effort

There have been so many big days for this group of Slaughtneil hurlers with 13-straight Derry titles and now a sixth Ulster crown.

Of course, there have been disappointments on the provincial stage along the way too and O’Doherty says they have made victories like Saturday’s all the sweeter.

“Mark [McGuigan, captain] alluded to it in his speech – these are special days for the club and something we don’t take for granted,” he continued.

“That’s shown in our hunger and desire, year after year. We lose games and have setbacks, but we always bounce back up again and days like this are so special, so worth it.”

Slaughtneil now have an All-Ireland semi-final against Galway’s Loughrea to look forward to with the game pencilled in for Saturday, 20 December.

Last year, they fell agonisingly short when losing out to Sarsfield’s of Cork by one point, so the ambition now turns to taking the next step and reaching a final for the first time.

“Last year hurt us a lot – there’s no point saying any different,” O’Doherty acknowledged.

“We thought we had a great chance and we did but for whatever reason we didn’t get over the line.

“We are exactly where we want to be now. [We’ve] three weeks to prepare for a massive battle in another All-Ireland semi-final – what else would you want coming up to Christmas?”

Screech! Crunch!

You’ve just been involved in an automobile accident. And the next sound you hear–even before the wailing of the ambulance–will very likely be the raised voices of the drivers involved arguing over whose fault it is.

Sure, there are a few level-headed types out there who calmly and quietly follow the prescribed procedure, exchanging names and policy numbers without further comment. But even those civilized drivers have arguments over fault–they just don’t begin the fight until the insurance claims are filed.

Last week, I told you about my own experience as an auto accident victim, and the tortuous 3-year process I had to go through just to get a marginal out-of-court settlement for my injuries. Forty percent of the money went to my attorney. If I had insisted on seeing my case through to trial, the ordeal would probably have lasted 2 more years, at least.

That’s because the courts are so clogged with auto accident cases. They increased 81% from 1982 to 1986, according to the Judicial Council of California. And according to the RAND Corp., they now account for 43% of all civil cases in the state.

It seems to me there ought to be a better way.

And it seems that way to some other people as well–people such as state Assemblyman Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton), and Judith Bell, director of special projects for the San Francisco-based Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine.

I don’t have any specifics to offer on what I think that better way might be. But they do. The California Trial Lawyers Assn. also has some suggestions for improvements, although the attorneys’ group would prefer to keep the current system intact and so far has not proposed legislation.

Johnston, who chairs the assembly’s Committee on Finance and Insurance, and Consumers Union have drafted a bill that would set up a no-fault insurance system modeled after a successful system in New York State.

We all heard the term “no-fault” bandied about ad nauseam last fall during the insurance industry’s $70-million campaign for Proposition 104, the so-called No-Fault Initiative. And our response at the polls was a resounding “No way!”–Proposition 104 lost by a 3-1 ratio.

Instead, we approved the Ralph Nader-backed Proposition 103–now only partially in effect while undergoing review by the California Supreme Court.

Proposition 103, however, makes no changes in the current tort system, which is based on the concept of fault.

Jeff Shelton, an aide to Johnston, says the new no-fault bill, AB 354, is designed to complement, not contradict, Proposition 103. And it has nothing to do with Proposition 104.

“AB 354 is to Proposition 104 what the Constitution of the United States is to the constitution of Russia,” Shelton says.

“Proposition 104 had 80 pages that had nothing to do with no-fault,” says Bell.

To understand how no-fault compares to the at-fault system, Shelton says, you first have to know a little history.

“The legacy of tort actions is that people should be required to compensate others when they’ve caused others harm through negligence. It began to develop during the Industrial Revolution as a defense against those who are hurt,” he says.

Wait a minute. A defense against victims?

That’s right, Shelton says. “The old English common law wasn’t so interested in negligence. The tort system requires not just that you prove I was the cause of your injury, but that I caused it as a result of a negligent act.”

In AB 354’s no-fault system, neither fault nor negligence would be a factor. If you’re injured in an auto accident, you file a claim with your own insurance company, “just like you would do now with your health insurance if you were sick, or with your homeowner’s insurance if your house burned down,” Shelton says.

“We think it would speed up the process. In New York when this system went into effect, the amount of time people waited to be paid was reduced from 2 years to 2 months, on the average.”

The Johnston no-fault bill also would require insurance companies to settle claims promptly or pay a 2% per month penalty for delays, along with attorney fees if their clients sue them as a result.

Because the insurance companies involved will never argue about who’s at fault in an accident, Shelton says, “many of the frictional costs we have now will be reduced.”

As with any no-fault system, some injured people will not be allowed to sue. But the Johnston bill’s claim limit is double that of Proposition 104–$50,000 total versus $10,000 for medical expenses and $15,000 for work loss. And its definition of what constitutes a serious injury, in which a victim can sue for pain and suffering damages, is much broader than under Proposition 104.

Still, the bill would remove about 80% of current cases from the court system, Bell says.

But wouldn’t an insurance company be inclined to cancel your policy if you make large claims against it? Mine did in 1986, after I filed a $6,000 collision damage claim.

That’s where Proposition 103 comes in, say Shelton and Bell, with its strict rules about the circumstances under which a policy can be canceled or not renewed.

A no-fault system might also reduce insurance premiums, Bell says. In New York, rates have increased only 4% a year since no-fault was instituted. In California, however, rates have gone up 42% since 1985.

But Gary Chambers, president-elect of the Orange County Trial Lawyers Assn. and a member of the state association’s governing board, says insurance companies don’t need cost-saving measures to reduce rates.

“I would like to see Proposition 103 go into effect before we start legislative efforts to help the insurance companies,” Chambers says. Proposition 103 mandates a 20% rate rollback, although that provision has been stayed pending the court’s review.

“No-fault was rejected overwhelmingly by the voters last fall,” Chambers says. “They don’t want it.”

But Chambers agrees that the system needs help. He thinks the first step in speeding things along is “more courtrooms. Statistically there are no more lawsuits per capita in California than in 1915, but there are one-third as many courtrooms available (per capita). The legal system has not kept pace.”

Chambers is also an advocate of mandatory arbitration and other efforts to streamline the process, as have been made in some counties. “In Riverside and San Diego counties they have an accelerated trial program, in which a case is put on a computer system to make it move and avoid the delays,” he says.

It’s Got 12 Gold-Plated Cylinders

We see cars on the road in Orange County that cost more than houses do in many parts of the country–Ferraris, Maseratis, Rolls-Royces. They’re not exactly a dime a dozen here, but status cars are common enough that most of us barely take notice when they pull up next to us. But what’s the ultimate county status car? We would like your opinion, whether it’s in your garage or merely in your dreams. Be as specific as possible when it comes to model, year, color, options, etc.

The Road to Romance

Sure, you’ve heard of life in the fast lane, but how about love in the fast lane? How many of you indulge in a little freeway flirting now and then? And how many have actually dated that attractive stranger one lane over. We’d like to hear.

Send your comments to Life on Wheels, Orange County Life, The Times, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626. Please include your phone number so that we can contact you. To protect your privacy, Life on Wheels does not publish correspondents’ last names when the subject is sensitive.

California First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom recently convened a meeting that might rank among the top sweat-inducing nightmare scenarios for Silicon Valley’s tech bros — a group of the Golden State’s smartest, most powerful women brainstorming ways to regulate artificial intelligence.

Regulation is the last thing this particular California-dominated industry wants, and it’s spent a lot of cash at both the state and federal capitols to avoid it — including funding President Trump’s new ballroom. Regulation by a bunch of ladies, many mothers, with profit a distant second to our kids when it comes to concerns?

I’ll let you figure out how popular that is likely be with the Elon Musks, Peter Thiels and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

But as Siebel Newsom said, “If a platform reaches a child, it carries a responsibility to protect that child. Period. Our children’s safety can never be second to the bottom line.”

Agreed.

Siebel Newsom’s push for California to do more to regulate AI comes at the same time that Trump is threatening to stop states from overseeing the technology — and is ramping up a national effort that will open America’s coffers to AI moguls for decades to come.

Right now, the U.S. is facing its own nightmare scenario: the most powerful and world-changing technology we have seen in our lifetimes being developed and unleashed under almost no rules or restraints other than those chosen by the men who seek personal benefit from the outcome.

To put it simply, the plan right now seems to be that these tech barons will change the world as they see fit to make money for themselves, and we as taxpayers will pay them to do it.

“When decisions are mainly driven by power and profit instead of care and responsibility, we completely lose our way, and given the current alignment between tech titans and the federal administration, I believe we have lost our way,” Siebel Newsom said.

To recap what the way has been so far, Trump recently tried to sneak a 10-year ban on the ability of states to oversee the industry into his ridiculously named “Big Beautiful Bill,” but it was pulled out by a bipartisan group in the Senate — an early indicator of how inflammatory this issue is.

Faced with that unexpected blockade, Trump has threatened to sign a mysterious executive order crippling states’ ability to regulate AI and attempting to withhold funds from those that try.

Simultaneously, the most craven and cowardly among Republican congresspeople have suggested adding a 10-year ban to the upcoming defense policy bill that will almost certainly pass. Of course, Congress has also declined to move forward on any meaningful federal regulations itself, while technology CEOs including Trump frenemy Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, Meta’s Zuckerberg and many others chum it up at fancy events inside the White House.

Which may be why this week, Trump announced the “Genesis Mission,” an executive order that seemingly will take the unimaginable vastness of government research efforts across disciplines and dump them into some kind of AI model that will “revolutionize the way scientific research is conducted.”

While I am sure that nothing could possibly go wrong in that scenario, that’s not actually the part that is immediately alarming. This is: The project will be overseen by Trump science and technology policy advisor Michael Kratsios, who holds no science or engineering degrees but was formerly a top executive for Thiel and former head of another AI company that works on warfare-related projects with the Pentagon.

Kratsios is considered one of the main reasons Trump has embraced the tech bros with such adoration in his second term. Genesis will almost certainly mean huge government contracts for these private-sector “partners,” fueling the AI boom (or bubble) with taxpayer dollars.

Siebel Newsom’s message in the face of all this is that we are not helpless — and California, as the home of many of these companies and the world’s fourth-largest economy in its own right, should have a say in how this technology advances, and make sure it does so in a way that benefits and protects us all.

“California is uniquely positioned to lead the effort in showing innovation and responsibility and how they can go hand in hand,” she said. “I’ve always believed that stronger guardrails are actually good for business over the long term. Safer tech means better outcomes for consumers and greater consumer trust and loyalty.”

But the pressure to cave under the might of these companies is intense, as Siebel Newsom’s husband knows.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent the last few years trying to thread the needle on state legislation that offers some sort of oversight while allowing for the innovation that rightly keeps California and the United States competitive on the global front. The tech industry has spent millions in lobbying, legal fights and pressure campaigns to water down even the most benign of efforts, even threatening to leave the state if rules are enacted.

Last year, the industry unsuccessfully tried to stop Senate Bill 53, landmark legislation signed by Newsom. It’s a basic transparency measure on “frontier” AI models that requires companies to have safety and security protocols and report known “catastrophic” risks, such as when these models show tendencies toward behavior that could kill more than 50 people — which they have, believe it or not.

But the industry was able to stop other efforts. Newsom vetoed both Senate Bill 7, which would have required employers to notify workers when using AI in hiring and promotions; and Assembly Bill 1064, which would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors if they couldn’t prove they wouldn’t do things like encourage kids to self-harm, which again, these chatbots have done.

Still, California (along with New York and a few other states) has pushed forward, and speaking at Siebel Newsom’s event, the governor said that last session, “we took a number of at-bats at this and we made tremendous progress.”

He promised more.

“We have agency. We can shape the future,” he said. “We have a unique responsibility as it relates to these tools of technology, because, well, this is the center of that universe.”

If Newsom does keep pushing forward, it will be in no small part because of Siebel Newsom, and women like her, who keep the counter-pressure on.

In fact, it was another powerful mom, First Lady Melania Trump, who forced the federal government into a tiny bit of action this year when she championed the “Take It Down Act”, which requires tech companies to quickly remove nonconsensual explicit images. I sincerely doubt her husband would have signed that particular bill without her urging.

So, if we are lucky, the efforts of women like Siebel Newsom may turn out to be the bit of powerful sanity needed to put a check on the world-domination fantasies of the broligarchy.

Because tech bros are not yet all-powerful, despite their best efforts, and certainly not yet immune to the power of moms.

The Trump administration’s efforts to end the war in Ukraine took another turn today, this time with a revised deal reportedly more favorable to Ukraine than an earlier iteration. Meanwhile, Kyiv continues to lose ground at several points across the 600-mile front lines.

A new plan introduced on Monday reportedly eliminates some, but not all of Ukraine’s major concerns, with a 28-point plan unveiled last week. The revised document was hammered out over the weekend by the U.S. delegation, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and a Ukrainian team, led by the head of the presidential office, Andriy Yermak. The updated peace proposal now contains 19 provisions.

As with the previous peace plan, we cannot independently verify the details of this latest one, which could be preliminary, subject to change, and/or not reported in the proper context.

The reported details of the original 28-point plan that emerged last week were highly controversial, seemingly lopsided in favor of Russia and raised concerns across Europe and even among Ukraine’s staunch Republican supporters in Congress. The backlash was so great that Rubio reportedly assured the lawmakers that the leaked version did not represent the Trump administration’s position. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly drafted that plan with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, the Trump administration’s top negotiator, on Friday warned that Washington would show little flexibility.

“We are not negotiating details,” he said, Financial Times wrote, citing a senior European official in the meeting at the Kyiv residence of US chargé d’affaires, Julie Davis

Monday’s version of the plan appears to be more amenable to Kyiv.

“Many of the controversial provisions were either softened or at least reshaped” to get closer to a Ukrainian position, said Oleksandr Bevz, an adviser to Yermak who participated in the Geneva summit, The Washington Post reported. “By Monday, while not all the language in the draft was considered entirely ‘acceptable’ to Kyiv, the text was revised to a point that it can at least ‘be considered, whereas before it was an ultimatum,’” Bevz said.

The U.S. had reportedly threatened to cut all support if the deal wasn’t accepted.

“The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting,” the White House said in a statement Sunday night. “They expressed appreciation for the structured approach taken to incorporate their feedback into each component of the emerging settlement framework.”

Ukrainian representatives “stated that, based on the revisions and clarifications presented today, they believe the current draft reflects their national interests and provides credible and enforceable mechanisms to safeguard Ukraine’s security in both the near and long term,” the statement continued. “They underscored that the strengthened security guarantee architecture, combined with commitments on non-aggression, energy stability, and reconstruction, meaningfully addresses their core strategic requirements.”

Among other measures, the U.S. seemed willing to remove a Russian demand to limit Ukraine’s military to 600,000 troops. 

However, the biggest sticking point remains. according to reports.

The aforementioned 28-point proposal would have seen Ukraine give up a considerable amount of territory in the east, including land it still controls. That is not something the Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky appears willing to accept, even with the stick of reduced or eliminated support from Washington.

The Ukrainian leader has said his country could face a stark choice between standing up for its sovereign rights and preserving the American support it needs,” The Associated Press noted. “The proposal acquiesced to many Russian demands that Zelensky has categorically rejected on dozens of occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory,” the AP reported.

The Ukrainian leader has vowed that his people “will always defend” their home.

On Monday, Zelensky seemed hopeful that peace could be achieved, but he didn’t specifically address Russia’s lingering demand for land concessions.

“Today our delegation returned from Geneva after negotiations with the American side and European partners, and now the list of necessary steps to end the war can become workable,” Zelensky explained on Telegram. “As of now, after Geneva, there are fewer points, no longer 28, and much of the right has been taken into account in this framework.”

“There is still work to be done together – it is very difficult – to make the final document, and everything must be done properly,” the Ukrainian leader continued. “And we appreciate that most of the world is ready to help us and the American side is constructive. In fact, the whole day yesterday was meetings; it was a difficult, extremely detailed work.”

“I discuss the sensitive issues with President Trump,” Zelensky added.

However, there is no meeting scheduled between the two leaders, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday.

The White House, she said, feels “optimistic” about the president’s proposed peace plan to end the war in Russia. The plan has input from both Russia and Ukraine.

Leavitt also stated that the U.S., which has been selling arms to NATO, ultimately bound for Ukraine, cannot keep that up.

Meanwhile, European nations also introduced their own 28-point peace proposal. Russia, for its part, seems more amenable to the American version.

“Yuri Ushakov, a veteran foreign policy aide to the Russian leader, told reporters in Moscow that the EU’s peace plan, launched in response to the 28-point plan presented by Washington, ‘constructively doesn’t fit us at all,’” Politico reported. “Ushakov added that Trump’s plan, which included several major concessions to Russia, including ceding vast swathes of Ukrainian territory and capping the size of Kyiv’s military, was more ‘acceptable’ to the Kremlin.”

Amid the flurry of diplomatic moves, Russia continues to slowly grind up Ukrainian territory, albeit at a tremendous cost in personnel and equipment.

“Russian forces have broken through Ukrainian defenses north of Huliaipole, creating a rapidly expanding threat to one of Ukraine’s most fortified positions in Zaporizhzhia Oblast,” Euromaidan Press reported on Sunday. “The breakthrough has prompted Ukrainian forces to reposition for a high-stakes defensive battle along the Zarichne River.”

Russian forces broke through Ukrainian defenses north of Huliaipole after capturing Uspenivka, the key Ukrainian strongpoint on the western bank of the Yanchul River. The breakthrough came after Russia concentrated approximately 40,000 troops on the position and fired over 400… pic.twitter.com/fJ7bpBiKnp

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) November 23, 2025

The community, which had a population of about 14,000 in 2016, was originally created in the 1770s as a military bulwark against invading forces. Huliaipole is once again fighting to ward off an encroaching enemy and is “the largest and most fortified Ukrainian stronghold in the region,” Euromaidan Press explained.

The Russians have amassed a force of about 40,000 troops, the publication claimed, adding that they are attacking from the north to try and encircle Ukrainian forces and avoid a costly head-on attack.

Russian troops reached the western outskirts of the settlement of Zatyshshia, 2,5km from the northern entrance to the town of Huliaipole, located on the Zaporizhzhia front.

📍47.691444, 36.304132 pic.twitter.com/4dxPnD1MaK

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (@Archer83Able) November 24, 2025

“Ukrainian defenders repelled seven attacks by the occupiers near the settlements of Zelenyi Hai, Zatyshshia, Solodke, and towards Varvarivka and Dobropillia,” the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff claimed on Monday. “Two clashes are still ongoing. In addition, enemy aviation struck the settlements of Huliaipole and Zaliznychne.”

For its part, the Russian Defense Ministry MoD) claimed it captured a small community about a mile and a half north of Huliaipole 

The “liberation of Zatishye has strengthened the position of the Vostok Group of Forces and has become an important step towards further progress in this direction,” the Russian MoD stated on Telegram.

Meanwhile, about 60 miles to the northeast in the hotly contested Donetsk region, Ukrainian forces are still holding out in the embattled city of Pokrovsk; however, “Russian forces will very likely complete the seizure of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad,” according to the latest Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessment. 

Another 60 miles northeast of Pokrovsk, the Russians are also pushing closer to the town of Siversk, according to ISW.

“Ukrainian 11th Army Corps (AC) spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Dmytro Zaporozhets reported on November 23 that Russian forces are the most active in the Slovyansk direction and are attacking more specifically toward Siversk,” ISW explained.

“While attention is focused on Huliaipole and Pokrovsk, systemic problems are arising in other directions as well,” Ukrainian activist and noted milblogger Serhii Sternenko posited on Telegram. “Another front line where the crisis will soon become noticeable is Siversk/Yampil. I won’t write the details publicly. In short — the same set of problems as in other areas + increasingly active enemy drone operations against our logistics.”

Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate, recently suggested that Russia plans to occupy all of Donetsk by next spring

While Budanov called that aspiration “unrealistic,” the ongoing peace process, if successful, could make that a moot point. However, given the tumultuous nature of the negotiations, Russia’s unwavering demands, and Ukraine’s continuing battlefield losses, that’s a pretty big if.

Contact the author: [email protected]

MIAMI — Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton appealed to his fellow Southerners’ sense of pride Tuesday, telling an assembly of the region’s state legislators that GOP entreaties to “traditional values” placed President Bush in the White House but produced little benefit to their states.

“We never got anywhere, anywhere, anywhere in our part of the country by being sucker-punched (with) appeals to our traditional values,” Clinton said in a speech to the Southern Legislative Conference meeting in Miami.

“Let us vote on our traditional values,” he said. “Let us live our traditional values. Let us lift up our whole country by starting in the South and saying, ‘Give us a new direction for our country.’ ”

Clinton’s remarks were intended to pry the region’s voters away from the GOP and to recapture the ballots of conservative Southerners. That strategy has been the linchpin of Clinton’s campaign because Democrats have won neither the region nor the White House since 1976–when Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter did so. Like Carter, who beat President Gerald R. Ford, Clinton is the governor of a Southern state: Arkansas.

Although Clinton seemed to play up his audience’s Southern pride, his comments also hinted at the sense of inferiority frequently directed at the region.

He acknowledged that education gaps, racial discord and economic production have held back advancement in states located below the Mason-Dixon line, but suggested the region has dealt with those problems with more candor and openness than other parts of the country.

“Don’t you think the South has come a long way in the last few years?” Clinton said, citing foreign investments, lessened racial tensions and improved student academic achievement. “It’s something I think most of us are pretty proud of. I know our region still has a higher percentage of poor folks than other regions of the country, but we’ve made a lot of progress.”

Appearing before the bipartisan organization of lawmakers and their staffs, Clinton rarely mentioned Bush by name. But he criticized the record of his Administration and his party–which has controlled the White House for the last 12 years–saying the GOP had failed to improve health care in the South and across the nation.

“You ask the people you represent not to throw their vote away on the kind of rhetoric the people have gotten those of us in the South to be a sucker for for decades,” he told the legislators. “Let’s show them there is a New South and we’re a lot smarter than they think we are, and that whoever gets our votes this time will have to respond to our hopes for our children.”

Clinton also discussed his health care proposals, including a so-called “play-or-pay” plan that aims to insure every American. Firms would either have to “play” by providing health insurance to their employees, or pay into a federal fund that would cover those without insurance.

His plan would also require insurance-company reforms and cuts in unnecessary paperwork that boost medical costs without improving benefits.

“Otherwise, you’re going to have more and more and these (insurance firms) dividing up the health insurance markets to where the very ideal thing (they) can do is to insure a group of 15- to 25-year-old women, who spend two hours a day in the gym, don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t eat hamburgers, (and are) going to live forever. It’s their only way to save money.”

Clinton also attacked Bush’s proposal to give vouchers to the poor and tax breaks to the middle class to help buy health insurance. “The (President’s) benefits are completely consumed by cost increases in a year,” Clinton contended.

Health and Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan also spoke to the group, defending Bush’s health care proposal. Sullivan, who preceded Clinton to the podium, gave the Democrat an opportunity to criticize White House policy without heaping abuse on the Cabinet’s only black.

“He’s a good fellow,” Clinton said of Sullivan. “He’s just got a heavy load to carry.”

Clinton elicited his only standing ovation when he described how Bush would try to link him to the Democrats’ past during the Republican Convention next week.

“You know as well as I do what’s about to happen,” he said, grinning broadly. “The other side is going to go down there to Houston and tell you (vice presidential nominee) Al Gore and I may have been born in Arkansas and Tennessee, but we’re just a bunch of crazy, wild-eyed liberals. They’re going to tell you that (Democrats) took us to New York City in a safe . . . and incubated us there for 20 years. We got their crazy ideas, came home and hid them for 20 years waiting for the opportunity to spring them on the rest of the country.”

As the audience roared with laughter and applause, Clinton continued mocking his opponents’ strategy:

“They’re going to say every speech I gave on the Fourth of July in northeast Arkansas was a deliberate attempt to conceal my radical impulses. And we just can’t wait to get into power in Washington, where we can take your guns away and trample family values and raise taxes on every poor, working person in America.

“I can hear them now.”

The Democratic campaign also swept through New England on Tuesday as Gore toured a leading computer firm in Cambridge, Mass., saying that high technology will create jobs and keep America competitive into the 21st Century.

“It translates into real jobs for real people,” Gore said, surrounded by colorful supercomputers capable of making computations at unprecedented speeds. “It sounds a little high-tech. And it is high-tech. . . . But in the competition we now face in the world marketplace, we’ve got to be willing to move ahead and create the jobs of the future.”

Gore delivered his remarks during a visit to Thinking Machines Corp., a nine-year-old firm that makes the most powerful computers in use today.

Times staff writer Edwin Chen contributed to this story.

President Trump’s tight grip on the GOP, long assumed to be an inevitable feature of American life (like gravity or the McRib’s seasonal return), has started to loosen.

Republicans are now openly defying him. The man who once ruled the GOP like a casino boss can’t even strong-arm Indiana Republicans into gerrymandering themselves properly.

This sort of resistance didn’t emerge overnight. It fermented like prison wine or bad ideas in a faculty lounge. First came the Iran bombing: an early shock that suggested “America First” might also mean “Israel First,” at least to the populist-nationalist camp inside the GOP.

Then came the effort to muffle the Jeffrey Epstein files, a notion so foreign to MAGA’s ethos that the subsequent drama, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), “ripped MAGA apart.”

Greene also expressed concern that the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies are set to lapse, and that Republicans have no plan to fix the imminent premium spikes — an occurrence that threatens to alienate the very working-class voters that MAGA now insists it represents.

All the while, another MAGA soap opera was churning. Tucker Carlson decided to “platform” white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, leading to an outcry of criticism that prompted the Heritage Foundation’s president to defend them (sparking another Republican “civil war” subplot).

The common thread in these stories is the sense that Trump’s days are numbered. The question of “Who gets MAGA when Dad can no longer operate the remote?” has become unavoidable.

True, pundits have been prematurely writing Trump’s political obituary since he first came down that escalator. But it feels different this time. The question is why.

There are likely numerous reasons, but I’ve zeroed in on the five that I think are the most important.

The first, and most obvious, reason is that Trump is now a lame duck, and everyone knows it.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) made the logic explicit when, during the Epstein-file fight, he warned his colleagues: “Donald Trump can protect you in red districts right now … but by 2030, he’s not going to be president, and you will have voted to protect pedophiles if you don’t vote to release those files.”

Once politicians and influencers start imagining their post-Trump resumes, his spell over them shatters. This probably explains why Trump has dangled the idea of an unconstitutional third term.

The second reason we are seeing Trump’s grip weaken is that, frankly, Trump’s not popular. In fact, according to a new Reuters poll, his approval rating is just 38%.

This rating plummets when it comes to the issues that divide Republicans. For example, according to that same survey, a mere 20% of American adults — including just 44% of Republicans — approve of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files.

The third reason is that Trump is increasingly isolated from the constituency that once fine-tuned his political instincts.

The Trump of 2016-2020 essentially crowdsourced his political instincts at rallies, where he learned to read the room like a comedian. Now he’s physically isolated and increasingly out of touch with his base. His inner circle consists of ideologues and billionaires — people who don’t worry about the price of milk.

So when Trump insists the economy is thriving, as he hosts Gatsby-themed soirees and tears down the East Wing of the White House to build a new ballroom, populists look up from their grocery bills, spy Trump on TV meeting with the Saudi crown prince, and are suddenly flooded with buyer’s remorse. This creates an opening, and the movement’s would-be heirs can sense it.

Of course, Trump could conceivably adjust his policies and rhetoric in an effort to restore his populist appeal.

But the fourth reason for Trump’s loss of power within the GOP concerns his mortality: Trump is the oldest person to win the presidency in U.S. history. He has had two “annual” physicals this calendar year — including an MRI no one will adequately explain (this is not part of a routine physical).

This brings us to the fifth and final reason the cracks are starting to show: Trump’s 2024 coalition was always like a game of Jenga.

It was a convenient alliance of disparate factions and individuals whose interests converged because Trump’s charisma (and lack of a coherent political worldview) was like the glue holding incompatible pieces together. But as that binding force weakens, the contradictions become clear, and open warfare is inevitable.

For years now, Trump imposed peace the way an aging rock frontman keeps peace within a band. But once that star starts forgetting lyrics or showing up late, his bandmates start imagining solo careers.

We’re watching MAGA realize that the Trump era is ending, and that the next battle is about what — or who — will fill the vacuum when he’s gone.

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

BILLINGS, Mont. — President Trump’s administration moved Wednesday to roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live, reviving a suite of changes to Endangered Species Act regulations during the Republican’s first term that were blocked under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The changes include the elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule” that automatically protects animals and plants newly classified as threatened. Government agencies instead would have to craft species-specific rules for protections, a potentially lengthy process.

Environmentalists warned the changes could cause years-long delays in efforts to save species such as the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl and North American wolverine.

“We would have to wait until these poor animals are almost extinct before we can start protecting them. That’s absurd and heartbreaking,” said Stephanie Kurose with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The proposals come as extinctions have accelerated globally because of habitat loss and other pressures. Prior proposals during Trump’s second term would revise the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act and potentially bypass species protections for logging projects in national forests and on public lands.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the administration was restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent while respecting “the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.”

The changes answer long-standing calls for revisions to the 1973 Endangered Species Act from Republicans in Congress and industries including oil and gas, mining and agriculture. Those critics argue the law has been wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth.

Another change proposed Wednesday tasks officials with weighing potential economic impacts when deciding what habitat is crucial to the survival of a species.

“These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense,” Burgum said in a statement.

The Interior Department was sued over the blanket protection rule in March, by the Property and Environment Research Center and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The two groups argued the rule was illegal and discouraged states and landowners from assisting in species recovery efforts.

PERC Vice President Jonathan Wood said Wednesday’s proposal was a “necessary course correction” from the Biden administration’s actions.

“This reform acknowledges the blanket rule’s unlawfulness and puts recovery back at the heart of the Endangered Species Act,” Wood said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced Wednesday that he is running for governor of California, arguing that he is not beholden to special interests and can take on corporations that are making life unaffordable in the state.

“The richest people in America think that they earned everything themselves. Bulls—, man. That’s so ridiculous,” Steyer said in an online video announcing his campaign. “We have a broken government. It’s been bought by corporations and my question is: Who do you think is going to change that? Sacramento politicians are afraid to change up this system. I’m not. They’re going to hate this. Bring it on.”

Protesters hold placards and banners during a rally against Whitehaven Coal in Sydney in 2014. Dozens of protesters and activists gathered downtown to protest against the controversial massive Maules Creek coal mine project in northern New South Wales.

(Saeed Khan / AFP/Getty Images)

Steyer, 68, founded Farallon Capital Management, one of the nation’s largest hedge funds, and left it in 2012 after 26 years. Since his departure, he has become a global environmental activist and a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes.

But the hedge firm’s investments — notably a giant coal mine in Australia that cleared 3,700 acres of koala habitat and a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will make him susceptible to political attack by his gubernatorial rivals.

Steyer has expressed regret for his involvement in such projects, saying it was why he left Farallon and started focusing his energy on fighting climate change.

Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer addresses a crowd during a presidential primary election-night party in Columbia, S.C.

(Sean Rayford / Getty Images)

Steyer previously flirted with running for governor and the U.S. Senate but decided against it, instead opting to run for president in 2020. He dropped out after spending nearly $342 million on his campaign, which gained little traction before he ended his run after the South Carolina primary.

Next year’s gubernatorial race is in flux, after former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla decided not to run and Proposition 50, the successful Democratic effort to redraw congressional districts, consumed all of the political oxygen during an off-year election.

Most voters are undecided about who they would like to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for reelection because of term limits, according to a poll released this month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. Steyer had the support of 1% of voters in the survey.

In recent years, Steyer has been a longtime benefactor of progressive causes, most recently spending $12 million to support the redistricting ballot measure. But when he was the focus of one of the ads, rumors spiraled that he was considering a run for governor.

In prior California ballot initiatives, Steyer successfully supported efforts to close a corporate tax loophole and to raise tobacco taxes, and fought oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.

His campaign platform is to build 1 million homes in four years, lower energy costs by ending monopolies, make preschool and community college free and ban corporate contributions to political action committees in California elections.

Steyer’s brother Jim, the leader of Common Sense Media, and former Biden administration U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are aiming to put an initiative on next year’s ballot to protect children from social media, specifically the chatbots that have been accused of prompting young people to kill themselves. Newsom recently vetoed a bill aimed at addressing this artificial intelligence issue.

After a surge in Border Patrol activity in North Carolina’s largest city over the weekend, including dozens of arrests, Gov. Josh Stein said the effort is “stoking fear,” not making Charlotte safer.

The Trump administration has made the Democratic city of about 950,000 people its latest target for an immigration enforcement surge it says will combat crime, despite fierce objections from local leaders and downtrending crime rates. Charlotte residents reported encounters with federal immigration agents near churches, apartment complexes and stores.

“We’ve seen masked, heavily armed agents in paramilitary garb driving unmarked cars, targeting American citizens based on their skin color, racially profiling, and picking up random people in parking lots and off of our sidewalks,” Stein said in a video statement late Sunday. “This is not making us safer. It’s stoking fear and dividing our community.”

Stein acknowledged that it was a stressful time, but he called on residents to stay peaceful. If people see something wrong, he said they should record it and report it to local law enforcement.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CBP, has said it was focusing on North Carolina because of so-called sanctuary policies, which limit cooperation between local authorities and immigration agents.

Several county jails house immigrant arrestees and honor detainers, which allow jails to hold detainees for immigration officers to pick them up. But Mecklenburg County, where Charlotte is located, does not. Also, the city’s police department does not help with immigration enforcement. DHS alleged that about 1,400 detainers across North Carolina had not been honored, putting the public at risk.

Gregory Bovino, who led hundreds of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in a similar effort in Chicago, documented some of the more than 80 arrests he said agents had made in social media posts on Sunday. He posted pictures of people the Trump administration commonly dubs “criminal illegal aliens,” meaning people living in the U.S. without legal permission who allegedly have criminal records. That included one of a man with an alleged history of drunk driving convictions.

The activity has prompted fear and questions, including where detainees would be held, how long the operation would last and what agents’ tactics — criticized elsewhere as aggressive and racist — would look like in North Carolina.

However, some welcomed the effort, including Mecklenburg County Republican Party Chairman Kyle Kirby, who said in a post Saturday that the county GOP “stands with the rule of law — and with every Charlottean’s safety first.”

Bovino’s operations in Chicago and Los Angeles triggered lawsuits over the use of force, including widespread deployment of chemical agents. Democratic leaders in both cities accused agents of inflaming community tensions. Federal agents fatally shot one suburban Chicago man during a traffic stop.

Bovino, head of a Border Patrol sector in El Centro, California, and other Trump administration officials have called their tactics appropriate for growing threats on agents.

Tareen, Witte and Dale write for the Associated Press. Tareen and Dale reported from Chicago. Witte reported from Annapolis, Md.

Nov. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Sunday criticized Indiana state lawmakers who have dropped an effort to seek a vote for the potential redistricting of congressional seats.

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, had called a special session last month to consider redrawing the state’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Rodric Bray, the president pro tempore of the Indiana Senate, issued a statement Friday that said Republicans did not have enough votes “to move the idea forward.”

Trump called Bray a “RINO,” which stands for “Republican in Name Only,” for not pursuing a vote in a post to his Truth Social platform Sunday.

“Very disappointed in Indiana State Senate Republicans, led by RINO Senators Rod Bray and Greg Goode, for not wanting to redistrict their state, allowing the United States Congress to perhaps gain two more Republican seats,” Trump said.

Trump then said that Democrats “have done redistricting for years,” which he falsely said was often done “illegally.”n

“They could be depriving Republicans of a majority in the House, a very big deal!” Trump said in his post.

He also criticized his “friend,” Braud, who he said “is not working the way he should to get the necessary votes.”

“Considering that Mike wouldn’t be governor without me (not even close!), is disappointing!” Trump said. “Any Republican that votes against this important redistricting, potentially having an impact on America itself, should be primaried.”

A number of states across the country have revisited their congressional maps after Texas Republicans earlier this year pushed through a map projected to give the GOP five additional seats.

In response, California Democrats advanced changes expected to create five new Democratic-leaning districts, setting off a wave of similar efforts in other states from both parties.

Normally, Congressional districts are normally remapped every ten years after the U.S. Census has been completed.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers seeking to force the release of files related to the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein are predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for their bill and bucking the GOP leadership and President Trump, who for months have disparaged their effort.

The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.

“There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”

Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) introduced a discharge petition in July to force a vote on their bill. That is a rarely successful tool that allows a majority of members to bypass House leadership and force a floor vote.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had panned the discharge petition effort and sent members home early for their August recess when the GOP’s legislative agenda was upended by the clamoring for an Epstein vote.

Democrats also contend that the seating of Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) was stalled to delay her becoming the 218th member to sign the petition and gain the threshold needed to force a vote. She became the 218th signature moments after taking the oath of office last week.

Massie said Johnson, Trump and others who have been critical of his efforts would be “taking a big loss this week.”

“I’m not tired of winning yet, but we are winning,” Massie said.

The view from GOP leadership

Johnson seems to expect the House will decisively back the Epstein bill.

“We’ll just get this done and move it on. There’s nothing to hide,” the speaker said. He continued to deride the Massie-Khanna effort, however, asserting that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing “far more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit.”

The vote comes at a time when new documents are raising fresh questions about Epstein and his associates, including a 2019 email that Epstein wrote to a journalist that said Trump “knew about the girls.” The White House has accused Democrats of selectively leaking the emails to smear the Republican president, though lawmakers from both parties released emails last week.

Johnson said Trump “has nothing to hide from this.”

“They’re doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not,” Johnson said.

Trump’s former friendship and association with Epstein is well-established, and the president’s name was included in records that his Justice Department released in February as part of an effort to satisfy public interest in information from the sex-trafficking investigation.

Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and the mere inclusion of someone’s name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise. Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, also had many prominent acquaintances in political and celebrity circles besides Trump.

Khanna voiced more modest expectations on the vote count than Massie. Still, Khanna said he was hoping for 40 or more Republicans to join the effort.

“I don’t even know how involved Trump was,” Khanna said. “There are a lot of other people involved who have to be held accountable.”

Khanna also asked Trump to meet with some of Epstein’s victims. Some will be at the Capitol on Tuesday for a news conference, he said.

Massie said Republican lawmakers who fear losing Trump’s endorsement because of how they vote will have a mark on their record if they vote “no,” which could hurt their political prospects in the long term.

“The record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency,” Massie said.

A MAGA split

On the Republican side, three Republicans joined with Massie in signing the discharge petition: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado.

Trump publicly broke with Greene last week and said he would endorse a challenger against her in 2026 “if the right person runs.”

Greene, a MAGA stalwart throughout her time in Congress, attributed her fallout with Trump to the Epstein debate. “Unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files,” she said, adding that the country deserves transparency on the issue and that Trump’s criticism of her is confusing because the women she has talked to say he did nothing wrong.

“I have no idea what’s in the files. I can’t even guess. But that is the question everyone is asking: … ‘Why fight this so hard?’” Greene said.

Even if the bill passes the House, there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will go along. Massie said he just hopes Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) “will do the right thing.”

“The pressure is going to be there if we get a big vote in the House,” said Massie, who thinks “we could have a deluge of Republicans.”

Massie appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Johnson was on “Fox News Sunday,” Khanna spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and Greene was interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing California over its recently voter-approved congressional maps, alleging they are an unconstitutional “power grab.”

Earlier this month, Californians approved Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s redistricting initiative, introduced in direct response to Texas’ effort to create new congressional maps that favor Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

While Texas Republican lawmakers pursued an unprecedented mid-cycle redraw without voter approval, President Donald Trump and his allies have been critical of the California move. Democrats counter that they are trying to protect the state’s representation in Congress, accusing Trump — who pressured Texas to pursue the new maps — of undermining democratic norms.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday filed the lawsuit against Newsom over California’s redistricting plan, alleging that it racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Gov. Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

According to the lawsuit, federal prosecutors accuse California’s Democratic leaders of manipulating congressional maps to bolster “the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

“Our Constitution does not tolerate this racial gerrymander,” the 17-page court document states.

“No one, let alone California, contends that its pre-existing map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of Race. Because the Proposition 50 map does, the United States respectfully requests this court enjoin defendants from using it in the 2026 election and future elections.”

Texas’ GOP-controlled legislature in August passed its new maps that are projected to give Republicans as many as five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats have criticized this move as Trump trying to create more red seats to keep control of the House, which the GOP now narrowly holds.

Texas has 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 25 of which are filled by Republicans.

California, which has 52 House districts — 43 of them held by Democrats — responded with Proposition 50.

Republicans hold a 219-214 majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, with two seats vacant.

Several states — led by both Republicans and Democrats — have since announced efforts to redraw their maps, setting off a gerrymandering arms race ahead of 2026.

“These losers lost at the ballot box, and soon they will also lose in court,” Newsom’s office said in a statement in response to the Trump administration lawsuit.

Belief that Northern Ireland could seal second spot ahead of Slovakia surged after they were comfortably the superior team when these sides met in Belfast last month, winning 2-0 with a performance that the side’s record goalscorer David Healy said was perhaps their best ever under O’Neill.

In the weeks since, however, there is a growing feeling that tables have turned somewhat.

Slovakia were missing influential pair Stanislav Lobotka and David Hancko for the game at Windsor Park with both expected to be back in Francesco Calzona’s starting line-up at the Kosice Football Arena this time around.

Northern Ireland, however, will be without three-quarters of the midfield that so impressed in the reverse fixture with Shea Charles and Ali McCann injured, while Ethan Galbraith is suspended.

How the manager fills such considerable holes in his line-up has been the key talking point since his squad was confirmed last week.

In Napoli’s Lobotka, O’Neill believes Slovakia can again call upon one of the best defensive midfielders in Europe.

“He’s an excellent player and he plays at the top level of the game with Napoli, but we look at Slovakia as a team, we don’t look at them as one player or two players,” he said.

“It won’t change the way Slovakia try and play. We have to deal with that as a team, it’s not one individual player.

“We don’t envisage any dramatic change in their strategy or how they look to play tactically, but they’ll obviously be stronger.”

We are being ruled by the “Epstein class,” and voters deserve to know the details of that particular scandal, and to be able to expect better of their leaders in the larger sense.

That’s the message we’ll be hearing a lot in the coming weeks and months now that Democrats have successfully moved forward their effort to release the full investigation into former President Trump buddy Jeffrey Epstein.

“When you take a step back, you have a country where an elite governing class has gotten away with impunity, and shafted the working class in this country, shafted factory towns, shafted rural communities,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) told me Wednesday.

He represents parts of Silicon Valley and is one of the authors of the House push to release the full government investigation into Epstein. But in the Epstein case, he also sees an opportunity to reach voters with a larger promise of change.

“What Epstein is about is saying, ‘we reject the Epstein class governing America today,’” Khanna said.

How appropriately strange for these days would it be if Epstein, who faced sex trafficking charges at the time of his death, provided the uniting message Democrats have been searching for?

“Epstein and economics” sounds like a stretch on the surface, but it is increasingly clear that Americans of all political stripes are tired of the rich getting richer, and bolder. The Epstein files are the bipartisan embodiment of that discontent.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), left, and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) have led Democrats’ push for release of the Epstein files.

(Sue Ogrocki and J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

Our collective frustration with what can appear only as a cover-up to benefit the wealthy and powerful is an unexpected bit of glue that binds regular Americans, because the corruption and hubris of our oligarchy is increasingly undeniable and galling.

Whether it’s our president’s obviously wrong contention that grocery prices are down; our vice president being willing to take on the pope about true Catholic doctrine; or our FBI chief flying his girlfriend around on the taxpayer dime, the arrogance is stunning.

But where each of those examples becomes buried and dismissed in partisan politics, sex trafficking girls turns out to be frowned upon by people from all walks of life.

“It’s universal,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another Californian. “This is clearly a White House and a president that is the most corrupt person we’ve ever had in office serving as a chief executive, and this is just another piece of that corruption.”

Khanna, along with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, built the unlikely but unstoppable effort that brought together once-loyal Trumpers including Reps. Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene with Democrats.

Those staunch right-wingers are tied in to their voters, and probably understood just how unpopular sex trafficking is with a base that grew into maturity on QAnon-inspired fear mongering about kidnapped children.

“It’s the only thing since Trump walked down the escalator that’s been a truly bipartisan effort to expose corruption and where there’s been a break in his coalition,” Khanna said.

And by “exposing rich and powerful people who abuse the system and calling them out clearly, we start to rebuild trust with the American people,” Khanna argues, the trust required to make folks believe Democrats aren’t so terrible.

Long before he was a linchpin in the Epstein saga, Khanna built a name as a force on the progressive left for a positive and inclusive economic platform that resembles the New Deal, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to rebuild democracy in another era of hardship and discontent.

It’s all about real payoffs for average Americans — trade schools and affordable child care and jobs that actually pay the bills. That’s the message that he hopes will be the top line as Democrats push forward.

On Wednesday, the buildup of resentment that might make that possible came into full focus in Washington, as Congress opened up to anything but business as usual. Democrats, led by Garcia, released emails raising questions about Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Trump “spent hours at my house” and “knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, even as Trump’s press secretary argued this was all a “fake narrative to smear” her boss.

Republicans countered the emails with a massive information dump probably meant to obscure and confuse. But House Speaker Mike Johnson, out of excuses, finally swore in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who promptly provided the final signature on the discharge petition to call a House vote on releasing the entire Epstein files.

That happened just hours after Boebert, one of the key Republican backers of that effort, was called to the White House in a last-minute, heavy-handed bid to pressure her into dropping her name from the demand. She did not.

Enough to make your head spin, honestly. About 10 more dastardly, intriguing and unexpected things happened, but you get the gist: President Trump really, really does not want us to read the Epstein files. House Democrats are ready to fight the long fight.

Garcia said House Democrats aren’t caving, because the cover-up keeps growing.

“There’s a lot of folks now that are obsessed with hiding the truth from the public, and the American public needs to know,” he said. “The Oversight Committee is committed to fighting our way to the truth.”

But it will be a long fight, and one with only a slim chance of winning the release of the files. Any effort would have to clear the Republican-held Senate (and after the shutdown collapse, who knows if Senate Democrats have the stomach for resistance), then be signed by Trump.

Judging from his near-desperate social media posting about the whole thing being a “hoax,” it’s hard to imagine him putting his scrawl on that law.

But unlike the shutdown, the longer this goes, the more Democrats have to gain. People aren’t going to suddenly start liking pedophiles. And the more Trump pushes to hide whatever the truth is, the more Democrats have the high ground, to message on corruption, oligarchs and even a vision for a better way.

“Epstein and economics” — linking the concrete with the esoteric, the problem with the solution.

The bipartisan message Democrats didn’t know they needed, from the strangest of sources.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The “full, complete, and unconditional” pardon for dozens of Trump allies are largely symbolic. It applies only to federal crimes, and none of the people named in the proclamation were charged federally over the bid to subvert the election won by Democrat Joe Biden. It doesn’t affect state charges, though state prosecutions stemming from the 2020 election have hit a dead end or are just limping along.

The move, however, underscores Trump’s continued efforts to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general at the time found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. Reviews, recounts and audits of the election in the battleground states where Trump contested his loss also affirmed Biden’s victory.

Trump’s recent action follows the sweeping pardons of the hundreds of Trump supporters charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, including those convicted of attacking law enforcement.

Ed Martin, the Department of Justice’s point person on pardons and a former lawyer for the Jan. 6 defendants, linked his announcement of the pardons to a post on X that read “No MAGA left behind.”

Dozens of Trump allies received pardons

Among those also pardoned were Sidney Powell, an attorney who promoted baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election, John Eastman, another lawyer who pushed a plan to keep Trump in power, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who championed Trump’s efforts to challenge his election loss.

Also named were Republicans who acted as fake electors for Trump and were charged in state cases accusing them of submitting false certificates that confirmed they were legitimate electors despite Biden’s victory in those states.

The proclamation explicitly says the pardon does not apply to the president himself, who has continued to repeat the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, used that falsehood to argue for sweeping changes in the way the country votes and demanded his Department of Justice investigate the vote count that led to his loss.

The pardon described efforts to prosecute the Trump allies as “a grave national injustice perpetrated on the American people” and said the pardons were designed to continue “the process of national reconciliation.” Giuliani and others have denied any wrongdoing, arguing they were simply challenging an election they believed was tainted by fraud.

“These great Americans were persecuted and put through hell by the Biden Administration for challenging an election, which is the cornerstone of democracy,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an emailed statement.

Those pardoned were not prosecuted by the Biden administration, however. They were charged only by state prosecutors who operate separately from the Justice Department.

An Associated Press investigation after the 2020 election found 475 cases of potential voter fraud across the six battleground states, far too few to change the outcome.

Impact of the pardons is limited

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, was one of the most vocal supporters of Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of large-scale voter fraud after the 2020 election. He also is an example of the limited impact of the pardons.

Giuliani has been disbarred in Washington, D.C., and New York over his advocacy of Trump’s bogus election claims and lost a $148-million defamation case brought by two former Georgia election workers whose lives were upended by conspiracy theories he pushed. Since pardons only absolve people from legal responsibility for federal crimes, they’re unlikely to ease Giuliani’s legal woes.

Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, said the former mayor “never sought a pardon but is deeply grateful for President Trump’s decision.”

“Mayor Rudy Giuliani stands by his work following the 2020 presidential election, when he responded to the legitimate concerns of thousands of everyday Americans,” Goodman said in an emailed statement.

While the pardons may have no immediate legal impact, experts warned they send a dangerous message for future elections.

“It is a complete abdication of the responsibility of the federal government to ensure we don’t have future attempts to overturn elections,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor. “Ultimately, the message it sends is, ‘We’ll take care of you when the time comes.’”

Some pardoned were co-conspirators in Trump’s federal case

Trump himself was indicted on federal felony charges accusing him of working to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but the case brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith was abandoned in November after Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris because of the department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Giuliani, Powell, Eastman and Clark were alleged co-conspirators in the federal case brought against Trump but were never charged with federal crimes.

Giuliani, Meadows and others named in the proclamation had been charged by prosecutors in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin over the 2020 election, but the cases have repeatedly hit roadblocks or have been dismissed. A judge in September dismissed the Michigan case against 15 Republicans accused of attempting to falsely certify Trump as the winner of the election in that battleground state.

Eastman, a former dean of Chapman University Fowler School of Law in Southern California, was a close adviser to Trump in the wake of the 2020 election and wrote a memo laying out steps Vice President Mike Pence could take to stop the counting of electoral votes while presiding over Congress’ joint session on Jan. 6 to keep Trump in office.

Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office, also is facing possible disbarment in Washington over his advocacy of Trump’s claims. Clark clashed with Justice Department superiors over a letter he drafted after the 2020 election that said the department was investigating “various irregularities” and had identified “significant concerns” that may have affected the election in Georgia and other states.

Clark said in a social media post Monday that he “did nothing wrong” and “shouldn’t have had to battle this witch hunt for 4+ years.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

Republican infighting crescendoed in the aftermath of California voters overwhelmingly approving Democratic-friendly redistricting plan this week that may undercut the GOP’s control of Congress and derail President Trump’s polarizing agenda.

The state GOP chairwoman was urged to resign and former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the state’s independent redistricting commission, was called “cowardly” by one top GOP leader for not being more involved in the campaign.

Leaders of the Republican-backed committees opposing the ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, were questioned about how they spent nearly $58 million in the special election after such a dismal outcome.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the once prodigious Republican fundraiser, reportedly vowed earlier in the campaign that he could raise $100 million for the opposition but ended up delivering a small fraction of that amount.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, called on state GOP chair Corrin Rankin to step down and faulted other Republican leaders and longtime party operatives for the ballot measure’s failure, calling them “derelict of duty and untrustworthy and incompetent.”

“Unless serious changes are made at the party, the midterms are going to be a complete disaster,” DeMaio said, also faulting the other groups opposing the effort. “We need accountability. There needs to be a reckoning because otherwise the lessons won’t be learned. The old guard needs to go. The old guard has failed us too many times. This is the latest failure.”

Rankin pushed back against the criticism, saying the state party was the most active GOP force in the final stretch of the election. Raising $11 million during the final three weeks of the campaign, the party spent it on mailers, digital ads and text messages, as well as organizing phone banks and precinct walking, she said.

Former Speaker of the House and California Republican Kevin McCarthy speaks to the press at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 19, 2023.

(Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images)

“We left it all on the field,” Rankin said Wednesday morning at a Sacramento press conference about a federal lawsuit California Republicans filed arguing that Proposition 50 is unconstitutional. “We were the last man standing … to reach out to Republicans and make sure they turned out.”

Responding to criticism that their effort was disorganized, including opposition campaign mailers being sent to voters who had already cast ballots, Rankin said the party would conduct a post-election review of its efforts. But she added that she was extremely proud of the work her team did in the “rushed special election.”

Barring successful legal challenges, the new California congressional districts enacted under Proposition 50 will go into effect before the 2026 election. The new district maps favor Democratic candidates and were crafted to unseat five Republican incumbents, which could erase Republicans’ narrow edge in the the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Democrats win control of the body, Trump policy agenda will likely be stymied and the president and members of his administration cold face multiple congressional investigations.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats proposed Proposition 50 in response to Trump urging elected officials in Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to the House next year.

The new California congressional boundaries voters approved Tuesday could give Democrats the opportunity to pick up five seats in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

Proposition 50 will change how California determines the boundaries of congressional districts. The measure asked voters to approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission.

Some Republicans lamented that Schwarzenegger was not more involved in the election. The movie star championed the creation of the independent commission in 2010, his final year in office. He campaigned for the creation of similar bodies to fight partisan drawing of district lines across the nation after leaving office.

Shawn Steel, one of California’s three representatives on the Republican National Committee, called Schwarzenegger “a cowardly politician.”

“Arnold decided to sit it out,” Steel said. “Arnold just kind of raised the flag and immediately went under the desk.”

Steel said that the former governor failed to follow through on the messages he repeatedly delivered about the importance of independent redistricting.

“He could have had his name on the ballot as a ballot opponent,” Steel said. “He turned it down. So I’d say, with Arnold, just disappointing, but not surprised. That’s his political legacy.”

Schwarzenegger’s team pushed back at this criticism as misinformed.

“We were clear from the beginning that he was not going to be a part of the campaign and was going to speak his mind,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesman for the former governor. “His message was very clear and non-partisan. When one campaign couldn’t even criticize gerrymandering in Texas, it was probably hard for voters to believe they actually cared about fairness.”

Schwarzenegger spoke out against Proposition 50 a handful of times during the election, including at an appearance at USC that was turned into a television ad by one of the anti-Proposition 50 committees that appeared to go dark before election day.

On election day, he emailed followers about gut health, electrolytes, protein bars, fitness and conversations to increase happiness. There was no apparent mention of the Tuesday election.

The Democratic-led California Legislature in August voted to place Proposition 50 on the November ballot, costing nearly $300 million, and setting off a sprint to Tuesday’s special election.

The opponents were vastly outspent by the ballot measure’s supporters, who contributed nearly $136 million to various efforts. That financial advantage, combined with Democrats’ overwhelming edge in voter registration in California, were main contributors to the ballot measure’s success. When introduced in August, Proposition 50 had tepid support and its prospects appeared uncertain.

Nearly 64% of the nearly 8.3 million voters who cast ballots supported Proposition 50, while 36% opposed it as of Wednesday night, according to the California Secretary of State’s office.

In addition to the state Republican Party, two main campaign committees opposed Proposition 50, including the one backed by McCarthy. A separate group was funded by more than $32 million from major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire who was Warren Buffet’s right-hand man, and who bankrolled the creation of the independent congressional redistricting commission in 2010.

Representatives of the two committees, who defended their work Tuesday night after the election was called moments after the polls closed, saying they could not overcome the vast financial disadvantage and that the proposition’s supporters must be held to their promises to voters such as pushing for national redistricting reform, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Wednesday.

Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50 had prominent Democrats stumping for the effort, including former President Obama starring in ads supporting the measure.

That’s in stark contrast to the opposition efforts. Trump was largely absent, possibly because he is deeply unpopular among Californians and the president does not like to be associated with losing causes.

A famous Civil War-era photo of an escaped slave who had been savagely whipped. Displays detailing how more than 120,000 U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry were forcibly imprisoned during WWII. Signs describing the effects of climate change on the coast of Maine.

In recent months, a small army of historians, librarians, scientists and other volunteers has fanned out across America’s national parks and museums to photograph and painstakingly archive cultural and intellectual treasures they fear are under threat from President Trump’s war against “woke.”

These volunteers are creating a “citizen’s record” of what exists now in case the administration carries out Trump’s orders to scrub public signs and displays of language he and his allies deem too negative about America’s past.

More than 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly relocated and incarcerated in camps during World War II, including these Japanese Americans seen at Manzanar in the Owens Valley in 1942.

(LA Library)

“My deepest, darkest fear,” said Georgetown University history professor Chandra Manning, who helped organize an effort dubbed Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian, is that the administration plans to “rewrite and falsify who counts as an American.”

In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” arguing that, over the past decade, signs and displays at museums and parks across the country have been distorted by a “widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history,” replacing facts with liberal ideology.

“Under this historical revision,” he wrote, “our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

He ordered the National Parks Service and The Smithsonian to scrub their displays of content that “inappropriately disparages Americans” living or dead, and replace it with language that celebrates the nation’s greatness.

The Collins Bible — a detailed family history recorded by Richard Collins, a formerly enslaved man — is seen at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C.

(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

That’s when Manning’s colleague at Georgetown University, James Millward, who specializes in Chinese history, told her, “this seems really eerie,” Manning recalled. It reminded him of the Chinese Communist Party’s dictates to “tell China’s story well,” which he said was code for censorship and falsification.

So the professors reached out to friends and discovered that there were like-minded folks across the country working like “monks” in the Middle Ages, who painstakingly copied ancient texts, to photograph and preserve what they regarded as national treasures.

“There’s a human tradition of doing exactly this,” Manning said. “It feels gratifying to be a part of that tradition, it makes me feel less isolated and less alone.”

Jenny McBurney, a government documents librarian at the University of Minnesota, said she found Trump’s language “quite dystopian.” That’s why she helped organize an effort called Save Our Signs, which aims to photograph and preserve all of the displays at national parks and monuments.

The sprawling network includes Manzanar National Historic Site, where Japanese American civilians were imprisoned during the Second World War; Fort Sumter National Monument, where Confederates fired the first shots of the Civil War; Ford’s Theater National Historic Site in Washington, D.C., where Abraham Lincoln was assassinated; and the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Park.

It would be difficult to tell those stories without disparaging at least some dead Americans — such as the assassins John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray — or violating Trump’s order to focus on America’s “unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity and human flourishing.”

At Acadia National Park in Maine, where the rising sun first hits the U.S. coast for much of the year, signs describing the effect of climate change on rising seas, storm surge and intense rain have already been removed.

McBurney doesn’t want volunteers to try to anticipate the federal government’s next moves and focus only on displays they think might be changed, she wants to preserve everything, “good, bad, negative or whatever,” she said in a recent interview. “As a librarian, I like complete sets of things.”

And if there were a complete archive of every sign in the national park system in private hands — out of the reach of the current administration — there would always be a “before” picture to look back at and see what had changed.

“We don’t want this information to just disappear in the dark,” McBurney said.

Another group, the Data Rescue Project, is hard at work filling private servers with at-risk databases, including health data from the Centers for Disease Control, climate data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the contents of government websites, many of which have been subject to the same kind of ideological scrubbing threatened at parks and museums.

Both efforts were “a real inspiration,” Manning said, as she and Millward pondered what they could do to contribute to the cause.

Then, in August, apparently frustrated by the lack of swift compliance with its directives, the Trump administration sent a formal letter to Lonnie G. Bunch III, the first Black Secretary of the Smithsonian, setting a 120-day limit to “begin implementing content corrections.”

Days later, President Trump took to Truth Social, the media platform he owns, to state his case less formally.

“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL,” he wrote, “everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.”

Even though the Smithsonian celebrates American astronauts, military heroes and sports legends, Trump complained that the museums offered nothing about the “success” and “brightness” of America, concluding with, “We have the “HOTTEST” Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it.”

People visit the Smithsonian Museum of American History on the National Mall in Washington.

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press)

Immediately, Manning and Millward knew where they would focus.

They sent emails to people they knew, and reached out to neighborhood listservs, asking if anyone wanted to help document the displays at the 21 museums that make up the Smithsonian Institution — including the American History Museum and the Natural History Museum — the National Zoo and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Within about two weeks, they had 600 volunteers. Before long, the group had grown to over 1,600, Manning said, more people than they could assign galleries and exhibitions to.

“A lot of people feel upset and kind of paralyzed by these repeated assaults on our shared resources and our shared institutions,” Manning said, “and they’re really not sure what to do about it.”

With the help of all the volunteers, and a grad student, Jessica Dickenson Goodman, who had the computer skills to help archive their submissions, the Citizen Historians project now has an archive of over 50,000 photos and videos covering all of the sites. They finished the work Oct. 12, which was when the museums closed because of the government shutdown.

After several media outlets reported on the order to remove the photo of the whipped slave from the Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia — citing internal emails and people familiar with deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly — administration officials described the reports as “misinformation” but declined to specify which part was incorrect.

A National Parks Service spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

But the possibility that the administration is considering removing the Scourged Back photo is precisely what has prompted Manning, and so many others, to dedicate their time to preserving the historical record.

“I think we need the story that wrong sometimes exists and it is possible to do something about it,” Manning said.

The man in the photo escaped, joined the Union army, and became part of the fight to abolish slavery in the United States. If a powerful image like that disappears from public display, “we rob ourselves of the reminder that it’s possible to do something about the things that are wrong.”

If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

“Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

“The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

“The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

“I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

“The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.