Democrats

Zohran Mamdani is a stylish, millennial, African-born Muslim with a Hollywood pedigree who just won the Democratic primary in the New York City mayor’s race.

If he sounds like Donald Trump’s worst nightmare, he just might be. But he’s also a lot like him.

They’re both charismatic leaders who have bucked their parties, tapped into the current political ethos that eschews traditional loyalties and by doing so, made themselves popular enough with fed-up voters to win elections when — to many in the political elite — they seem exactly like the kind of candidate who shouldn’t be able to get their grandmother’s vote.

“Working-class people want somebody who really takes on the status quo, who pushes an economic populist agenda and convinces them that something’s going to change,” Lorena Gonzalez told me.

She’s the head of the California Labor Federation, which represents unions, and even she’s fed up with Democrats.

“There are days that I’m like, why am I still in this party?” she said. “When I see them cozy up to tech, when I see this abundance issue that streamlines worker protections, when I see this fascination with billionaires and this acquiescing to not taxing billionaires and not doing anything about rent control, you know, there’s a point where I’m like, come on, grow some balls, go decide who you’re for.”

Or, as Trump put it in a social media post after Mamdani’s win, “Yes, this is a big moment in the History of our Country!”

Trump is right, words that I don’t often say — Mamdani’s victory may signal something deeper than a lone mayor’s race on the East Coast. People — both on the left and the right — crave authenticity, and want someone to believe in, be it an orange-hued boomer or a brown-skinned hipster.

The Democrats, as political strategist Mike Madrid put it, are having their own Tea Party moment, when populist anger eats the old guard, as it did beginning in 2007 when the far-right of the Republican party began its now-successful takeover. Trump was never the impetus of the party’s swing to the fringe, he just capitalized on it.

“This is just a populist revolt of the Democratic Party against the establishment base,” Madrid said.

There’s been ad nauseam amounts of pontificating about the current state of the Democratic party. Should it go more centrist? Should it embrace the progressive end? But the truth is the voters have already decided. They do indeed want lower grocery prices, as Trump promised but failed to deliver. But they also want democracy to not crumble. And they want to buy a house, and maybe not have their neighbors deported. But really, in that order.

And they don’t trust many, if not most, of the current Democrats in office to deliver. Like Republicans before them, they want outsiders (Mamdani, 33, is serving in the state Assembly), or at least someone who can sound like one.

Gonzalez spends a lot of time talking to voters and she said left and right, Democrat and Republican, they see few differences remaining between the two parties, and are tired of voting for career politicians who haven’t delivered on economic issues.

Mamdani, whose mother is the film director Mira Nair (and who once rapped under the name Young Cardamom), campaigned on “a New York you can afford.” That included freezing payments on rent-controlled apartments, building new affordable housing with union labor, making both transit and child care free and — you guessed it — cheaper groceries. Whether he delivers or not, those were messages that a broad swath of New Yorkers, struggling like all of us with the cost of living, wanted to hear.

And he delivered them not just with credibility, but with an entertainment value that nods to his mom’s influence: hamming it up Bollywood style for the South Asian aunties, walking the length of Manhattan to talk with people, jumping in the Atlantic ocean in a suit with a skinny tie.

Charisma and chutzpah.

Which, of course, is how Trump made his own rise, promising, with showman verve, to be the voice of the toiling voiceless who increasingly are in danger of becoming the working poor. Yes, he is a con man who is clearly for the rich. But still, he knows how to deliver a line to his base: “They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the dogs.”

That may be the biggest lesson for California, where we will soon be voting for a new governor from a crowded field — of establishment candidates. Even Kamala Harris, maybe especially Harris, fits that insider image, and certainly Gavin Newsom, despite zigzagging from centrist to pugilist, can’t forward his presidential ambitions as anything but old-guard.

“What makes someone like Zohran so compelling, is even if you don’t agree with him on everything, which few voters do, you understand that he believes it and that you know where he’s coming from,” said Amanda Litman, the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something, a PAC that recruits young progressives to run for office.

“I think that’s the distinction between him and say someone like Gavin Newsom, which is, like, does Gavin believe what he says? Does he buy his own bull—? It’s sort of unclear,” Litman added.

The anger of voters is strikingly clear, though, especially for ones who have for so long been loyal to Democrats. A new Pew analysis out this week found that about 20% of the Republican base is now nonwhite, nearly doubling what it was in 2016. Republicans have made gains with Black voters, Asian voters and Trump drew nearly half of Latino voters. Ouch.

“One of the real challenges for the Democrats is two central pieces of the orthodoxy has been that they are the party of the working class and that they are the party of nonwhite voters,” Madrid said. “Both of those are increasingly proving untrue, and the question then becomes, well, how do you get them back? The way you get them back is by having some sort of economic populist policy framework.”

Litman said that the way to capture voters is by running new candidates, the kind who don’t come with history — and baggage. In the 36 hours after Mamdani was elected, her organization had 1,100 people sign up to learn more about how to run for office themselves, she said. It’s the biggest spike since the inauguration, and it shows that voters aren’t disinterested in democracy, but alienated from the existing options.

“The establishment is not unbeatable. They’re only unchallenged,” Litman said. “And I think the more that the Democratic Party establishment, as much as it exists, can understand that the people and the playbooks that got us here will not be the people and playbooks that get us out of it, the better off we’ll be.”

So maybe there are more Mamdani’s out there, waiting to lead the way. If Democrats are looking for advice, Trump may have offered the best I’ve seen in a while — highlighting the insider/outsider Democrats who have, like Mamdani, made their name by rattling the establishment.

“I have an idea for the Democrats to bring them back into ‘play,’” he wrote on social media. “After years of being left out in the cold, including suffering one of the Greatest Losses in History, the 2024 Presidential Election, the Democrats should nominate Low IQ Candidate, Jasmine Crockett, for President, and AOC+3 should be, respectively, Vice President, and three High Level Members of the Cabinet — Added together with our future Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani and our Country is really SCREWED!”

Or not.

Wouldn’t that be a slate?

California leaders reached a tentative agreement Tuesday night on the state budget, which hinges on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s demand that the Legislature pass a housing reform proposal.

The eleventh-hour negotiations about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1, speak to the political challenge of overhauling longstanding environmental regulations to speed up housing construction in a state controlled by Democrats.

The party has been loath to do more than tweak the California Environmental Quality Act, or approve one-off exemptions, despite pressure from the governor and national criticism of a law that reform advocates say has hamstrung California’s ability to build.

The proposal is among a series of policies Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are expected to advance in the coming days as part of the $321.1-billion budget. The deal reflects the Legislature’s resistance to the governor’s proposed cuts to reduce a $12-billion budget deficit expected in the year ahead, citing uncertainty about the scope of the state’s financial problems.

“We appreciate the strong partnership with the Legislature in reaching this budget agreement,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom. “The governor’s signature is contingent on finalizing legislation to cut red tape and unleash housing and infrastructure development across the state — to build more, faster.”

The consensus comes after weeks of conversations about how to offset the deficit, caused by overspending in California, and start to address even larger financial problems anticipated in the future, including from potential federal policy changes.

The tentative deal largely relies on borrowing money, tapping into state reserves, and shifting funding around to close the shortfall. By reducing and delaying many of the governor’s proposed cuts, the budget continues a practice at the state Capitol of sparing state programs from immediate pain while avoiding taking on California’s long-term budget woes.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said the budget deal papers over the state’s financial problems.

“We’re in this situation because of overspending,” Gallagher said. “We’ve made long-term commitments to programs that Democrats have championed, and now, just like everybody warned, the money is not there to support them all, and they don’t want to cut back their program that they helped expand.”

The cuts lawmakers and the governor ultimately agreed to will reduce the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to undocumented immigrants and reinstate asset limit tests for Medi-Cal enrollees. The final deal, however, achieves less savings for the state than Newsom originally proposed.

The plan restores cost-of-living adjustments for child-care workers, which the governor wanted to nix, and rejects his call to cap overtime hours for in-home caregivers.

Democrats in the Legislature successfully pushed to provide another $500 million in funding for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants. The governor originally resisted giving more money to counties, which he has chastised for being unable to show results for the billions of dollars in state funding they have received to reduce homelessness.

Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) pushed back on the notion that the Legislature hasn’t done “real belt-tightening.” Lawmakers are trying to balance compassion and fiscal responsibility before making drastic cuts to safety net programs that Californians rely on, he said.

“That is the balance that we are trying to strike here with this budget of being responsible, of focusing on the work that we need to do regardless, but also understanding that there is a pretty high delta of uncertainty for a lot of reasons,” Gabriel said.

The budget also preserves Newsom’s plan to provide $750 million to expand the California Film and Television Tax Credit, a proposal supported by Hollywood film studios and unions representing workers in the industry.

The tentative agreement is expected to serve as a precursor to more challenging financial discussions about additional reductions in the months ahead.

California expects to lose federal funding from the Trump administration and state officials predict a potentially greater funding dilemma in 2026-27.

Here are few key elements of the budget deal, detailed in summaries of the agreement and legislation:

A housing caveat

Described colloquially as a “poison pill” inserted into the budget bill, the agreement between the Legislature and Newsom will only become law if legislators send the governor a version of a proposal initially introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Wiener’s bill is expected to lessen the number of building projects that would require a full environmental review under CEQA and make the process of developing environmental impact reports more efficient.

Paired with another proposal that could exempt more urban housing developments from CEQA, the legislation could mark a significant change in state policy that makes it easier to build.

Newsom is effectively forcing the Wiener proposal through by refusing to sign a budget deal without the CEQA exemptions. The proposal was still being drafted as of Tuesday evening.

The governor declared lofty goals to build more housing on the 2018 gubernatorial campaign trail, but he has failed to spur enough construction to meet housing demand and make homes more affordable.

New York Times columnist Ezra Klein effectively called out the inaction in California caused by the state’s marquee environmental law and a lack of political will in his recent book “Abundance,” which increased pressure on the governor and other Democrats to reconsider their approach and push for more substantial fixes this year.

The CEQA reform bill must be passed by Monday under the budget agreement, which omits a separate Newsom call to streamline the Delta tunnels project.

Changes to Med-Cal funding

Medi-Cal cost overruns are causing major problems for the California budget. The challenges stem from a higher-than-expected price tag for the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to all income-eligible undocumented immigrants and medical care for other enrollees.

Newsom’s budget proposal in May suggested substantial trims to the healthcare program for people who are undocumented. His plan included freezing new enrollment as of Jan. 1, requiring all adults to pay $100 monthly premiums, eliminating long-term care benefits and cutting full dental coverage. The changes offered minor savings in the year ahead but could save billions of dollars in future years.

Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. They plan to adopt Newsom’s enrollment cap but give people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility.

Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026.

State leaders agreed to reinstate much higher limits than the governor originally proposed on the assets Medi-Cal beneficiaries may possess and still get coverage. The new limits would be $130,000 for individuals and $195,00 for couples, compared to prior limits of a few thousand dollars.

They also adopted Newsom’s proposal to withdraw Medi-Cal benefits for specialty weight-loss drugs.

Shifting money around

The negotiations resulted in less general fund spending than the Legislature proposed in a counter to Newsom’s budget revision in May, dropping from $232 billion to an estimated $228 billion for 2025-26.

Officials are using more money from California’s cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on companies’ greenhouse gas emissions and allows them to buy pollution credits from the state, including $1 billion next year. They are also using $300 million from climate change bonds instead of the general fund to pay for environmental programs.

Lawmakers and the governor agreed to delay a $3.4-billion payment on a loan to cover Medi-Cal cost overruns and increase the loan by another $1 billion next year.

Trump uncertainty

The plan continues an agreement to take $7.1 billion from the state’s rainy day fund to help cover the deficit and taps into another $6.5 billion from other cash reserves to balance the budget.

California leaders for months have warned about the so-called Trump effect on the state budget.

Financial analysts at UCLA predict that the state economy is expected to slow in the months ahead due to the effects of Trump’s tariff policy and immigration raids on construction, hospitality, agriculture and other key sectors.

Meanwhile, the state is warning that federal funding reductions to California could require lawmakers to adopt additional budget cuts in August or September, during a special session in the fall or early next year.

State officials expect future deficit estimates to range from $17 to $24 billion annually, according to an Assembly summary of the budget deal.

More to come

The final budget agreement is being publicly released in bits and pieces this week through a series of trailer bills that appear online at random hours.

Lawmakers are expected to pass a main budget bill on Friday and approve additional legislation by Monday, before the July 1 deadline for the budget to go into effect. Some legislation, such as the CEQA housing exemptions, will not appear in print until the end of the week.

Other decisions, such as reauthorizing California’s cap-and-trade program, will be considered later in the year outside of the budget process.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to set aside an effort to impeach President Trump on a sole charge of abuse of power after he launched military strikes on Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

The sudden action forced by a lone Democrat, Rep. Al Green of Texas, brought little debate and split his party. Most Democrats joined the Republican majority to table the measure for now. But dozens of Democrats backed Green’s effort. The tally was 344 to 79.

“I take no delight in what I’m doing,” Green said before the vote.

“I do this because no one person should have the power to take over 300 million people to war without consulting with the Congress of the United States of America,” he said. “I do this because I understand that the Constitution is going to be meaningful or it’s going to be meaningless.”

The effort, while not the first rumblings of actions to impeach Trump since he started his second term in January, shows the unease many Democrats have with his administration, particularly after the sudden attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, a risky incursion into Middle East affairs.

Trump earlier Tuesday lashed out in vulgar terms against another Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, for having suggested his military action against Iran was an impeachable offense.

House Democratic leadership was careful to not directly criticize Green, but also made clear that their focus was on other issues. Impeachment matters are typically considered a vote of conscience, without pressure from leadership to vote a certain way.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), chair of the House Democratic caucus, said lawmakers will “represent their constituents and their communities.”

“At this time, at this moment, we are focusing on what this big, ugly bill is going to do,” he said about the big Trump tax breaks package making its way through Congress. “I think anything outside of that is a distraction because this is the most important thing that we can focus on.”

Trump was twice impeached by House Democrats during his first term, in 2019 over withholding funds to Ukraine as it faced military aggression from Russia, and in 2021 on the charge of inciting an insurrection after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters trying to stop Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.

In both of those impeachment cases, the Senate acquitted Trump of charges, allowing his return to the presidency this year.

Green, who had filed earlier articles of impeachment against the president this year, has been a consistent voice speaking out against Trump’s actions, which he warns is America’s slide toward authoritarianism.

The congressman told the AP earlier in the day that he wanted to force the vote to show that at least one member of Congress was watching the president’s action and working to keep the White House in check.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats remain at odds over policy toward Iran after the U.S. strikes early Sunday.

Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran’s nuclear program, but party leaders were treading more cautiously.

U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump’s announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party’s latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump’s isolationist “Make America Great Again” base from more hawkish conservatives.

Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could “measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

“Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,” Martin said in a statement. “Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.”

Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran “does not make America more secure.”

“This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,” Welch said in a statement.

While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump’s potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force.

Martin’s statement took a similar tack, saying, “Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.”

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump’s actions “horrible judgment” and said he’d “push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump’s announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party.

“They are sort of hedging their bets,” said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State who served under President Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. “The beasts of the Democratic Party’s constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel’s war in Gaza that it’s really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.”

Progressives

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) had called Trump’s consideration of an attack “a defining moment for our party.” Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that called on the Republican president to “terminate” the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless “explicitly authorized” by a declaration of war from Congress.

Khanna used Trump’s campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular among Trump supporters, particularly young men.

“That’s going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,” said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2028.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump’s stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as “a peacemaker and a unifier.”

“Supporting Netanyahu’s war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,” Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time.

Some believed the party should stake out a clear antiwar stance.

“The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,” said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X.

Mainstream Democrats

The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel’s war against Hamas loomed over the party’s White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel’s handling of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House.

Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year’s midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc.

In a statement after Israel’s first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and “the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran’s response.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that “the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.”

Other Democrats have condemned Israel’s strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a multinational nuclear agreement that limited Tehran’s enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration.

“Trump created the problem,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X.

What voters think

A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being “too supportive” of Israel and about 4 in 10 said its level of support was “about right.” Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had “a lot” of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas.

About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans said they felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict.

Gomez Licon and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report

WASHINGTON — By outward appearances, Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata led a modest life. He was a landscape architect, she was a homemaker. They lived in a wood-shingle townhouse in a suburban Virginia working-class neighborhood favored by taxi drivers and government workers.

“I considered them a quiet, reserved couple,” said a former neighbor who could recall no signs of wealth or elite connections.

In particular, they had not been politically active and, according to government campaign-finance reports, had not contributed money to a political campaign until November. But in that month, the Wiriadinatas each wrote a $15,000 check to the Democratic National Committee. The next month they wrote six more checks, totaling $100,000.

Then they disappeared from the United States, returning to their homeland of Indonesia. But that didn’t stop their political largess. The checks kept coming to the DNC. By June they had contributed $425,000–a huge individual sum–more than movie-maker Steven Spielberg, more than AT&T;, more even than the Assn. of Trial Lawyers of America.

And they left behind a mystery that is now at the center of a mushrooming controversy that has spilled into the U.S. presidential race.

Are the Wiriadinatas, as the DNC maintains, an extraordinary embodiment of political philanthropy, motivated solely by President Clinton’s concern for an ailing relative and their desire to see the incumbent reelected?

Or, as the president’s critics suggest, might the couple be a deceptive front for wealthy foreigners–such as Soraya’s now-deceased father, Hashim Ning–who sought to buy influence in American politics but who were prohibited by law from contributing money to U.S. election campaigns?

DNC officials insist that the contributions from the Wiriadinatas, who were legal immigrants in the United States, were legal and proper.

Republicans are asking: Where did they get all that money?

Clinton Links

At this point the questions far outnumber the answers, with the Wiriadinatas silent and out of touch overseas and with the DNC fund-raiser who solicited their money declining all interviews, responding only through intermediaries with specific written answers to written questions.

But several intriguing elements are feeding the tempest, which swirls in the hyper-charged atmosphere of the nearing presidential election.

They include Clinton’s ties to Indonesian business people. Soraya Wiriadinata’s father was a partner of one of Indonesia’s wealthiest men, Mochtar Riady. Riady’s banking, real estate and insurance interests have stretched from Jakarta to Little Rock, Ark., and his family has enjoyed an unusually close relationship to Clinton.

Also, there is the fact that the DNC fund-raiser involved, John Huang, is the same one who brought in an illegal $250,000 contribution from a company in South Korea. When the foreign source of the donation was identified, the DNC returned the money.

And there is the hiring of Clinton confidant Webster L. Hubbell by one of Riady’s enterprises after Hubbell resigned as the No. 3 official in the Justice Department and before he went to jail for defrauding his Arkansas law firm.

Seeking to raise the political stakes, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called Sunday for congressional inquiries and maintained that a special counsel would have to be appointed to investigate the affair.

“This is a potential abuse of the American system on behalf of an Indonesia billionaire in a way that we have never seen in American history,” Gingrich said on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation.” “It’s almost unthinkable.”

Vice President Al Gore, asked to respond to these issues on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press,” said: “There have been absolutely no violations of any law or regulations. . . . There is nothing that has been done that’s wrong.”

Influence-Buying?

Regardless of who is right, the Indonesian connection strikes a particularly sensitive nerve in the American body politic–the concern that foreigners will find ways to buy influence in domestic U.S. politics. The same fears were triggered two decades ago with the investigation of South Korean government influence-buying in Congress by flamboyant businessman Tongsun Park.

In recent years, Riady family members and the U.S. subsidiaries and executives of the family’s company, the Lippo Group, which includes Los Angeles-based Lippo Bank, have contributed lavishly to the Democratic Party. The Lippo Group’s clout is such that some Washington-based diplomats have questioned whether it has tried to use its connections to influence American policies toward Asia to benefit its financial interests.

Since Clinton embarked on his initial presidential bid in 1991, members of the Riady family and Lippo Group’s American subsidiaries and executives have contributed more than $475,000 to the Democratic Party and its candidates, according to a study of Federal Election Commission records done for The Times by the Campaign Study Group of Springfield, Va.

Mochtar Riady is barred by law from giving to U.S. campaigns because he is not a U.S. resident. But his son, James Riady, a longtime friend of Clinton, lived in the United States legally in 1991 and 1992, when he and his family gave $100,525 to the Democrats. James Riady has since returned to Indonesia.

At the nexus of the relationship between the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party, the Wiriadinatas and the Riadys is Huang, a former president of Lippo Group U.S.A.

Huang left Lippo Group in 1994 to serve as the Commerce Department’s deputy assistant secretary for international economic policy for 18 months. He then joined the DNC, where he is vice chairman of the national finance committee. Huang specializes in raising money from Asian American donors–and he handled the Wiriadinatas contributions.

He has raised several million dollars this election cycle, according to Democratic sources.

Huang also was responsible for a $250,000 contribution from the American subsidiary of a South Korean company–a contribution that proved to be illegal because the subsidiary had not done any business in the United States. The DNC returned the contribution after The Times raised questions about it.

Huang’s most stunning fund-raising success may have been the Wiriadinatas.

Origin of Donations

Huang, in his written responses to questions from The Times, said he met the Wiriadinatas when he visited Ning–who had suffered a heart attack during a visit here–at a Virginia hospital in June 1995. Huang had known Ning, founder of his own group of Indonesian companies, from their mutual association with Riady and Lippo.

Huang said the Wiriadinatas subsequently “expressed an interest in supporting the Democratic Party and the president, and I suggested that they contribute to the DNC.”

In November, the couple attended a dinner at which Gore spoke, and gave their $15,000 donations. In December, Arief Wiriadinata participated in a DNC breakfast at the White House with Clinton, apparently at Huang’s invitation, said DNC spokeswoman Amy Weiss Tobe.

In a Feb. 21 form letter on DNC stationery, Clinton thanked Wiriadinata for “recently meeting with me at the White House. I enjoyed having the chance to talk to you.”

Asked about the Wiriadinatas’ generosity, Huang wrote he had “absolutely no reason to question whether the money they were contributing belonged to them” because they resided in Virginia and were legal U.S. residents.

In addition, he said, Arief Wiriadinata had a master’s degree in engineering from an Ivy League university (the University of Pennsylvania) and worked as a landscape architect, and Soraya was the daughter of the founder of a major enterprise and “to my knowledge has very substantial resources of her own.”

Under federal law, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to a U.S. election campaign unless they are legal residents here.

Gordon M. Bava, principal attorney for Lippo Bank of California, said Huang “certainly knew potential donors in the Asian community,” but that he would never violate campaign fund-raising laws.

“I never saw any evidence of that,” Bava said. “Based on my personal knowledge of him and his ethics, I would be very surprised if he was engaged in any such activity.”

Ning initially recuperated from his heart attack and returned to Indonesia, where he died in December. The Wiriadinatas returned home shortly after to be with their family, Huang said. A neighbor recalled that Arief Wiriadinata told him he was “going back home to work for his family.”

But they continued their contributions to the campaign in the United States. Following their departure, the Wiriadinatas made another 15 donations totaling $295,000, according to reports filed by the DNC with the FEC.

All told, the couple wrote 23 separate checks of $5,000 to $25,000 between Nov. 9, 1995, and June 7, 1996. Fifteen were signed by Arief Wiriadinata and eight by his wife.

Seen as Gratitude

DNC and White House officials described the donations as expressions of gratitude for get-well letters the White House sent to Ning when he was hospitalized.

Mark D. Fabiani, special associate White House counsel, said two form letters were sent on behalf of Clinton, both signed by an auto-pen rather than by the president personally. The first, a brief note on June 19, 1995, expressed regret about Ning’s health problems and wished him well. When Ning replied with encouraging news about his recovery, the White House sent a second letter on Clinton’s behalf to Jakarta on Nov. 8.

National DNC Chairman Don Fowler said in an interview last month that the Wiriadinatas were so touched that they made their six-figure contributions.

“It seemed to them a significant courtesy,” Fowler said. “That’s the only linkage we could find.”

Even though many of the contributions apparently came from Indonesia, all of the DNC contribution reports filed with the elections commission indicate the Wiriadinatas were residing in Virginia at the time–heightening suspicions about the money’s true origin.

Tobe said the addresses, however, were apparently taken from the couple’s checks and party donor card. Donors may send contributions from overseas if they maintain their legal-resident status.

The Riadys’ relationship with Clinton, meanwhile, goes back to the late 1970s, when patriarch Mochtar Riady’s son, James, did an internship with an investment bank in Little Rock. James later moved to Arkansas in the mid-1980s to help run an institution named Worthen Bank, which was then partly owned by his family.

White House Meetings

The Riadys and Clinton have maintained the relationship since the president’s move to Washington. Three months after Clinton’s inauguration, James Riady and two other associates, including Huang, met with Clinton briefly at the White House, according to Fabiani. And, in September 1995, Clinton met at the White House for about 20 minutes with James Riady, Huang and Little Rock attorney C. Joseph Giroir Jr., whose development company does joint ventures with Lippo. Just last month, James Riady met with Clinton and others at the White House. Fabiani described the three Oval Office sessions as “meet and greet” social visits.

In November 1994, during a Clinton trip to Jakarta for a summit meeting, the president visited for about 15 minutes with Mochtar and James Riady at a reception they were hosting, Fabiani said.

Meanwhile, the Lippo Group had a relationship with the administration. A business partner was included in a trade mission led by the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown; during the trip, the company’s Hong Kong affiliate and the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. signed a $1-billion business deal to build a power plant in China.

Fabiani said the Riadys “have been longtime supporters of the president.” He added that “we have no indication that the White House was lobbied” on banking, trade or any other matters by the Riadys or their representatives.

Lippo Bank, formerly known as the Bank of Trade, was acquired by the Riady family of Indonesia in 1984. The Los Angeles-based bank also has branches in San Jose, Westminster and San Francisco. In the early 1990s, Lippo Bank was primarily engaged in assisting the shipment of goods from Indonesia to the United States.

The bank is a unit of Lippo Group, one of the top five Indonesian conglomerates with interests in financial services, urban development, manufacturing and retail. It has estimated assets of $5 billion to $6 billion and businesses located in Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Australia and North America. The conglomerate employs more than 30,000 people.

The Lippo Bank came under investigation in 1994 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which completed a money-laundering examination by gaining the bank’s agreement to keep precise track of the origin and destination of cash deposits at the institution.

Bava, the Lippo Bank of California attorney, said he was prohibited by law from speaking about the FDIC action, but he criticized various reports that the bank had laundered money.

“Those allegations are totally, completely false,” he said. “The bank was never accused of or involved in any money-laundering activities. Nor were any of its officers, directors or employees. If there were that kind of allegation made, it would most likely have been based on deficiencies in record-keeping–that is, filing reports with the Treasury Department.”

Bava said the nature of Lippo Bank’s business could lead to lapses in record-keeping. He said the bank handled many small retail accounts that operate on a cash basis.

“They have a large number of deposits,” he said. “As the bank was expanding, it is certainly possible if there were any deficiencies, the large number of cash transactions perhaps got a little ahead of their [administrative] controls.”

In September, Lippo Group won shareholder approval for a controversial $364-million restructuring in which Lippo Life will buy 40% of Lippo Bank from the Riady family, which controls both companies. Investors initially protested that the purchase price for the Lippo Bank stake was excessive, saying they were being forced to buy out the Riadys at a premium to market prices. Analysts saw the transaction as an attempt by the Riadys to raise cash for their personal use from the listed companies they control.

Numerous players associated with the Lippo Group have been major donors to the Democrats and Democratic candidates since Jan. 1, 1991, according to the analysis for The Times.

In addition to James Riady and the Wiriadinatas, Huang and his wife, Jane, gave $162,494 and Lippo Securities President Charles Dequeljoe and his wife, Susan, $70,500. Other individuals and companies associated with Lippo contributed another $74,500. Giroir, who was instrumental in the Entergy deal, and his wife and company gave $83,250. And Entergy and its employees donated $283,463.

Times staff writers Sara Fritz, Jim Mann and Josh Greenberg in Washington and Duke Helfand and Sonia Nazario in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

* GINGRICH QUESTIONS FUNDS: House speaker criticizes donations to Democratic Party. A23

Today we discuss presidential politics, window treatments and disasters of the natural and man-made variety.

Time for Gavin Newsom to start measuring those White House drapes.

Huh?

You know, president of the United States. I’m thinking something Earth-friendly, like recycled hemp.

Wait, what?

Did you catch the nationally televised speech the governor recently gave? The one about “democracy at a crossroads.”

I did.

It was a fine speech and the governor made some important points about President Trump’s reckless commandeering of California’s National Guard, his administration’s indiscriminate immigration raids and the wholly unnecessary dispatch of Marines to Los Angeles. (From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Venice Beach.)

Newsom was plenty justified in his anger and contempt. Trump, acting true to his flame-fanning fashion, turned what was a middling set of protests — nothing local law enforcement couldn’t handle — into yet another assault on our sorely tested Constitution.

Newsom’s speech certainly “met the moment,” to use one of his favorite phrases.

I’ll grant you that. Unlike a lot of extracurricular activities aimed at boosting his presidential prospects, Newsom was addressing a Trump-manufactured crisis unfolding right here at home. It was a moment that called for gubernatorial leadership.

Just the kind of leadership despondent Democrats need.

So it’s been said.

It’s not much of a leap to see Newsom leading the anti-Trump opposition clear to the White House!

Actually, that’s a bigger leap than it takes to clear the Grand Canyon.

Granted, Newsom’s speech received a lot of raves from Democrats across the country. Many are desperate for someone in a position of power to give voice to their blood-boiling, cranium-exploding rage against Trump and his many excesses. Newsom did a good job channeling those emotions and articulating the dangers of an imprudent president run amok.

But let’s not go overboard.

There is no lack of Democrats eager to take on Trump and become the face of the so-called resistance. There is no shortage of Democrats eyeing a 2028 bid for the White House. Those who run won’t be schlepping all the political baggage that Newsom has to tote.

Such as?

Rampant homelessness. An exploding budget deficit. Vast income inequality.

Plus, a lot of social policies that many Californians consider beneficent and broad-minded that, to put it mildly, others around the country consider much less so. Don’t get me wrong. I love California with all my heart and soul. But we have a lot of deep-seated problems and cultural idiosyncrasies that Newsom’s rivals — Democrat and Republican — would be only too happy to hang around his neck.

So let’s not get too caught up in the moment. The fundamentals of the 2028 presidential race haven’t changed based on a single — albeit well-received — speech. It’s still hard to see Democrats turning the party’s fate over to yet another nominee spawned in the liberal stew of San Francisco politics and campaigning with kooky California as a home address.

Stranger things have happened.

True.

That said, 2028 is a zillion political light years and countless news cycles away. First come the midterm elections in November 2026, giving voters their chance to weigh in on Trump and his actions. The verdict will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in 2028.

Well at least Newsom has brought his A-game to social media. His trolling of Trump is something to behold!

Whatever.

You’re not impressed?

I think it’s best to leave the snark to professionals.

I do, however, have some sympathy for the governor. It’s not easy dealing with someone as spiteful and amoral as the nation’s ax-grinder-in-chief.

Consider, for instance, the disaster relief money that fire-devastated Southern California is counting on. Helping the region in its time of desperate need shouldn’t be remotely political, or part of some red-vs.-blue-state feud. Historically, that sort of federal aid has never been.

But this is Trump we’re dealing with.

To his credit, Newsom tried making nice in the days and weeks following the January firestorm. He ignored the president’s provocations and held what was later described an an amicable session with Trump in the Oval Office. Their working relationship seemed to be a good one.

But few things last with the transactional Trump, save for his pettiness and self-absorption. Asked last week if his “recent dust-ups” with Newsom would impact the granting of wildfire relief, Trump said, “Yeah, maybe.”

He called Newsom incompetent, trotted out more gobbledygook about raking forests and then soliloquized on the nature of personal relationships. “When you don’t like somebody, don’t respect somebody, it’s harder for that person to get money if you’re on top,” Trump said.

Yeesh.

Responding in a posting on X, Newsom correctly noted, “Sucking up to the President should not be a requirement for him to do the right thing for the American people.”

Hard to argue with that.

Yet here we are.

The nation’s second-most populous city is occupied by National Guard and Marine troops. Thousands of people — displaced by disaster, their past lives gone up in smoke — are hostage to the whims of a peevish president who always puts his feelings first and cares nothing for the greater good.

The midterm election can’t come soon enough.

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats in Virginia have built up a hefty fundraising advantage for their effort to reclaim the governor’s mansion in a November election that is seen as a bellwether for the party in power in Washington ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA case manager turned congresswoman, has a more than 2-to-1 fundraising advantage over her GOP opponent for governor, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who has struggled to draw support from her fellow Republicans. Both were unopposed for their party’s nominations and were able to focus on the fall general election without having to overcome a challenge in this week’s primaries. The match-up means Virginia is all but certain to elect the state’s first female governor.

Spanberger has amassed $6.5 million toward her campaign for governor over the last two months after raising $6.7 million between January and March, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project. Combined with the money Spanberger raised in 2024, she has gathered $22.8 million and still has $14.3 million in her coffers.

Earle-Sears, meanwhile, spent more than she earned between April and June, bringing in $3.5 million and spending $4.6 million. Between January and March, she also raised a little over $3.1 million. In total, she has raked in nearly $9.2 million since launching her campaign last September. Now, she has a little under $3 million in the bank, according to Virginia Public Access Project data.

In a statement, Earle-Sears’ campaign said the candidate is putting forward a message for Virginians that money can’t buy.

“Clearly the Spanberger campaign needs a lot of help attempting to erase Abigail’s bad voting record on issues that actually matter to Virginians,” press secretary Peyton Vogel said in an email. “This race isn’t being bought — it’s being built on a message that matters.”

Virginia is one of two states, along with New Jersey, that host statewide elections this year. The contests will be closely watched as a measure of whether voters in the shadow of Washington will embrace President Trump’s aggressive effort to overhaul the federal government, or be repelled by it.

Democrats’ outsized fundraising lead ahead of the primaries may reflect local Democratic enthusiasm and the party’s ability to push people to the polls in light of Trump being in office. Mark J. Rozell, dean of George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government, also referenced the noticeable frostiness among leading state Republicans. The party’s statewide nominees have yet to campaign together, despite securing their nominations at the end of April.

“Enthusiasm drives fundraising and in Virginia right now the Democrats’ voting base has much greater enthusiasm“ than Republicans, Rozell said. ”It is reminiscent of Trump’s first term in office when Democratic fundraising and ultimately voting overwhelmed the Republicans in Virginia.”

Money does not guarantee success, however. In the last Virginia governor’s race, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe outspent Republican Glenn Youngkin, who had invested $20 million of his own money in the race. Youngkin still clinched the election by nearly two points.

Youngkin, who is term-limited from seeking reelection, has offered more than $21,000 in support to Earle-Sears through his political action committee.

When asked whether he would donate more, his PAC responded, “Governor Youngkin is working to elect the entire GOP ticket and is urging all Virginians to support the commonsense team this November to keep Virginia winning.”

The Democrats’ fundraising advantage isn’t confined to the governor’s race.

State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, who eked out a primary win in a close three-way contest for lieutenant governor, raised nearly $1.8 million in her primary race and has $462,000 remaining.

The Republican nominee, conservative talk-radio host John Reid, raised nearly $312,000 since launching his campaign and has $116,000 remaining.

The only statewide GOP candidate with a fundraising lead, incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares, has $2.3 million in the bank after raising a total of $4.6 million. His Democratic opponent, Jay Jones, has raised $2.7 million. He had about $493,000 left at the beginning of June, reports show.

This year, all three Democratic statewide candidates are backed by Clean Virginia, a political group that pushes for clean energy and often takes on legislative challenges against Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest utility.

The two groups are some of the most influential entities lobbying on state politics and policy. With energy demand likely to be a key issue in November, their influence could be significant.

According to the nonpartisan public-access group, Spanberger has taken in $465,000 from the environmental organization. On Tuesday, Clean Virginia endorsed Hashmi’s candidacy for lieutenant governor, following its previous donations to her state Senate campaign committee.

During his campaign, Jones also received $1.5 million from Clean Virginia, while his primary opponent, Democrat Shannon Taylor, accepted $800,000 from Dominion Energy between 2024 and 2025. Clean Virginia released attack ads targeting Taylor for accepting Dominion money.

The energy utility has become entangled in other statewide battles. On the Republican ticket, Earle-Sears accepted $50,000 from Dominion in March. Miyares also gained $450,000 from the utility so far this year.

Clean Virginia has donated to both Democrats and Republicans, including to candidates running for the House of Delegates, where all 100 members are up for reelection in November.

Democrats who control the legislature are hoping to keep or expand their thin majority and amend the state’s Constitution to protect rights to voting, marriage equality and abortion.

Democratic candidates have raised about $16.9 million in those races, with $3.2 million stemming from House Speaker Don Scott.

Meanwhile, Republicans have raised $8.8 million, with former Minority Leader Todd Gilbert earning over $643,000, and newly tapped Minority Leader Terry Kilgore raising nearly $470,000.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

For years we’ve read stories about antidemocratic countries abroad — supreme leaders acting with impunity, masked agents rounding up residents, troops in the streets, crackdowns on peaceful protests, intimidation and arrests of opposition figures, show-of-force military parades and political assassinations.

For a time this month, I was abroad. And the antidemocratic country I was reading about was my own.

Tuning out the news on vacation proved impossible. Every day brought another must-read outrage, reflecting the punitive policies and hateful climate that wannabe strongman Donald Trump has fostered in the United States.

From the vantage of an ocean away, even as a visitor in a developing country with problems of its own, I read about events back home with the clarity of the proverbial 38,000-feet view: The news added up to a picture of a proud nation slipping into the authoritarian ways modeled by the kleptocratic dictators that President Trump so admires.

For perspective, I reread President Reagan’s farewell address: Trump has taken America far from the shining “city upon a hill” that Reagan, yesteryear’s Republican icon, evoked. And far from our self-image as a land of immigrants and a bastion of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Reagan’s city on a hill was “teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.” If there had to be walls, he said, “the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

That was then.

As I flew off for my break, the U.S. news was dominated by the tawdry breakup of Trump and “first buddy” Elon Musk. But then that sophomoric saga was overshadowed by more serious stuff — starting with military-style raids throughout Los Angeles by thuggish agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, rounding up migrants, including children, for detention and deportation.

It’s a drama that continues from big-city L.A. to small-town Great Barrington, Mass., in heartland hotels, meatpacking plants and restaurants. Descriptions of the shock troops have become too familiar: Many wear face masks and no badges to identify themselves. They often don’t wear recognizable uniforms. They have no warrants but lots of guns. And migrants are disappearing into their unmarked vehicles. To where, families aren’t told; when they find out, it’s often too late to help their loved ones assert their due process rights.

On Day 2 of my vacation, Trump took the all but unprecedented step of federalizing the California National Guard to act against protesters in L.A., over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass and despite police assurances that local law enforcement could handle even the most confrontational of demonstrators. Next came the Marines.

That only seemed to exacerbate the unrest, as drama king Trump, who governs as if he were still scripting a reality TV show, surely intended. With Los Angeles as a testing ground, he may be seeking a pretext to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act so he can freely deploy the military nationally against any who oppose him. He toyed with the idea during his first presidency. Back then he was constrained by responsible advisors; now he has surrounded himself with sycophants.

Meanwhile, he’s as unnervingly erratic on his deportation policy as on tariffs. First Trump posted that he’d lighten up on farm, restaurant and hotel raids because those industries complained that they were losing “very good, long time workers.” But days later, he ordered ICE to expand its efforts in L.A. and other big cities where Democrats, he lied, “use Illegal Aliens” to cheat in elections and steal jobs from citizens.

Amid the mayhem, the commander in chief traveled to Fort Bragg, N.C., and disgracefully crossed the line that, since the founding, has kept the military out of politics. He goaded the young troops he addressed — reportedly vetted for their political leanings — to cross it too. He started by boasting about reversing former President Joe Biden’s deletion of Confederate traitors’ names from military bases, and throughout encouraged boos against Biden, Newsom, Bass and Democrats generally, and applause for himself. He wore a MAGA cap. Such merch was on sale.

Days later, he got the military parade he’d long wanted. Or maybe not: It was more historical than martial; instead of goose-stepping through the capital, the troops ambled, smiled and made hand hearts. And it was sparsely attended. The nationwide “No Kings” counterprotests were not.

The toll that Trump’s overreach has taken on America’s reputation, especially in just a few weeks in June, has been heavy. Five Democratic politicians detained or arrested. An uncountable number of workers — not criminals, and many here legally — removed and sometimes disappeared from their families, jobs, communities and even the country. Armed military facing down peaceful protesters and protecting ICE and FBI agents as they snatch people off the street without due process.

On Tuesday, California Sen. Alex Padilla — who five days earlier had been wrestled to the floor and handcuffed by federal agents for interrupting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as she claimed Trump’s actions were liberating L.A. from socialists — delivered an emotional speech in the Senate. In U.S. history, he said, “we’ve had tumult. But we’ve never had a tyrant as a commander in chief.”

Until now.

Reagan ended his farewell with a sentiment that was inarguable 36 years ago: America, he said, “is still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom.” No longer. Even many citizens live in fear for their freedoms; I’ve heard from them. And I’ve felt it myself — no more so than when I was out of the country, looking back from afar.

@Jackiekcalmes @jackiecalmes.bsky.social @jkcalmes

WASHINGTON — Nearly six months after Joe Biden left the White House, Senate Republicans are still scrutinizing his presidency, kicking off the first in what’s expected to be a series of congressional hearings this year on his mental fitness in office.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee brought in three witnesses Wednesday — none of whom served in Biden’s administration — to scrutinize his time in office, arguing that the former president, his staff and the media must be held accountable. Democrats boycotted the hearing and criticized Republicans for “armchair-diagnosing” Biden when the committee could be looking into serious matters.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who co-chaired the hearing, said that they will aim to “shine a light on exactly what went on in the White House during Biden’s presidency.”

“We simply cannot ignore what transpired because President Biden is no longer in office,” Cornyn said.

A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment on the hearing.

It was the first in what could be several hearings about Biden in the coming months. Over in the House, the Oversight Committee has subpoenaed several of Biden’s former staff members, along with his White House doctor, ordering him to testify at a June 27 hearing “as part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.”

Questions about Biden’s age and fitness erupted in the summer after his disastrous performance in a debate against Republican challenger Donald Trump, which ultimately led to the Democrat’s withdrawal from the race.

Even after Trump won back the presidency in November, Republicans have continued to hammer on Biden’s age, citing in part new reporting about Biden that was published this year.

Trump now alleges that Biden administration officials may have forged the former president’s signature and taken sweeping actions without his knowledge, though he provided no evidence of that happening. Trump has ordered lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department to investigate.

Republicans played clips during the hearing Wednesday of Democrats defending Biden. In the montage, the Democrats talk about how Biden was mentally sharp when he was in office.

“Most Democrats on this committee have chosen to all but boycott the hearing and have failed to call a single witness,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said. “They have chosen to ignore this issue, like they ignored President Biden’s decline.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, criticized Republicans for holding a hearing on the last president at a time when there are “numerous critical challenges facing the nation that are under our jurisdiction.”

“Apparently armchair-diagnosing former President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern,” said Durbin of Illinois.

After his opening remarks, Durbin played a video montage of his own — but with clips of Trump speaking that he said reflected the “cognitive ability” of the current president. Durbin left the hearing after his opening remarks.

Three witnesses testified: former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, former White House official Theodore Wold and University of Virginia law professor John Harrison. Spicer and Wold both served under Trump.

Much of the focus was on Biden’s alleged use of an autopen. Trump has repeated long-standing allegations that the Biden White House relied on an autopen to sign presidential pardons, executive orders and other key documents, claiming that its use cast doubt on their validity.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) also questioned Spicer on “what mechanisms should we put in place” to hold the media accountable “for not actually following what is clearly in front of them.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

Eric Bauman, a gruff and tireless political operative who led two of California’s most powerful Democratic organizations before resigning amid misconduct allegations, died Monday.

His family said in a statement that Bauman died at UCLA West Valley Medical Center after a long illness. He was 66.

Born in the Bronx to an Army doctor and a registered nurse, Bauman went to military school and moved to Hollywood just before he turned 18. He became a nurse and met his husband, also a nurse, in a hospital cafeteria during an overnight shift in the early 1980s.

Motivated in part by the AIDS crisis, Bauman became active in the Stonewall Democratic Club Los Angeles, a progressive political group, and was elected president of the organization in 1994.

Bauman grew L.A. County Democratic Party into a political force as chairman from 2000 to 2017 and expanded the number of Democrats winning elections at every level of government, from water boards to the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I turned the L.A. Democratic Party from a $50,000-a-year organization into a $1.5 million-a-year organization,” he told a reporter in 2011.

With a Bronx affect and a gold signet ring on his pinkie finger that he twisted when he was under pressure, Bauman built a reputation as an old-school party boss who would give you the bad news straight. Democrats compared him to Ray Liotta, and some called him the “Godfather of Democratic politics.”

“People come up to me on the street all the time and think I’m Joe Pesci,” he told the Times in 2017. “I try to work with that.”

Bauman ran for state Democratic Party chair in 2017. After a bruising election that exposed the fractures between the progressive and establishment wings of the party, Bauman was elected by a mere 62 votes.

He was the first openly gay and first Jewish person to chair the party.

“I don’t wear a button that says, ‘Look at me, I’m gay,’” Bauman said in a 2009 interview with the UCLA Film and Television Archive. But, he said, “I never fail to recognize my partner from any podium. It is in my bio. It is a part of who I am.”

The high point of his tenure was the 2018 midterm elections, when California Democrats flipped seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and won back a veto-proof supermajority in the state Legislature.

Bauman said he wanted to overturn California’s voter-approved “jungle primary” system, which allows the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, regardless of party. Bauman argued that Democrats should pick their own nominees, rather than spending millions of dollars fighting in the primaries.

In late 2018, The Times reported that Bauman had made crude sexual comments and had engaged in unwanted touching or physical intimidation in professional settings, citing 10 party staff members and political activists.

Bauman resigned, saying he planned to seek treatment for health issues and alcohol use. The state Democratic Party fired top staffers in the wake of the allegations and eventually paid more than $380,000 to settle a sexual misconduct lawsuit brought by three of his accusers. A party spokeswoman did not respond to requests for a statement on Bauman’s death Tuesday.

After his resignation, Bauman disappeared from public life for several years. More recently, he began hosting a radio show called “The UnCommon Sense Democrat” on the Inland Empire’s KCAA-AM 1050.

In the mid-2000s, when Republicans still represented many outlying areas of Los Angeles County, Bauman set up a “red zone program” at the L.A. County Democratic Party that funneled money and volunteers to Democrats running for seats in GOP strongholds.

The investments were a gamble, but they built relationships and better candidates — and sometimes, a long shot candidate actually won, said former state lawmaker Miguel Santiago, who first got involved with the party in the early 2000s.

“He was really hungry for Democratic wins,” Santiago said. “There was no seat that that guy left on the table, whether it was a community college seat, a school board race, a water board race.”

Bauman also worked to strengthen ties with organized labor, now the California Democratic Party’s most powerful ally, and build voter registration and turnout.

State Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, who chaired the county party after Bauman, said he spent countless hours as a young volunteer entering information about newly registered voters into the party database.

The data came from a booth that the Democratic Party set up outside citizenship ceremonies where newly eligible voters could register to vote as Democrats, he said. Bauman sent a signed card to each person, congratulating them and welcoming them to the party.

“That touched people, and it showed them that they matter,” Gonzalez said.

Bauman also worked for Gov. Gray Davis and insurance commissioner John Garamendi and as a consultant to several Assembly speakers, including Anthony Rendon of Los Angeles and Toni Atkins of San Diego.

He is survived by his husband and partner of 42 years, Michael Andraychak, and his father and sister, Richard and Roya Bauman.

Decades ago, Pete Wilson did something unusual. The U.S. senator came home to run for California governor.

The path to power typically goes the opposite direction, with governors trading the statehouse for the (perceived) influence and prestige of being one of just 100 members of a club that fancies itself — not so humbly or precisely — as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Wilson bucked that sentiment.

“It is a much more difficult role,” he said of being governor, and one he came to much prefer over his position on Capitol Hill.

It turns out that Wilson, a Republican who narrowly prevailed in a fierce 1990 contest against Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was onto something.

Since, then five other lawmakers have left the Senate to become their state’s governor. Several more tried and failed.

Although it’s still more common for a governor to run for Senate than vice versa, in 2026 as many as three sitting U.S. senators may run for governor, the most in at least 90 years, according to the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Clearly, the U.S. Senate has lost some of its luster.

There have always been those who found the place, with its pretentious airs, dilatory pacing and stultifying rules of order, a frustrating environment to work in, much less thrive.

The late Wendell Ford, who served a term as Kentucky governor before spending the next 24 years in the Senate, used to say “the unhappiest members of the Senate were the former governors,” recalled Charlie Cook, founder of the eponymous political newsletter. “They were used to getting things done.”

And that, as Cook noted, “was when the Senate did a lot more than it does now.”

What’s more, the Senate used to be a more dignified, less partisan place — especially when compared with the fractious House. An apocryphal story has George Washington breakfasting with Thomas Jefferson and referring to the Senate as a saucer intended to cool the passions of the intemperate lower chamber. (It helps to picture a teacup filled with scalding brew.)

These days, both chambers are bubbling cauldrons of animosity and partisan backbiting.

Worse, there’s not a whole lot of advising going in the Senate, which reflexively consents to pretty much whatever it is that President Trump asks of the prostrated Republican majority.

“The Senate has become an employment agency where we just have vote after vote after vote to confirm nominees that are are going to pass, generally, 53 to 47, with very rare exceptions,” said Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat who’s running to be governor of his home state.

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, is the front-runner in his bid to be the state’s next governor.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

The other announced gubernatorial hopeful is Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican who’s made no secret of his distaste for Washington after a single term. Tennessee’s Marsha Blackburn, a fellow Republican fresh off reelection, is also expected to run for governor in her state.

Bennet arrived in the Senate 16 years ago and since then, he said, it’s been “really a one-way ratchet down.”

“You think about the fact that we’re really down to a couple [of] bills a year,” he said this week between votes on Capitol Hill. “One is a continuing resolution that isn’t even a real appropriations bill … it’s just cementing the budget decisions that were made last year, and then the defense bill.”

Despite all that, Bennet said he’s not running for governor “because I’m worn out. It’s not because I’m frustrated or bored or irritated or aggravated” with life in the Senate, “though the Senate can be a very aggravating place to work.” Rather, working beneath the golden dome in Denver would offer a better opportunity “to push back and to fight Trumpism,” he said, by offering voters a practical and affirmative Democratic alternative.

Try that as one of 47 straitjacketed senators.

When Wilson took office in January 1991, he succeeded the term-limited George Deukmejian, a fellow Republican.

He immediately faced a massive budget deficit, which he closed through a package of tax hikes and spending cuts facilitated by his negotiating partner, Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Their agreement managed to antagonize Democrats and Republicans alike.

Wilson didn’t much care.

After serving in the Legislature, as San Diego mayor and a U.S. senator, he often said being California governor was the best job he ever had. There are legislators to wrangle, agencies to oversee, natural disasters to address, interest groups to fend off — all while trying to stay in the good graces of millions of often cranky, impatient voters.

“Not everybody enjoys it,” Wilson said when asked about the prospect of Kamala Harris serving as governor, “and not everyone is good at it.”

Harris, who served four years in the Senate before ascending to the vice presidency, has given herself the summer to decide whether to run for governor, try again for the White House or retire from politics altogether.

California’s next governor will probably have to take some “very painful steps,” Wilson said, given the dicey economic outlook and the likelihood of federal budget cuts and other hostile moves by the Trump administration. That will make a lot of people unhappy, including many of Harris’ fellow Democrats.

How would she feel about returning to Sacramento’s small stage, wrestling with intractable issues such as the budget and homelessness, and dealing with the inevitable political heat? We won’t know until and unless Harris runs.

Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, resigned from their positions on the Democratic National Committee. This could be great news.

I don’t really know, because the actual reasons remain murky.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat,” Weingarten told DNC Chair Ken Martin in her resignation letter, “I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities.”

Color me skeptical this is the real reason. I doubt Martin’s stated policy is to shrink the Democratic tent or refrain from engaging with “more and more of our communities” — whatever that means. Much of the reporting on the resignations revolves around old-fashioned Democratic disarray and internal power struggles. Weingarten and Saunders had supported Martin’s opponent in the recent election of a new DNC chair. That may be all there is to it, which would be a shame.

That’s because the Democratic Party is a mess. Don’t get me wrong, so is the Republican Party, but for different reasons. The GOP is also in charge, controlling the White House and both branches of Congress. Moreover, for all the problems the Republican Party has, it has the wind at its back and remains more popular than the Democrats. In 2024, it made impressive strides with many core Democratic demographic constituencies, including Black, Latino and young voters.

The GOP has a story to tell voters. You may not like the story. You may think it’s not actually following through on the vision it’s selling, but Republicans know how to articulate what they’re for. Democrats not so much.

Historically, the Democratic Party is the party of government. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “It is the purpose of government to see that not only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.”

The Democratic Party has gotten itself into a mess because it has evolved — or devolved — into a party fairly perceived as more concerned with the interests of the few and less concerned with the welfare and rights of the many. That was the underlying message of that ad the Trump campaign played more than any other (30,000 times!). It showed a clip of Kamala Harris explaining her support for government-funded sex-change surgeries for illegal immigrants. It closed with: “She’s for they/them. He’s for you.” The anti-transgender message was obvious (and broadly popular), but the subtext was more important: Harris is for niche issues that excite activists while Trump is for the meat-and-potatoes concerns of the common American.

Few groups represent the Democrats’ broader problem better than groups such as Weingarten’s AFT (teachers unions typically make up about 1 in 10 of the delegates at Democratic conventions). During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Weingarten consistently put the needs of union members over the general welfare, while insisting she was putting children first. She opposed reopening schools long after it was remotely necessary to operate remotely and successfully badgered Joe Biden to violate his pledge to reopen them quickly.

AFT and other public-sector unions, such as AFSCME, are an ATM for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is responsive to donors. For instance, one of the first things President Biden did when he took office was issue an executive order repealing a Trump administration policy that restricted government employees from spending more than 25% of their time doing union business while on the job. He put the number back up to 100%.

There’s a reason FDR disliked the idea of unionizing government employees. The government shouldn’t be captured by special interests that use state power to further their ends over the general welfare. Democrats instinctively understand this when it comes to corporate interests but seem blind to it for members of their own coalition. Biden’s effort to lawlessly cancel student debt wasn’t just terrible policy; it also sent the signal that the party put the interests of the few above the many.

As a conservative, I don’t typically root for the Democratic Party. But I’ve come to realize that our system depends on two healthy, sane parties competing over best policies. When one party goes off the rails, it gives permission for the other party to do likewise. If the departure of Weingarten and Saunders is a sign the party is coming to realize that, that’s good news indeed.

@JonahDispatch

Vance Boelter, a former state board appointee, was arrested Sunday after allegedly killing ex-House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and wounding Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, ending the largest manhunt in Minnesota’s history.

United States President Donald Trump promised Americans that his crackdown on immigration would lead to a better life, but “now they’re seeing that isn’t working”, argues Democratic Congressman Rohit Khanna.

Khanna tells host Steve Clemons that the Democratic Party “needs to respect American voters”. Americans “want to have hope again in America … They’re tired of threatening to arrest each other.”

He says Elon Musk could be an asset for Democrats, as he opposes several Trump initiatives, such as banning all international students, gutting scientific research, imposing blanket tariffs, and adding to the US government debt.

Heading into the final stretch of the 2024 election, it seemed every cable news program had a segment dedicated to this one question: What will Black men do?

Progressives on the ground were voicing concerns about Black male voter turnout long before the 2022 midterms. But because the overturning of Roe vs. Wade enabled Democrats to avoid a “red wave” then, the urgency regarding Black men was muted. That quickly changed once former Vice President Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee and media personalities such as Stephen A. Smith and Charlamagne tha God began questioning her qualifications without a hint of irony.

In the end, nearly 75% of Black men voted for Harris, and all of those cable news segments about the concerns of that voting bloc went away. That’s unfortunate because in many ways the question at the center of it all — “What will Black men do?” — is more relevant today than it was seven months ago. Since President Trump has retaken office, federal civil rights offices have been gutted, grants for minority business programs canceled and the names of enslavers are making a comeback on military bases. Cable news may be waiting until the next election to talk about the concerns of Black men, but the Black community can’t wait that long. Khalil Thompson and Bakari Sellers agree.

The pair are part of the leadership team for Win With Black Men, a political advocacy group that began in 2022. Thompson said he was inspired to start the group by Win With Black Women, which started after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Both organizations were key to jump-starting the enthusiasm for Harris, especially financially, with each raising millions of dollars within days of her campaign’s launch.

Now, with the election behind us and three years of a hostile White House administration ahead of us, Thompson’s group has announced an 18-city listening tour starting in July to strategize about ways to help the community outside of the political system. The goal is to reach 3,500 Black men in person and another 25,000 through a national survey in hopes of building a database to better serve the community. Thompson said it’s particularly important to keep people engaged now that the election is over because of how the White House continues to test the limits of both presidential power and the support from his party.

“There has to be a moment where right is right,” said Thompson, a former operative for President Obama. “We raise our children to understand the basic tenets of being a good person. … We need to build a system that can adequately accommodate and support the vast majority of people in this country who just want to enjoy this small amount of time we have on this planet. I see the protests happening and the raids and I’m reminded of Ruby Bridges or the lunch counter in Greensboro. What is happening now in our cities — ripping parents away from their children — doesn’t speak to our better angels.”

Sellers added: “Democracy is participatory, and a lot of time people forget that. The choices are to be on the sideline or get engaged — either way, you are involved.”

He made that choice at a young age, becoming the youngest Black person in elected state office across the country in 2006, as a 22-year-old state representative in South Carolina. His early social justice work echoes that of his father, Cleveland Sellers, who was part of the leadership for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the civil rights movement.

“I’d rather get in the fight, be knocked around a little bit, face terror head on, knowing I’m doing it for a just and righteous cause,” Sellers said.

Thompson said that in addition to engagement, Win With Black Men is looking to be a vessel for helping people financially with their utility and grocery bills, as the steep federal cuts and job losses threaten to send millions of Americans into poverty. The current fundraising goal is $2.5 million. And while the organization is nonpartisan, Sellers said a prominent Democrat is the unofficial North Star: “We need to get back to the politics of Jesse Jackson. Meet people where they are, focus on the working class and facilitate conversations that uplift people, not demean them.”

Few things are more demeaning than feeling like your voice matters only once every four years. If nothing else, this upcoming listening tour is a reminder to Democrats that Black men are more than a vote.

@LZGranderson

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday’s ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press.

June 10 (UPI) — Democratic senators joined hundreds of faith leaders on the Capitol steps Tuesday in Washington, D.C., to denounce SNAP and Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump‘s massive budget proposal.

The event — called the “Moral Budget Vigil” and organized by the Georgetown University Center on Faith and Justice, Sojourners, Skinner Leadership Institute and the National African American Clergy Network — included prayers, song and scripture. A meeting with Democratic senators followed.

Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who is also a reverend at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, criticized the budget for “giving wealthy people a tax cut.”

“Show me your budget and I’ll show you who you think matters and who does not — who you think is dispensable,” Warnock said. “My mind and my imagination and my heart had been arrested by the heartbeat of children who should not lose their food and who should not lose healthcare in order to give wealthy people a tax cut.”

The budget, which the White House calls the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” cleared the U.S. House in May by a narrow margin. It would make Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent and could add trillions to the national debt, according to analysts.

Faith leaders claim the bill would also cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program — or SNAP — and Medicaid coverage for millions of low-income children, families and people with disabilities.

Trump has said he only wants to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” from the Medicaid program and would not make direct cuts to benefits. The bill also calls for changes to SNAP by imposing stricter work requirements.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, who advised the Obama administration, called the budget plan a “big, bad bill,” which he argued would “take 60 million people off of health care.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware claimed the bill “literally takes the food from the mouths of hungry children to pass an enormous tax cut for the very wealthiest and is the definition of an immoral bill before this Congress.”

Warnock, who calls it the “Big Ugly Bill,” recounted how he protested another Trump budget bill eight years ago with prayer and song inside the Capitol rotunda.

“As I stood there, I said then what I want to say today: That a budget is not just a fiscal document, it is a moral document.”

Warnock was arrested during that protest in 2017 and credited the Capitol Police for being professional.

“Here I am eight years later, having transformed my agitation into legislation,” Warnock added. “I’m here today because I still know how to agitate — I still know how to protest. I’m not a senator who used to be a pastor. I’m a pastor in the Senate.”

“If we raise our voices together, we can beat this.”

SACRAMENTO — California’s state Democrats are shaking up leadership, with the Senate Democratic Caucus pledging unanimous support to Sen. Monique Limón (D-Goleta), who will take over as Senate president pro tem in early 2026.

Limón, who was elected to the state Senate in 2020, is chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus and the Senate banking committee. The 45-year-old Central Coast native served in the Assembly for four years before her Senate campaign and worked in higher education at UC Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara County School Board before entering politics.

She highlighted the importance of the moment, noting that the caucus, amid ICE raids led by the Trump administration targeting minorities in Los Angeles and across the state, elected her — the first woman of color to hold the position.

The uncertain times, she said, were “a reminder of why leadership today, tomorrow and in the future matters, because leadership thinks about and influences the direction in all moments, but, in particular, in these very challenging moments. And for me, it is unbelievably humbling to be here.”

Recently, Limón has been vocal on the Sable Offshore Pipeline project, which aims to repair and reopen a pipeline off the coast of Santa Barbara County that spilled 21,000 gallons of crude oil in 2015. This year she wrote a measure, Senate Bill 542, in response to the project that would require more community input on reopening pipelines and better safety guidelines to find weak points that could lead to another spill.

“No one has fought harder to make college more affordable than Monique Limón,” said current Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), who also applauded her work on wildfire recovery. “She is a tireless voice for the Central Coast in rural parts of this great state.”

McGuire took leadership of the Senate in a unanimous vote by Democrats with former speaker and gubernatorial candidate Toni Atkins’ blessing in February. He pledged to protect the state’s progressive ideals ahead of a problematic state budget that continued to bubble over, with the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress supporting cuts in federal aid to the state for heathcare for low-income Californians, education and research and other essential programs.

The Sonoma County Democrat’s takeover was part of a wider change — both legislative houses were led by lawmakers from Northern California this year, leaving Southern California legislators with limited control. Limón’s district covers Santa Barbara County and parts of Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties.

McGuire terms out of office next year and may be planning a run for insurance commissioner in 2026 but wouldn’t confirm his plans despite collecting more than $220,000 in contributions so far this year.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom resisted a fight with President Trump over transgender youth in women’s sports. He forced his way onto a runway tarmac to make peace with the Republican leader after the Los Angeles wildfires.

Just last week, he hesitated before speaking out when rumors swirled about a massive federal funding cut to California.

Newsom’s restraint ended when Trump usurped the governor’s authority over the weekend by deploying the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles to quell protests against immigration raids.

“I’m still willing to do what I can to have the backs of the people I represent and whatever it takes to advance that cause, I’ll do, but I’m not going to do it when we see the trampling of our Constitution and the rule of law,” Newsom said in an interview with The Times. “So we all have our red lines. That’s my red line.”

Newsom said the arrival of troops in the largest city in the Golden State escalated tensions between protesters and law enforcement, which he blamed Trump for intentionally inflaming to sow chaos. Whether Newsom likes it or not, the president’s actions also catapulted the governor to the front lines of a Democratic resistance against Trump that he has been reluctant to embrace after his party lost the presidential election in November.

On Monday, Trump said his border czar Tom Homan should follow through on threats to arrest the governor. The president has cast California as out of control and Newsom incompetent for not stepping in and ending the unrest, or protecting federal immigration agents from protesters.

“I would do it if I were Tom,” Trump said. “I think it’s great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing. He’s done a terrible job.”

Newsom also baited Homan: “Come and get me, tough guy.”

Newsom’s position as the leader of a state that has become an immigration target for the federal government offers both risks and rewards for a governor considering a 2028 run for the White House.

Democrats and progressives are thirsty for a leader to challenge Trump and his controversial policies. The National Democratic Party quickly took to social media to publicize the governor’s challenge to Homan to arrest him. Being carted away in handcuffs by officials in Trump’s Justice Department would probably elevate Newsom to Democratic martyr status.

President Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House after arriving on Marine One on June 9, 2025. Trump on Monday suggested California Gov. Gavin Newsom should be arrested over his handling of the unrest in Los Angeles.

(Yuri Gripas / Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“In a way, he was channeling Trump, because he knows how much Trump benefited in the Republican Party from his own criminal conviction,” said John Pitney, the Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College.

Even without an arrest, the political battle is likely to boost Newsom’s standing with Democrats.

But immigration is one of Trump’s best policy issues with voters and it’s not an ideal political fight for any Democrat with presidential aspirations.

“This is the brilliance of Donald Trump,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego. “He’s picking these fights over executive power and over the power of federal government on a political terrain in which he’s most popular: immigration, transgender athletes, DEI, ‘woke’ universities. He’s picking these governance fights where he thinks he can win on the politics.”

For Newsom, the raids provide an opportunity to challenge the president’s narrative that his immigration policy is all about removing criminals and protecting the border, Kousser said.

In interviews, Newsom has repeated that the Trump administration is targeting children in elementary school classrooms and law-abiding citizens who have been in California for a decade or more.

He’s also framing Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles as about more than immigration.

“This is something bigger,” Newsom said. “This is certain power and control over every aspect of our lives. This is about wrecking the constitutional order. This is about tearing down the rule of law. This is about, literally, the cornerstone of our founding fathers, and they’re rolling in their graves.”

Trump’s Los Angeles takeover could derail the work the governor has put in to showcase his more moderate policy positions to America.

While judiciously picking and choosing his battles with Trump, Newsom used his podcast this year to air his belief that it’s unfair for transgender athletes to compete in women and girls’ sports. Through interviews with controversial conservative figures such as Stephen K. Bannon, the governor attempted to demonstrate his ability to be cordial with anyone regardless of their political affiliation.

Newsom has been strategic about the attacks he makes against Trump, such as criticizing the tariffs that are a political vulnerability for the president.

“Anybody who wants to lead the Democratic Party needs the support or at least the acquiescence of the progressive wing of the party, but Democrats need to appeal to the broader general public, and so far, this situation is not helping,” Pitney said of the battle over immigration.

The images streaming out of Los Angeles also create an electoral vulnerability for the governor.

“Perchance Newsom were the Democratic nominee in 2028, you would expect to see pictures of burning Waymos on the streets of Los Angeles with the tagline of ‘what Newsom did for California, he’ll do for America,”’ Pitney said.

Kousser contends that Newsom, in a presidential campaign, will be held responsible for all of California’s shortcomings, regardless of whether he stood up to Trump’s immigration raids.

Although the governor is fighting in the courts with a lawsuit announced Monday, by supporting peaceful protests and using his public podium, there’s little he can do to stop the federal government. The situation highlights the challenge for Newsom and any state leader with interest in the White House.

“This is the blessing and the curse of a governor who wants to run for higher office. When something happens in their state, they get the eyes of the nation upon them even if it’s not the political ground on which they’d rather fight,” Kousser said.

It’s official: United States President Donald Trump and the world’s richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up.

At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies’ lucrative contracts with the government.

Anyway, US “democracy” has never met a conflict of interest it didn’t like.

Musk’s service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the “colossal change” he had achieved “in the old ways of doing business in Washington”. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity.

But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a “disgusting abomination”.

There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk “so depressed and so heartbroken” after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis:

“ It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour’s gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.”

Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump’s 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president’s campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he’ll face “very serious consequences” if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future.

But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet’s richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you’re just in the business of buying power.

California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should “be in a dialogue” with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump’s big beautiful bill.

As per Khanna’s view, “we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.” He went on to list a few of these alleged values: “A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.”

Never mind that Musk’s main “value” is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk’s entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the “values” that Democrats purport to espouse.

Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk’s Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to “go back to Africa” among other abuses suffered at his workplace.

Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a “value” that anyone aspires to.

To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna’s advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: “I’m a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.”

Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could “bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son” by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there’s anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place.

Newsweek’s write-up of Scaramucci’s comments observed that “It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world’s richest man once more.” It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money.

And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty.

Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk’s arms. But either way, the country’s plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a “disgusting abomination”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.