposition from Newsom and most of the state’s Democratic leadership, it passed with nearly 70% support; Mahan has since criticized Newsom and the Democratic-run Legislature for stinting on funds needed for implementation.

But his most conspicuous breach involves the governor’s Trumpy transformation into a social media troll.

While the mockery and memes may feel good as snickering payback and certainly stoke the Democratic base — boosting Newsom’s presidential hopes — Mahan suggested they are ultimately counterproductive.

“If we don’t have a politics of solutions and making people’s lives better, I just don’t know where we end up,” he said, as his enchiladas sat cooling before him. “It’s politics practiced in bad faith, where we just … tell people things that test well because they sound nice, and then we just blame the other side for being evil, incompetent, corrupt. … It’s just a race to the bottom.”

He took particular issue with Newsom’s taunting reaction after Bed Bath & Beyond recently announced it won’t open or operate new stores in California.

It wasn’t “a reasoned argument,” Mahan wrote in a scathing opinion piece in the San Francisco Standard. The tart headline: “How about less time breaking the internet and more time fixing California?”

“‘Breaking the internet’ doesn’t solve real-world problems — quite the opposite,” Mahan wrote. “More often than not, it’s just political theater that serves to excuse inaction and ineffective policies.”

He elaborated over lunch.

“You have an employer who’s pointing out real issues that everybody else who’s watching thinks are real issues. Talking about business climate, cost of doing business, public safety issues, retail theft, untreated addiction and mental illness,” Mahan said.

“When we start turning on constituents because we don’t agree with their ideology, or attacking Trump is more important than actually solving problems or listening to the criticism … I think we’re heading down a dangerous road.”

Inevitably, there’s the question: To what end all this poking of thumbs in his fellow Democrats’ eyes?

Mahan has drawn wide notice, in particular from the more pragmatic wing of the party. His back-to-basics approach has yielded some measurable success. A recent study called San José the safest major city in the country and, while the overall homeless population grew slightly, there’s been progress moving people off the streets into city shelters.

He considered plunging into the race for governor, but the timing wasn’t right. Mahan has two small children and a wife who’s flourishing in her career as an educator. Besides, Mahan said, he’s quite content being mayor of California’s third-most populous city.

“I have a wonderful marriage,” Mahan said. “I have two wonderful kids. I loved working in the private sector. I’ve got a lot of great friends. I’m doing this because I genuinely want to make our city better, and I love the job. But it’s not who I am, and I can separate myself from the job.”

That grounding and perspective, so different from those politicians oozing ambition from every pore, may be Mahan’s best commendation for higher office.

If and when.

Most of us associate Thurgood Marshall with the long struggle for rights for African-Americans–with his two decades of leadership of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, his victories against restrictive covenants in housing and school segregation, especially his great victory of advocacy in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. But it is a mistake to think of him, on or off the Supreme Court, in such a narrow framework.

Marshall’s focus has always been far more inclusive than African-Americans. His concern is with all people who do not enjoy the full benefits of a free society. His commitment has consistently been to the common man or woman; to the belief that government and society must permit each individual to achieve to the limits of his or her intellectual and creative ability; to the elimination of artificial barriers of bias, prejudice, arbitrary authority or paternalism; to the proposition that the ordinary person, whatever his or her color or sex, needs the protection of law.

History will remember Marshall more for his years of advocacy than his years as a Supreme Court justice. His is a career built more on passion than intellect, though intellect and eloquence he possesses in abundance. He will be thought of as a “liberal” by those who assign labels. Yet, fundamentally, he is in his passion for the individual a conservative, a democrat who cannot tolerate the arbitrary acts of governmental bureaucracy in its unconcern for individual rights. Most of all, he is and always has been, on and off the bench, the advocate of ordinary people.

Consider these words from a dissent and ask who else could have written them: “It may be easy for some people to think that weekly savings of less than $2 are no burden. But no one who has had close contact with poor people can fail to understand how close to the margin of survival many of them are. A sudden illness, for example, may destroy whatever savings they may have accumulated, and by eliminating a sense of security may destroy the incentive to save in the future. A pack or two of cigarettes may be, for them, not a routine purchase but a luxury indulged in only rarely. The desperately poor almost never go to see a movie, which the majority seems to believe is an almost weekly activity. They have more important things to do with what little money they have. . . .

“It is perfectly proper for judges to disagree about what the Constitution requires. But it is disgraceful for an interpretation of the Constitution to be premised upon unfounded assumptions about how people live.”

And consider, too, this view of the Constitution written in its bicentennial year: “The true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making, and a life embodying much good fortune that was not.”

Marshall’s era was marked by the removal of barriers unconstitutionally built on racial bias, of the expansion of fights for all individuals irrespective of race or sex. Now the pendulum swings away from individual rights toward more deference to governmental authority.

Whether writing for the court majority or in dissent, his is a voice that all of us, liberal or conservative, should miss.

Democrats have to change their ways. Ideally yesterday.

The Democratic Party is the pro-government party, simply speaking, and Republicans the antigovernment party. Democrats want to make the government work for people. Trump-era Republicans might as well wear knock-offs of Melania Trump’s old “I really don’t care. Do U?” jacket. For three decades, as actual and threatened government shutdowns have become routine for Washington funding fights, it’s generally been Republicans who’ve provoked them. For Democrats, shutting down the government goes completely against their brand, against their very DNA.

But what are Democrats to do when the federal government is wholly run by Republicans — in Congress, the executive branch and even the Supreme Court — acting in thrall to a president who in eight months has transformed that government into a plaything for his whims, compulsion for chaos, personal enrichment and political retribution?

What to do when the government has stripped states, cities, universities and federal programs of funding Congress appropriated by law for teaching grants, healthcare, scientific research and so much more, and fired hundreds of thousands of public employees without cause, including federal prosecutors, military lawyers and inspectors general who might blow the whistle on administration lawlessness?

What to do when the government sends masked federal agents to seize people, without warrants, and disappear them into unmarked cars (with at least the temporary, precedent-breaking blessing this week of the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority)?

Do Democrats in Congress vote to keep that government running?

That’s the question they face this month as government funding expires with the fiscal year on Sept. 30: Do enough Democrats give Republicans the votes they need in the Senate to keep the Trump train running on Oct. 1 and beyond?

Despite all that is wrong with that track, the answer to whether to keep going isn’t a simple “Hell, no.”

Shutting down the government hurts Americans who work for it, who receive benefits or need information from it, who visit national parks and veterans’ hospitals — people Democrats seek to help. A shutdown further empowers the president, who gets to decide what’s essential and can stay open. A shutdown hurts the economy in the short term. And as Republicans of the past can attest, a shutdown usually exacts a political price for the party that’s blamed for it.

For all those reasons, when Congress last had to vote to fund the government in March, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York led a small group of fellow Democratic senators in acquiescing to Republicans’ package. Democrats in the House and the party’s voter base erupted in fury. Morale tanked among Democrats spoiling for a fight, and with it the party’s standing in polls.

All but one House Democrat opposed the March funding bill, but the Republican majority narrowly passed it. Under Senate rules, however, the slim Republican majority couldn’t go it alone; they needed a few Democratic votes to reach a 60-vote supermajority and avoid a filibuster. It’s practically the only leverage Democrats have in Donald Trump’s Washington. In March they didn’t use it.

This time should be different.

I say that as someone who reluctantly supported Schumer’s decision six months ago, even as I and many others were infuriated by his ham-handed execution: his party’s lack of a message against the earlier spending bill, Schumer’s mixed signals and then his eleventh-hour surrender. It was because of Democrats’ message-less morass that I supported his action: because Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn’t made the Democrats’ case ahead of time so that the party could win a shutdown showdown with Republicans in the court of public opinion.

It might already be too late, with less than three weeks before a new fiscal year, but the Senate and House Democrats must prepare their ground and take a stand. It’s a bad sign that they’re only now huddling, that they weren’t ready with a message and strategy when Congress finally returned after Labor Day from its August recess or, better yet, before Congress left.

But here we are, and now the Democrats should do two things:

First, they must demand that Republicans finally negotiate with them. Outline concise conditions for getting any Democrat’s vote on a government funding bill, whether it’s a stopgap measure to buy more bargaining time or a longer-term bill. Show Americans what Democrats are for, not just that they’re against President Trump. Harp daily on the Democratic demands — say, restoration of healthcare money that was slashed to pay for Republicans’ tax cuts; extension of expiring Obamacare tax credits for lower- and middle-income workers; less money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and more for local police. And elevate new, younger Democrats to spread the word — like first-term Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who tweeted on Monday, as party leaders were still noodling: “If the President wants my vote, he has to negotiate. One place to start is to walk back cuts to health care.”

Second, when Trump and the Republicans inevitably don’t compromise — the president has never met with the Democratic leaders since he took office, and his pre-recess message to Schumer in a social media post was “GO TO HELL” — then Democrats should vote no on funding the government. And hold their ground during a shutdown, even as pressure builds when federal offices close and services lapse.

Senate Democrats’ leverage on spending bills is pointless if Democrats don’t use it. Yes, Schumer was correct in March when he defensively wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the victims of a government shutdown are “the most vulnerable Americans” and communities. But the six months since then have shown that, under Trump, the vulnerable are suffering anyway — as he shutters more and more of the government and the innocent are swept up in, or live in fear of, his dragnets. If Democrats can alter that picture, even a little, a temporary shutdown is worth it.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released on Monday a sexually suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein purportedly signed by President Trump, which he has denied.

Trump has said he did not write the letter or create the drawing of a curvaceous woman that surrounds the letter. He filed a $10-billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal for a report on the alleged letter.

The letter was included as part of a 2003 album compiled for alleged sex trafficker Epstein’s birthday. The president has denied having anything to do with it. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee received a copy of the birthday album on Monday as part of a batch of documents from Epstein’s estate.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Trump has denied writing the letter and creating the drawing, calling a report on it “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

“These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures,” Trump said.

The letter released by the committee looks exactly as described by the the Wall Street Journal in its report.

The letter bearing Trump’s name and signature includes text framed by a hand-drawn outline of what appears to be a curvaceous woman.

“A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” the letter says.

Price writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 5 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday posted a lengthy message on social media, urging people to “end the Democrat Epstein Hoax” in response to continued calls to release information related to the sex trafficking case.

“The Department of Justice has done its job, they have given everything requested of them. It’s time to end the Democrat Epstein Hoax, and give the Republicans credit for the great, even legendary job that they are doing,” Trump said on Truth Social, addressing calls to release files related to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump used the same “hoax” language earlier in the week to refer to continued calls to release the so-called Epstein list, when a group of survivors of the convicted sex trafficker spoke out at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this week, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released 33,295 pages of files related to Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors case provided by the Justice Department.

“The now dying (after the DOJ gave thousands of pages of documents in full compliance with a very comprehensive and exacting Subpoena from Congress!) Epstein case was only brought back to life by the Radical Left Democrats because they are doing so poorly,” Trump wrote Friday.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been pushing for the government to release more files related to Epstein.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is one of those leading the Republican push and has introduced a discharge petition that would force the release of all government files related to Epstein. The petition has yet to garner the required number of signatures.

Massie, who has sparred with Trump, posted a poll on X this week asking if it was “a hoax that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in underage sex trafficking, and there is unreleased evidence that would likely expose rich and politically connected perpetrators to indictments or convictions?'”

Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and of solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18 in 2007 and was later arrested on new sex charges in 2019. The billionaire was found dead of a suspected suicide in the Manhattan Correctional Center cell later that year.

DES MOINES, Iowa — U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst said Tuesday that she will not seek reelection next year, confirming in a video post on social media that she will retire after months of speculation about her plans.

Ernst’s departure opens up a Senate seat in the state known for its long-serving incumbents. Ernst was first elected in 2014 to the open seat previously held by Tom Harkin, a Democrat who served for 30 years. Republican Chuck Grassley, Iowa’s senior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

Her announcement Tuesday followed reports last week that she was expected to announce her retirement in September.

It is the second unexpected retirement for Senate Republicans as they work to maintain their majority in the chamber, with Ernst joining Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who turned down a reelection bid after clashing with President Trump.

It also could have ripple effects down the ballot if third-term Rep. Ashley Hinson from the Cedar Rapids area in eastern Iowa jumps into the race, as is widely expected. Hinson’s decision could also complicate House Republicans’ efforts to keep control as Democrats look for opportunities to flip seats in once-competitive Iowa, where two of Iowa’s four congressional districts have been among the country’s most competitive in recent elections.

Several Democrats are seeking the party’s nomination for the seat, including state Sen. Zach Wahls; state Rep. Josh Turek; Jackie Norris, chair of the Des Moines School Board; and Nathan Sage, a former chamber of commerce president.

Two Republicans — former state Sen. Jim Carlin and veteran Joshua Smith — had already entered the primary to challenge Ernst.

Ernst, Iowa’s first woman elected to Congress, is an Iraq War combat veteran and retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel. She served for several years in Senate GOP leadership and was considered a vice presidential contender for Trump’s first White House run.

But Ernst has faced pressure from all sides in the last year. She took heat after signaling a hesitance to support one of Trump’s Cabinet picks. She’s also been one of the faces of Democrats’ campaign against the sprawling tax and spending package after she made a retort about Medicaid cuts at a town hall.

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.

AUSTIN, Texas — A Democratic Texas lawmaker opted to spend the night in the state House chamber and remain there Tuesday rather than allow a law enforcement officer to shadow her while Republicans try to prevent further delays to redrawing U.S. House maps.

Rep. Nicole Collier overnight stay stemmed from Republicans in the Texas House requiring returning Democrats to sign what the Democrats called “permission slips,” agreeing to around-the-clock surveillance by state Department of Public Safety officers to leave the floor. Collier, of Fort Worth, refused and remained on the House floor Monday night.

A message seeking comment was sent Tuesday to the Department of Public Safety.

The Democrats’ return to Texas puts the Republican-run Legislature in position to satisfy Trump’s demands, possibly later this week, as California Democrats advance new congressional boundaries in retaliation.

Lawmakers had officers posted outside their Capitol offices, and suburban Dallas Rep. Mihaela Plesa said one tailed her on her Monday evening drive back to her apartment in Austin after spending much of the day on a couch in her office. She said he went with her for a staff lunch and even down the hallway with her for restroom breaks.

“We were kind of laughing about it, to be honest, but this is really serious stuff,” Plesa said in a telephone interview. “This is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really performative theater.”

Collier, who represents a minority-majority district, said she would not “sign away my dignity” and allow Republicans to “control my movements and monitor me.”

“I know these maps will harm my constituents,” she said in a statement. “I won’t just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination.”

2 states at the center of an expanding fight

The tit-for-tat puts the nation’s two most populous states at the center of an expanding fight over control of Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The battle has rallied Democrats nationally following infighting and frustrations among the party’s voters since Republicans took total control of the federal government in January.

Dozens of Texas Democratic lawmakers left for Illinois and elsewhere on Aug. 3, denying their Republican colleagues the attendance necessary to vote on redrawn maps intended to send five more Texas Republicans to Washington. Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 U.S. House seats.

They declared victory Friday, pointing to California’s proposal intended to increase Democrats’ U.S. House advantage by five seats. Many absent Democrats left Chicago early Monday and landed hours later at a private airfield in Austin, where several boarded a charter bus to the Capitol. Cheering supporters greeted them inside.

Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows did not mention redistricting on the floor but promised swift action on the Legislature’s agenda.

“We aren’t playing around,” Republican state Rep. Matt Shaheen, whose district includes part of the Dallas area, said in a post on the X social media platform.

Democrats promise to keep fighting

Even as they declared victory, Democrats acknowledged Republicans can now approve redrawn districts. Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu said Democrats would challenge the new designs in court.

Lawmakers did not take up any bills Monday and were not scheduled to return until Wednesday.

Trump has pressured other Republican-run states to consider redistricting, as well, while Democratic governors in multiple statehouses have indicated they would follow California’s lead in response. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said his state will hold a Nov. 4 special referendum on the redrawn districts.

The president wants to shore up Republicans’ narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of the midterms during his first presidency. After gaining House control in 2018, Democrats used their majority to stymie his agenda and twice impeach him.

Nationally, the partisan makeup of existing district lines puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Of the 435 total House seats, only several dozen districts are competitive. So even slight changes in a few states could affect which party wins control.

Redistricting typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade after the census. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among those that empower independent commissions, giving Newsom an additional hurdle.

California Democrats start redrawing process

Democratic legislators introduced new California maps Monday. It was the first official move toward the fall referendum asking voters to override the independent commission’s work after the 2020 census. The proposed boundaries would replace current ones through 2030. Democrats said they will return the mapmaking power to the commission after that.

State Republicans promised lawsuits.

Democrats hold 43 out of California’s 52 U.S. House seats. The proposal would try to expand that advantage by targeting battleground districts in Northern California, San Diego and Orange counties, and the Central Valley. Some Democratic incumbents also get more left-leaning voters in their districts.

“We don’t want this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we cannot run away from this fight,” said Democrat Marc Berman, a California Assembly member who previously chaired the elections committee.

Republicans expressed opposition in terms that echoed Democrats in Austin, accusing the majority of abusing power. Sacramento Republicans said they will introduce legislation advocating independent redistricting commissions in all states.

Texas’ governor jumped to the president’s aid

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott launched the expanding battle when he heeded Trump’s wishes and added redistricting to an initial special session agenda that included multiple issues, including a package responding to devastating floods that killed more than 130 people last month.

Abbott has blamed Democrats’ absence for delaying action on those measures. Democrats have answered that Abbott is responsible because he effectively linked the hyper-partisan matter to nonpartisan flood relief.

Abbott, Burrows and other Republicans tried various threats and legal maneuvers to pressure Democrats’ return, including the governor arguing that Texas judges should remove absent lawmakers from office.

As long as they were out of state, lawmakers were beyond the reach of the civil arrest warrants that Burrows issued. The Democrats who returned Monday did so without being detained by law enforcement.

The lawmakers who left face fines of up to $500 for each legislative day they missed. Burrows has insisted Democratic lawmakers also will pay pick up the tab for law enforcement who attempted to corral them during the walkout.

Barrow, Nguyen, Figueroa and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Nguyen reported from Sacramento. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan.

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump’s tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump’s signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net.

Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so.

Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts.

“Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,” Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. “American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.”

Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls.

As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Oceanside — Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is supporting his colleague Rep. Loretta Sanchez in this fall’s Senate race, a contest that pits two Democrats against each other and gives GOP voters no obvious choice.

The two appeared together in Issa’s congressional district this week, giving Sanchez an opportunity to publicize her expertise on national defense in a part of the state where she needs to do well with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike if she hopes to overtake her rival, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.

For Issa, the bipartisan event may help soften his image as congressional Republican leadership’s attack dog on the Obama administration.

He said that despite their differences on most issues facing the nation, he respects Sanchez’s knowledge of military and world affairs and they both support efforts to keep the country safe.

Reps. Mike Turner, left, Darrell Issa, Loretta Sanchez and Scott Peters hold a news conference in Oceanside.

(Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times )

The Vista Republican said that background makes the choice clear for Republicans and other voters about whom to support Nov. 8.

Hurting for support in her own party, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tilts her Senate campaign to the right >>

“I’ve already long ago figured out that Loretta Sanchez, her work on national security, probably tips the scale for a lot of us,” Issa told The Times. “She’s also very well aware of our problems with water. So those are, in my particular case, making a difference that is pretty measurable.”

The comments were made after he and Sanchez toured San Diego military installations, saying they found common ground when it comes to national defense and protecting the troops.

The visit also provided both with ample, mostly positive news coverage in a region loaded with Navy and Marine bases and defense contractors, an added benefit for two politicians facing tough elections.

“There’s nothing wrong with coming back and paying attention to your district. I think all congressmen should do that,” said San Diego Republican political consultant Jennifer Jacobs. “Yes, it will be good for his constituents, and, yes, I’m sure it will help him with the voters.”

Election 2016 | California politics news feed | Sign up for the newsletter

They were in the region as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation assessing the needs of the military. Joining them were Reps. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and Scott Peters (D-San Diego). Sanchez, Turner and Peters are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Issa’s district includes the Camp Pendleton Marine base, and he is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The four joined together for a news conference in Oceanside to voice concerns about the aging Marine Corps F-18 Hornet aircraft. So many planes are out of service for maintenance that pilot flying time has been seriously curtailed, they said.

Although they all insisted that the event was not political, it provided a dose of positive publicity. Their concerns were aired on two local television stations and picked up by the San Diego Union-Tribune.

“What most people don’t understand, because they see politics and Republicans and Democrats fighting all the time, the reality is that we need to do our work in the Congress,” Sanchez said after the tours, which were not open to the media. “And to do that you have to work with both sides of the aisle, and that’s what we do especially on the military committee.’’

Issa’s Democratic challenger in his 49th congressional district, retired Marine Col. Doug Applegate, has criticized the congressman as a Washington insider not mindful of the people he represents in a race that has drawn attention as a potential surprise this fall.

[email protected]

Twitter: @philwillon

ALSO:

Issa challenger came out of nowhere, raised more money

Hurting for support in her own party, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tilts her Senate campaign to the right

Obama, Biden endorse Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate

Updates on California politics

Au Kam San accused by police of being in contact with an unnamed ‘anti-China organisation abroad’ since 2022.

A leading democrat from Macau has been arrested for collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security, police said, as the semi-autonomous region further tightens its national security laws to align with those of China.

Macau’s police said in a statement on Thursday that Au Kam San had been taken from his residence for investigation on Wednesday.

The former Portuguese colony reverted to Chinese rule in 1999 via a “One Country, Two Systems” framework that promised a high degree of autonomy and rights protections.

Au, 68, is one of Macau’s most prominent democratic campaigners who served for nearly two decades as a lawmaker in the former Portuguese colony. He served in Macau’s legislature for two decades before stepping down in 2021.

The police statement did not give Au’s full name, but local media outlets reported that the man arrested was the campaigner, and Au’s wife arrived at the prosecution’s office on Thursday and was listed as a “witness”, online outlet All About Macau said.

“The resident has allegedly been in contact with an anti-China organisation abroad since 2022, providing the group with large amounts of false and seditious information, for public exhibitions overseas and online,” the police statement added.

The police did not say which foreign entity Au was in contact with, but said he had also sought to incite hatred against Beijing, disrupt a 2024 election for Macau’s leader and “provoke hostile actions by foreign countries against Macau”.

Au and his wife could not be reached for comment.

Through the years, Au had championed democratic reforms and helped foster civil society initiatives in the tiny gambling hub that returned from Portuguese to Chinese rule in 1999 – two years after the nearby former British colony of Hong Kong was handed back to China.

Unlike Hong Kong, which has seen big social movements challenge Chinese Communist Party rule in 2014 and 2019, the democratic opposition in the China-ruled former Portuguese colony has always existed on the fringes amid tight Chinese control.

Through the years, Au had led protests and railed against opaque governance and rising social inequalities, even as gambling revenues exploded in the city, which is home to about 700,000 people.

Au was one of the founders of several pro-democracy groups, including the New Macau Association, and had worked as a schoolteacher.

The arrest comes as authorities in neighbouring Hong Kong continue to crack down on dissent using two sets of powerful national security laws that have been leveraged to jail activists, shutter media outlets and civil society groups.

While Hong Kong’s democrats had actively challenged Beijing’s attempts to ratchet up control of the city since its return to Chinese rule, Macau’s government has faced far less public scrutiny, with authorities able to enact a sweeping set of national security laws as early as 2009.

This law was amended in 2023 to bring Macau in line with similar laws in Hong Kong and China and to bolster the prevention of foreign interference.

WASHINGTON — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Trump’s Department of Justice for files in the case and hold a deposition of Epstein’s jailed accomplice and former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington, a move widely seen as attempt to avoid politically difficult votes for his GOP caucus on the Epstein matter.

The committee’s moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn-out process.

Here’s what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein’s death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting.

Subpoena for the files

Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its early recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena.

The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing “un-redacted Epstein files.”

As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter.

Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft.

The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), said he told the speaker that “Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that’s what the American people want.”

Depose Maxwell?

Comer has said he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking.

In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if they could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she is likely to be asked about.

Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted two days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week.

Democrats warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted.

“We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,” Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told reporters this week.

Other subpoenas

Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as former U.S. attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under President George W. Bush.

It’s not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will play out, but Comer has said, “We’re going to move quickly on that.”

How will Bondi comply?

Trump has often fought congressional investigations and subpoenas. As with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information.

Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena “depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.”

If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi’s response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress.

It’s practically unheard of for a political party to vote to hold a member of its party’s White House administration in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP.

Calls for disclosure

Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation.

“We can’t allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), a committee member.

The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday he will campaign for mayor of New York City as an independent candidate, staying in a crowded field running against left-wing Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani.

In a video, Cuomo, who last month suffered a bruising loss to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, announced he was making another run to combat the progressive Mamdani, who he said “offers slick slogans but no real solutions.”

“The fight to save our city isn’t over,” Cuomo said. “Only 13% of New Yorkers voted in the June primary. The general election is in November and I am in it to win it.”

Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams also is running as an independent in the general election, and Curtis Sliwa — founder of the 1970s-era Guardian Angels anti-crime patrol — is again on the Republican line.

People opposed to Mamdani’s agenda, which includes higher taxes on the wealthy, have called on donors and voters to unite behind a single candidate for the November election. They fear multiple candidates will splinter the anti-Mamdani vote, increasing the Democrat’s chances to win.

Mamdani’s campaign responded to Cuomo’s announcement by saying the ex-governor and mayor are cozying up to “billionaires and Republicans” while the Democratic nominee remains focused on affordability issues.

“That’s the choice this November,” campaign spokesperson Jeffrey Lerner said in a statement.

Cuomo’s decision to continue on in the race is the latest chapter in his comeback attempt, launched almost four years after he resigned as governor in 2021 following a barrage of sexual harassment allegations. He denied wrongdoing during the campaign, maintaining that the scandal was driven by politics.

Cuomo was treated as the presumed front-runner for much of the Democratic primary, with the former governor boasting deep political experience, universal name recognition and a juggernaut fundraising operation. He limited media interviews, held few unscripted events and avoided mingling with voters.

That strategy contrasted with Mamdani’s energetic street-level campaign centered around affordability issues. The 33-year-old amassed a legion of young volunteers who blanketed the city to build support, while the candidate’s savvy social media persona won him national acclaim.

Lagging behind Mamdani in the vote count, Cuomo conceded the race last month on primary night. Final results released after the city ran through its ranked choice voting calculations showed Mamdani besting the former governor by 12 percentage points.

Despite the Democratic primary loss, Cuomo had also qualified to run on an independent ballot line in November under a party he created called “Fight and Deliver.”

As he weighed whether to stay on as an independent, Cuomo began losing support from traditional allies. Key labor unions backed Mamdani, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, an influential Black leader, urged Cuomo to step aside.

Some deep-pocketed contributors have meanwhile aligned behind Adams, who is running as an independent. Although he’s still a Democrat, Adams pulled out of the primary shortly after a federal judge dismissed a corruption case against him at the request of President Trump’s Justice Department, arguing that the case had sidelined him from campaigning.

Cuomo, 67, served as governor for over a decade and modeled himself as a socially progressive Democrat who got things done. He pushed through legislation that legalized gay marriage and tackled massive infrastructure projects, such as a three-mile bridge over the Hudson River that he named after his father.

Cuomo’s national profile peaked in the early days of the nation’s COVID-19 outbreak during his televised daily briefings. The governor leavened stern warnings for people to wear masks with heartfelt expressions of concern for his elderly mother or brotherly banter with Chris Cuomo, a TV journalist.

His reputation was soon tainted when it emerged that the state’s official count of nursing home deaths had excluded many victims who had been transferred to hospitals before they succumbed.

Cuomo resigned shortly after New York’s attorney general released the results of an investigation that found he had sexually harassed at least 11 women.

Early Saturday morning, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani stepped on stage in the historically Black neighbourhood of Harlem.

His message was a familiar one: that he would be the best candidate to fight for the city’s marginalised and working classes.

“There have been many a question as to whether this city will simply become a museum of a place that once was — a museum of where working people could thrive,” Mamdani told the crowd.

On June 24, Mamdani scored an upset, winning New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary over frontrunner Andrew Cuomo, a former governor.

Just this Tuesday, the round-three results were released, showing Mamdani with a whopping 56 percent of the ranked-choice vote, dwarfing Cuomo’s 44 percent.

That dominant performance sent ripples around the United States political sphere. But it also led to scrutiny about where Mamdani’s weaknesses may lie.

Preliminary results suggest that Mamdani struggled in lower-income neighbourhoods like Brownsville and East Flatbush, where Cuomo took a marked lead.

In both of those areas, more than 60 percent of residents are Black. The neighbourhoods also share high poverty rates, with Brownsville at 32.4 percent and East Flatbush at 18.9, compared with the citywide rate of 18.2 percent.

One widely cited analysis from The New York Times found that 49 percent of precincts with a low-income majority tilted towards Cuomo, compared with 38 percent for Mamdani.

In precincts with a majority of Black residents, the pro-Cuomo number rose to 51 percent.

Those statistics raised questions about whether Mamdani’s promise to restore affordability in New York failed to resonate — or whether the numbers conceal a more complicated story.

A big-name opponent

Even before the primary results were called, there were some indications that Mamdani faced a steep challenge among lower-income and Black voters.

A Marist poll (PDF) from May found that 47 percent of respondents whose household income was less than $50,000 planned to vote for Cuomo as their first choice.

Mamdani was a distant second among the nine possible candidates, with 11 percent support. Meanwhile, he came in third place in the poll among Black voters, with 8 percent support to Cuomo’s 50 percent.

Experts say Cuomo had several factors weighing in his favour. Jerry Skurnik, a political consultant, pointed out that Cuomo was a well-known figure before June’s primary.

Not only was Cuomo a two-time governor, but he is also the son of a former governor.

His decades-long career in politics included stints in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton. Establishment figures like Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina ultimately backed his campaign.

Mamdani, by contrast, is newer to the political arena: The 33-year-old has served in the New York State Assembly since 2020.

“Most people expected Cuomo to do well in the minority areas,” Skurnik said.

“He had name recognition, and he also had endorsements in most of those areas by local elected officials.”

Skurnik also noted that primaries typically attract older voters, who are considered a greater part of Cuomo’s voting bloc.

There, however, Skurnik points out that Mamdani defied the odds. A New York Times analysis suggested that voters in their 20s and 30s turned out in significantly higher numbers than for the 2021 mayoral primary.

That contributed to the highest overall Democratic primary turnout since 1989, when David Dinkins campaigned to become the first Black mayor of New York City.

“Younger voters came out in much higher numbers than anticipated,” Skurnik said. “Even in areas that Mamdani lost, he did by lower margins than people anticipated, paving the way for his victory.”

Courting the risk-averse

Other experts speculated that Mamdani, as a progressive candidate facing a centrist, might have been perceived as a riskier option.

John Gershman, a professor of public service at New York University, indicated that uncertainty can affect voter choices, particularly for those from vulnerable communities or precarious economic circumstances.

“For low-income families and the Black community, I think very much the calculus is not so much who’s the best candidate, but with which candidate am I risking the least, or am I least likely to lose?” Gershman said.

“In some ways, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”

Gershman added, however, that Mamdani fit into a broader trend within the Democratic Party.

He pointed out that low-income voters leaned rightwards towards Republican Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election despite Democrats having a stronger “anti-poverty element” in their agenda.

Trump even made headway among Black voters, though the majority remain Democrats.

Gershman tied the trend back to name recognition and media habits. More low-income voters, he said, get their news from legacy media sources like television and newspapers.

Cuomo relied more heavily on those outlets for publicity. While Mamdani did make a sizable TV ad buy, he also campaigned heavily on social media with videos that were more informal and conversational.

Some conservative commentators, however, seized upon The New York Times’ analysis to arrive at a different interpretation about why certain voters might perceive risk in Mamdani’s campaign.

Speaking to Fox News, Republican strategist Karl Rove cited the statistics to argue that low-income voters may fear the tax burden that might accompany greater anti-poverty spending.

“Low-income voters said, ‘You know what? We’re not dumb enough to think that this is all going to be cost-free,’” Rove said, taking a swipe at Mamdani.

“There aren’t enough rich people to pay all of the promises he’s making.”

A complex demographic patchwork

But many experts say the broad voting trends fail to capture the complexity and overlaps of the communities they represent.

Michael Lange, a writer and political strategist who researched the primary, noted that many low-income communities in New York are Hispanic or Asian — demographics that gave strong backing to Mamdani.

“There were many lower-income neighbourhoods that Zohran Mamdani did well in, particularly in Queens, [like] Elmhurst and Flushing, that are almost exclusively Asian,” Lange said.

Those areas, he added, “verge on low income to working poor to working class”.

Activist and local historian Asad Dandia, who supports Mamdani, warned it would be wrong to see his campaign as solely drawing white or upper-class voters.

Rather, Dandia argued that Mamdani’s candidacy brought together a patchwork of diverse communities, from the Pakistani enclave in Brighton Beach to the Latino majority in Corona, Queens.

Even in some Black and low-income neighbourhoods, Dandia pointed out that Mamdani came out on top.

“How can you say that he’s not appealing to low-income voters when he’s winning Harlem?” Dandia asked.

But communities are constantly evolving, as are their politics. Juan Battle, a professor at the City University of New York, emphasised that every election cycle is different — and voter priorities can shift.

He pointed out that, during the last mayoral election, crime was the dominant theme. It helped buoy the current mayor, former police officer Eric Adams, to power.

“If this were happening four years ago, where crime was a big issue, I don’t think that Mamdani would have won,” Battle said. “Cuomo would have definitely won.”

No monoliths in election season

Mandami is set to face Adams himself in November’s general elections. Cuomo, too, has not yet ruled out a third-party run on the final ballot.

Still, as the Democratic nominee, Mamdani has become the frontrunner in the race — and his campaign is likely to continue building its coalition, including through appeals to the demographics it may have lost in the primary.

That includes Black voters. But in order to succeed, Portia Allen-Kyle, the executive director of the racial justice group Color of Change, believes that Mamdani needs to understand the spectrum of viewpoints in the Black community.

“Black voters are not a monolith, as we saw that on [election] day,” she said.

Allen-Kyle believes authenticity and innovation will be key to reaching Black voters come November. She also warned against relying too heavily on the same popular shows where other politicians make appearances.

“In the same way you can no longer just go to churches to reach Black voters, we’re not all listening to The Breakfast Club or to Ebro in the Morning,” she explained, referencing two radio shows that Mamdani has appeared on.

As he continues to reach out to Black voters ahead of November, Mamdani has made allies with a civil rights icon: Reverend Al Sharpton.

At Saturday’s event, Sharpton himself reflected on The New York Times’ findings about Mamdani and the Black vote.

“There was a story in The New York Times, two days after the primary, about Black votes,” Sharpton told the crowd.

He pointed out that Mamdani could have chosen to appeal to other communities, where his support was stronger. But Mamdani’s “courage” had won his support.

“Any other kind of politician would have played against the Black community,” Sharpton said. “He decided to come to the Black community.”

June 30 (UPI) — Two U.S. House members — Democrat Dwight Evans and Republican Don Bacon — announced Monday they will not seek a third term in 2026 after both have served since their 2016 elections.

Evans, 71, has represented Philadelphia and Bacon, 61, in Nebraska, including Omaha.

Evans, who suffered a stroke last year and has missed several months of votes, had intended to run again in Pennsylvania’s heavy Democratic Third Congressional District.

Bacon is moderate in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District, which was won by Vice President Kamala Harris in her bid to become president last year and President Joe Biden in 2020. That gave each of them an electronic vote in the state, which is not winner-take-all.

The U.S. House currently has a breakdown of 220 Republicans and 212 Democrats with three vacancies after the deaths of three Democrats.

Longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an 81-year-old Democrat from Illinois, said earlier this year she wouldn’t run again.

Republican Mark Green, 60, of Tennessee, said he will retire after the budget policy bill goes through Congress.

Dwight Evans

“Serving the people of Philadelphia has been the honor of my life,” Evans said in a statement. “And I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking re-election in 2026. I will serve out the full term that ends Jan. 3, 2027.”

He succeeded Chaka Fattah, who resigned after being indicted on federal corruption charges.

“I am deeply proud of what I have been able to accomplish over my 45 years in elected office — from revitalizing neighborhoods block by block to fighting for justice, economic opportunity, investments in infrastructure and education,” he said. “I cannot express the gratitude that I have for the trust that voters put in me as their voice in both state and federal office. It has been a privilege of a lifetime to serve as their advocate in government.”

Evans was elected as the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in 1990, serving 20 years.

Evans said he has remained “rooted in his neighborhood” throughout his career, and lived just blocks from where he grew up in the city.

He was a public school teacher and community organizer with the Urban League until he began working in government at 26 in 1980. He was elected to the state’s House of Representatives.

Politico reported there could be a fierce battle between establishment Democrats and progressives, including socialists.

State Sen. Sharif Street on Monday posted on X his intention to run for Evans’ seat, writing “I’m in.” Street, who has worked with Republicans on some issues, is chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

Two state representatives, Chris Raab and Morgan Cephas, told WCAU-TV they are considering seeking the seat. They are both progressives.

Don Bacon

“After three decades in the Air Force and now going on one decade in Congress, I look forward to coming home in the evenings and being with my wife and seeing more of our adult children and eight grandchildren, who all live near my home,” Bacon said in a statement.

“I’ve been married for 41 years, and I’d like to dedicate more time to my family, my church, and the Omaha community,” he added. “I also want to continue advocating for a strong national security strategy and a strong alliance system with countries that share our love of democracy, free markets and the rule of law,” he added.

At times, he has not gone with what other Republicans, including President Donald Trump, want.

He told The New York Times in an interview removing deportation protection for Afghans in the U.S. was wrong and has criticized Trump’s position on Russa’s war with Ukraine. He was the only Republican to vote against changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

“It’s one thing when you have the opposing party fighting you, but when you have divisions in your own party, you know — it makes it harder,” he said in May at an Omaha roundtable with business leaders to discuss Congress’ tax bill.

Bacon approved the spending bill, which went to the House by a 215-214 margin. If the Senate approves the bill and with changes, it goes back to the House.

“I think the Senate has done some new provisions in there that are concerning … But there’s a lot of amendments being voted out today. So I’m going to keep my powder dry, see how it turns out,” Bacon told reporters.

Bacon, who was born in Chicago, served 29 years in the U.S. Air Force.

He served as an aide to U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry in Nebraska’s First District, and a professor at Bellevue University in Nebraska before running for office.

Bacond is a member of House Armed Services Committee, and chairman of the conservative-centrist Republican Main Street Caucus in the House.

No one has announced plans to run in either primary.