funding

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

Planned Parenthood and two smaller regional abortion providers are resuming billing Medicaid for services other than abortion after being cut off for most of a year.

The defunding, which was mandated in President Trump’s big tax and policy law last year, has been blamed in the closure of multiple clinics as well as a reduction in the number of Planned Parenthood patients being screened for breast cancer or tested for sexually transmitted infections.

The Medicaid billing was allowed to resume last weekend.

The restored funding does not mean the battle over federal abortion policy has ended, and not all services that were cut will return.

Here’s what to know about the situation.

Planned Parenthood closed clinics and saw fewer patients

Many abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, have struggled financially since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed state abortion bans to be enforced. Clinics have closed in states with abortion bans and restrictions as well as those without.

Planned Parenthood says its affiliates have closed nearly 30 of its roughly 600 clinics over the past year, citing the funding change as a key reason.

Over that period, affiliates dispensed about 25% fewer packs of birth control pills and conducted about 20% fewer breast cancer exams than the previous year.

Many patients — especially in places where healthcare can be hard to access — may not have had care at all because of the defunding, the organization said.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund spokesperson Angela Vasquez-Giroux said the cuts have also led to limited abortion access in some places.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin halted abortions for about a month, then dropped its status as an “essential community provider” so it could resume seeking reimbursement. The Arizona affiliate paused offering many of its services to patients covered by Medicaid.

Two smaller providers were also impacted

The defunding provision also affected two other healthcare providers that met the criteria in the law because the were nonprofit family planning organizations that provided abortion and received more than $800,000 yearly in Medicaid reimbursements.

Their experiences were very different.

Maine Family Planning closed three primary care clinics that served about 1,000 patients in the largely rural state.

Evelyn Kieltyka, a senior vice president of program services, said that even with help, their former patients had to wait an average of four to six months to be established with new providers.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions the group provided held steady, she said. Maine is one of several states where state-funded Medicaid covers abortion.

Patients at Health Imperatives in Massachusetts may not have noticed the change, as no services were dropped.

The state government funded Medicaid reimbursements that the federal government stopped — something that Planned Parenthood says happened in some form in 14 states. On top of that, the clinic system received a grant from Melinda Gates’s foundation.

Some services are returning but others may not

Planned Parenthood’s Arizona affiliate has already announced expanded hours and more telehealth options linked to the ability to bill Medicaid again.

Some other services are not likely to be restored.

Kieltyka said Maine Family Planning isn’t planning to bring back its primary care practices again.

“When you close something down and you lose positions,” she said, “it’s very difficult to bring that back and build it back up again.”

And Michelle Quesada, vice president of communications, brand and marketing for the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Florida, said a closed clinic in Lakeland isn’t expected to reopen, partly out of concern that Congress or the Trump administration could cut Medicaid reimbursements for the organization again.

“There’s no telling with this uncertainty,” she said. “It’s like a yo-yo effect.”

Abortion opponents want to stop the Medicaid reimbursements again

The political battle isn’t over.

Abortion opponents are pushing Congress to adopt another defunding policy.

“They’ve defunded Big Abortion before,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said Monday, “and they should do everything in their power to do it again.”

Planned Parenthood contends that most general election voters don’t want the organization to be defunded. Pritchard said that the Republican base does.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A White House report brands the leadership of the Smithsonian Institution, especially at the National Museum of American History, as radical activists who cannot be trusted, indicating that President Trump may be preparing to install his own team.

The report released late on Independence Day by the White House Domestic Policy Council comes in the midst of Trump’s aggressive campaign to overhaul some of Washington’s most sacred cultural and historic institutions. Trump in March revealed his intention to force changes at the Smithsonian Institution with an executive order that targeted funding for programs that advanced “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology,” as he continued a broadside against culture he deems too liberal.

“The Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic,” according to the report by the council, which is led by a former top Trump speechwriter.

The authors added: “As this report shows, confirmed in the words of Museum leadership, this ideological capture has moved the Museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country.”

The Smithsonian did not immediately respond to requests for comment Sunday.

Historian Lonnie Bunch, the Smithsonian’s current secretary, is the first African American to lead the institution. In an unrelated interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Bunch said “the notion of being a more perfect union, not the perfect union, is really what motivates me.”

“I think what I want people to understand is that there is a responsibility to continue to make those aspirations available, accessible, meaningful to a whole range of people,” Bunch said. “And that, in essence, America’s greatest strength, it’s not running away from its history, but it’s understanding how that history shaped us and continues to shape us.”

Historian Anthea M. Hartig is the first woman to serve as director of National Museum of American History.

Trump’s escalating effort to force changes at the Smithsonian marks the Republican president’s latest move to transform cultural pillars of society, such as universities and art, that he considers out of step with conservative sensibilities. Trump had himself installed as chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts with the aim of overhauling programming, and his handpicked board voted to add his name to the building, only to have a federal judge later order the signage to be removed.

The administration also forced Columbia University to make a series of policy changes by threatening the Ivy League school with the loss of several hundred million dollars in federal funding.

Trump has also imposed changes on historical sites beyond Washington, including in Philadelphia, where the administration won a court ruling last week allowing it to reinstall interpretive panels that critics say whitewash the history of slavery at the site of President George Washington’s home. Advocates, academics and officials have been concerned for months that the version that complies with Trump’s order could give a history that plays down the pain in the nation’s past in favor of a more triumphant view.

Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa., accused Trump and his allies of trying to “rewrite history.”

“There’s not one individual narrative that a president gets about our history,” Shapiro, a potential presidential prospect, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And any president should want to make sure that that full history is shared, that the American people are able to draw their own conclusions.”

Shapiro added, “If we understand where we came from, we’re going to have a better path forward.”

Trump’s Domestic Policy Council does not necessarily agree.

The National Museum of American History “confronts visitors with materials intended to undermine faith in American institutions and the longstanding shared ideals of the American people,” the council’s report said. “We must be committed to restoring truth and sanity in how American history is presented and taught.”

In seeking to fulfill Trump’s order, which he called “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” the review concluded by finding that the museum “by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would freeze federal funding for New York’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, a state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting fraud in the safety-net government healthcare program.

In a letter sent to New York officials, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General Thomas March Bell accused the state of not securing enough criminal indictments and said millions of dollars in funding would be suspended through at least Sept. 30.

The move is the second suspension of a state Medicaid fraud unit this year by the Republican Trump administration, and part of a barrage of anti-fraud actions it has aggressively promoted in the healthcare sector. They have included the creation of a new task force, targeted investigations, funding deferrals and demands for revalidation of healthcare providers that have touched all states but are focused largely on Democratic ones.

The pulled funding also comes after the administration admitted a glaring error in figures meant to help justify a fraud inquiry into New York’s Medicaid program this year, a mistake critics said revealed a Trumpian tendency to attack first and verify the facts later.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, a Democrat, immediately vowed to fight Tuesday’s funding freeze.

“During my time as Attorney General, my office has recovered over $627 million for Medicaid and was recognized by this very administration for leading the nation in anti-fraud efforts,” she wrote. “We are considering all legal options to stop this outrageous action.”

Letter accuses New York of low performance compared to other states

Bell’s letter to James and New York Medicare Fraud Control Unit Director Amy Held argues that the unit is moving too slowly on cases and amassing too few indictments and convictions for wrongdoing in the Medicaid system. It notes that compared with four similarly sized units in other states, it secured the lowest number of criminal fraud convictions between 2023 and 2025.

The letter acknowledges that one reason the state has fewer criminal convictions than others is that it made a deliberate choice to focus on “high impact, complex fraud cases” rather than smaller-scale individual cases, but says that trade-off didn’t produce sufficient results.

“Enough is enough,” Bell wrote. “The New York MFCU has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of its MFCU grant award.”

Bell said in the letter that the funding suspension could be lifted before Sept. 30 if New York takes corrective action, “showing it has remediated concerns that formed the basis for this suspension.” He said if the state doesn’t fix the problems, the freeze will continue.

New York officials dispute the Trump administration’s claims

New York’s attorney general’s office said in a statement that it has “long been recognized as a national leader in effectively investigating and prosecuting Medicaid fraud schemes,” including by the Health and Human Services inspector general’s office. A 2025 report from the office notes that New York is one of four states that made up half the total civil recoveries in that year.

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said most of the unit’s criminal convictions focus on company owners, executives and corporations that would return large amounts to Medicaid.

“This administration’s unprecedented attack on New York is another political distraction,” James said in a statement.

The funding cutoff follows a similar move in Hawaii. In early June, Bell told Hawaii officials that Medicaid fraud funding would be cut off there, saying that it had a three-year stretch without a Medicaid fraud indictment or conviction.

Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said there’s an irony in the federal government cutting off money intended for prosecuting fraud when its stated goal is to do just that.

“If you want to fight fraud, don’t take away money from states’ fraud control units,” she said. “I chalk this up to more political theater to distract voters from historic Medicaid cuts before the midterms.”

Move follows months of federal warnings and deferrals

For months, the Trump administration has contended that states — especially some Democratic-led ones — have been lax about fraud in social safety-net programs, including Medicaid.

It has demanded that at least five states, four of them governed by Democrats, share information about how they identify, prevent and address Medicaid fraud.

The federal government has also withheld some Medicaid funding from Minnesota and California over fraud concerns. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who was Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, accused President Trump of making cuts because of retribution.

The fraud-busting efforts have also targeted Medicare programs. Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, announced a six-month moratorium on new enrollments for providers of hospice and home care nationally.

Swenson and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J. AP writer Anthony Izaguirre contributed to this report.

Los Angeles property owners voted against an increase in an assessment for maintaining streetlights that would have collected an additional $80 million a year, as the city faces a backlog of broken streetlights due to stagnant funding and a rise in vandalism.

The assessment has not changed since 1996. Property owners had until June 2 to submit their votes, which were weighted by the amount of their parcel’s proposed assessment. According to results released Thursday, nearly 80% of the weighted vote went against raising the assessment, which currently generates about $45 million a year.

For the average single-family home, which make up the majority of parcels, the current payment is $58 annually, or about $5 a month, according to Miguel Sangalang, executive director and general manager of the Bureau of Street Lighting. The increase would have brought the average annual bill to $117, or about $10 a month.

The proposed increase would have brought the total amount collected by the assessment to $125 million a year.

In a joint statement Thursday, Mayor Karen Bass, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and City Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Katy Yaroslavsky said that despite the result, the “critical work will continue” to address the broken streetlights that have plunged neighborhoods into darkness across the city.

“Despite this outcome, the City remains committed to improving streetlight reliability, repairing outages faster, and building a sustainable funding path for streetlight operations and maintenance,” the group statement said. “Every Angeleno deserves to feel safe walking their dogs, returning home from work, and parking their cars at night, and the City is committed to delivering the reliable street lighting that makes that a reality.”

The Bureau of Street Lighting owns and operates nearly 225,000 streetlights across the city, which have historically been covered by the assessment. The average repair time for a streetlight was one year, bureau officials said in February.

Without more revenue from the assessment, city officials have been looking for alternative funding. The City Council has said it will finance $65 million for solar-powered streetlights.

Bass recently announced an initiative to repair and replace 60,000 streetlights over the next two years, and several council members have turned to their district’s discretionary funding to fix broken streetlights in their districts.

Hernandez, who chairs the council’s Public Works Committee, said in a statement that the result doesn’t change the fact that the city is trying to maintain a 21st century lighting system with an outdated funding model.

“If this assessment isn’t the path forward, then it’s our responsibility to build one through better leveraging City assets like light poles, exploring new revenue opportunities, and pursuing reforms to outdated state laws like Proposition 218 that make it extraordinarily difficult for cities as large as Los Angeles to maintain basic public infrastructure,” she said.

Broken streetlights have emerged as an issue in the mayoral election, with Councilmember Nithya Raman citing broken lights as an example of how the city “can’t seem to manage the basics.” Raman is facing Bass in a Nov. 2 runoff.

In February, city council members announced a plan to replace streetlights with solar-powered versions, in an attempt to deter copper wire theft. About 1 in 10 streetlights are out of service because of disrepair or copper wire theft, according to the city.

A well-known example is the Sixth Street Bridge, where thieves stole seven miles’ worth of wire.

WASHINGTON — California’s two Democratic senators on Thursday criticized the Trump administration after it requested $87.6 billion from Congress to address some of the nation’s most “urgent needs” but omitted funding for victims of last year’s Los Angeles wildfires.

“Donald Trump’s desire to punish Los Angeles and the state of California for not voting for him, means once again that thousands of Angelinos are left watching this administration fight for anything but them, their businesses, and their communities,” Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

“These fires did not discriminate based on party or political preference. Neither should this administration,” they added.

The omission is the latest strain in a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid, and it comes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with President Trump at the Oval Office in April to request the funding.

At the meeting, Trump signaled his commitment to working with local officials to help with disaster recovery efforts. The officials asked for $16 billion that would be split between the city and county. The money would consist primarily of disbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency flagged for communities hit by the fires, part of a $33.9-billion wildfire relief funding request made by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Two months later, those talks have yet to yield results sought by local leaders.

The budget request, submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday, mostly seeks funding for the Pentagon to address costs related to the Iran war. It also includes $11.1 billion in economic assistance for American farmers, $1.4 billion to address the Ebola virus outbreak in Central Africa, $500 million to support “ongoing efforts to complete restorations and construction projects” across the nation’s capital and $1 billion to boost the pensions of workers at General Motors that were cut as a result of the automaker’s bankruptcy.

“I urge the Congress to take action on these important and urgent requests as soon as possible,” White House budget director Russell Vought wrote in a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Vought said the administration was open to discussing “additional relief for other urgent matters.” The White House did not immediately respond when asked why the budget request did not mention the Eaton and Palisades disaster relief funds.

State leaders, including Newsom, have repeatedly accused the Trump administration of stonewalling billions in wildfire aid. The governor visited Washington in December to meet with lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to push for the funding.

The governor also attempted to meet with FEMA about the matter, but said his request was denied. Newsom, a political foe of Trump’s, would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to talk about the recovery efforts.

In Lincoln Park, past Plaza de la Raza cultural center and under swaying pine trees, stands a row of 10-foot wooden panels etched with names. Robert Zaldivar stood quietly in front of the names, surrounded by community members holding lit candles as memories of old friends resurfaced.

The panels bear nearly 2,000 names, and more are added every year. Each one represents an Angeleno, mostly Latinos, who died of AIDS. Zaldivar led the movement to erect this monument, named the Wall Las Memorias, which was finalized in 2004.

Inspired by his late best friend, who was HIV-positive, the Wall represents to Zaldivar the power of remembering those in his community affected by HIV and AIDS. It was designed in the shape of Quetzalcoatl, or the “Feathered Serpent,” an Aztec deity and symbol of rebirth.

Robert Zaldivar leads a sunset vigil at the Wall Las Memorias AIDS Monument in Lincoln Park on the anniversary of the first HIV diagnosis in L.A. on June 4, 2026.

(The Wall Las Memorias)

That day in early June, he hosted a sunset vigil, joined by AIDS Memorial Quilt founder and Harvey Milk mentee Cleve Jones, to recognize the lives lost since AIDS was first diagnosed 45 years prior, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report detailing immunodeficiency in five young gay men in Los Angeles.

At Zaldivar’s feet was a poem, one he wrote in 1995 with his friend Anna Contreras.

It reads:

It is here, we free ourselves from the teaching of guilt.
We unite as one people in our vision, our teaching, and our truth.
Through truth we live, through knowledge we survive.

Contending with stigma and misinformation has been a constant struggle for people who are HIV-positive, he said, a struggle that Zaldivar hopes to make more visible now than it has been in previous decades.

“Sometimes it feels like there’s no other way to draw attention to this problem than to have a physical reminder,” Zaldivar said of the monument. “This reminds us of real people, as more than statistics.”

The statistics Zaldivar refers to include the continuing rise in HIV diagnoses in Latinos across the United States. The most recent CDC data show 39,000 people across the U.S. received an HIV diagnosis. And a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis revealed that between 2010 and 2022, there was a 24% increase in new cases among Latinos. In 2022 alone, Latinos made up 31% of new diagnoses, despite only representing 19% of the American population, the KFF study found.

“Just last week, we had two new diagnoses of HIV in our clinic,” said Bernardo Gomez, assistant manager of HIV resources at the Wall Las Memorias Project. “For context, we had 15 in the past six months, including straight women … I think what we’re seeing is a dangerous loss of support for outreach and education.”

Last year, President Trump released his presidential fiscal year budget for 2026, much of which went into effect last October. In it, he revealed significant cuts to HIV health programs — amounting to $1.5 billion.

The budget recommendation signaled the administration’s yearly priorities, and Trump’s fiscal plan and staffing cuts to HIV teams under the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) showed a shift away from HIV prevention and healthcare, which advocates say has led to providers losing jobs and places for testing and resources to shrink. In L.A., the Latino community is feeling the brunt of the loss, Zaldivar said.

The biggest cut to HIV care in the 2026 budget affected the CDC, which lost around $3.6 million. Another devastating loss was $1.7 million cut from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which many L.A. resource centers report relying on to fund part of their programming and staffing.

Robert Gamboa, associate director of public policy at the L.A. LGBT Center, said that in Trump’s first term, his “Ending the Epidemic” program created hope for soon seeing the end of HIV in the U.S. — a hopefulness that he said was quickly dashed in his second term.

“Now there’s this 180-degree shift in policy, we see these enormous proposals pulling away from funding, and his lack of acknowledgment of World AIDS Day, and Pride in general,” Gamboa said. “The message of that is loud and clear: [The Trump administration] is telling our LGBT community, ‘We don’t care about you.’”

Since Trump’s inaugural address last year, Gamboa said executive orders have only solidified Trump’s shift away from LGBT organizations, “challenging the structural integrity of almost everything we’ve done.”

Gamboa said that last spring, the Department of Public Health, Division of HIV and STD Programs), which supplemented L.A. organizations with substantial HIV funding, sent out a notice that all of their contracts were terminated.

“Well, this caused a massive alarm all across L.A. County. Everyone started freaking out. We had to say, ‘We need an emergency allocation [from state funds] so that we can continue providing HIV services across California,’” Gamboa said. “We’re used to getting upwards of around $20 million in funding at the county level, and it wasn’t happening.”

Robert Zaldivar leads a sunset vigil at the Wall Las Memorias AIDS Monument in Lincoln Park on the anniversary of the first HIV diagnosis in L.A on June 4, 2026.

(The Wall Las Memorias)

Since then, nonprofit representatives have confirmed that the contracts were restored at reduced rates. However, the impact of the uncertainty shook the health services community and only caused further distrust among Latino patients.

“We’re already seeing [the impact in L.A.]. In the Latino community, there’s so much fear from the ICE raids. People are afraid to even leave their homes,” Gamboa said. “We’ve worked so hard in building trust and relationships with our communities of color. Now, they’re afraid to even come in. Many of the places they’ve gone to in L.A. County have already closed their doors and ceased services.”

Most recently, the Trump administration announced plans to cut millions in public health funding. This includes $1.1 million that would be slashed from the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, an early-warning system for HIV outbreaks, established by the L.A. County Department of Public Health.

On the White House website, a page called “Cuts to Woke Programs” reads: “President Trump is committed to eliminating radical gender and racial ideologies that poison the minds of Americans.”

Gamboa said that organizations have been discouraged of using “LGBT” in their programming to avoid being defunded as part of the targeted “woke” programs.

“It really affects me,” said Gomez, who has been living with HIV since 1996. “How long will I have medicine?”

Gomez, who is the breadwinner of his family, says his monthly supply of medication costs $1,500 a bottle. “It’s so expensive, and I have insurance. For people without insurance, [the Ryan White program] is the only way they can afford treatment,” Gomez said. “I’m afraid of what will happen to them.”

Gomez takes antiretroviral therapy, a lifesaving medication that reduces the number of infected cells, making the disease less transmissible and prevents HIV from developing into AIDS. According to 2024 HRSA data, the Ryan White program provided antiretroviral therapy to 602,000 people, preventing the spread of HIV.

As the program loses funding, jobs providing HIV care have become more sparse — and programs like the Wall and the L.A. LGBT Center have become more essential to support the thousands left without life-saving care.

HIV program funds are trickling back into L.A. County for nonprofits this year; although some, like the Wall, maintain that it’s “not enough to address the need.” Up until last May, the organization shared that the county funded $1 million of its annual HIV reduction efforts. This year, that number was drastically reduced to $100,000 per six-month contract.

“Many of my social worker friends are off the streets [where they helped at-risk communities] due to just not having enough funding to do their jobs,” said Miguel Rodriguez, program coordinator of HIV testing and prevention at the Wall. “People think only gay men are affected, but basic sexual health for everyone is at risk here. Less [testing] means more infections and transmissions across the board.”

As Robert Zaldivar stresses, the only way to protect L.A.’s Latino HIV-positive community is to support remaining HIV services to get tested or donate to local service organizations.

“What we saw in the ’90s, I’m scared that it will repeat. I want people to remember how serious [HIV] is, and to educate,” Zaldivar said. “Keep getting tested. We don’t report your immigration status or sexuality. Just come in.”

June 19 (UPI) — The Trump administration plans to stop funding HIV programs in South Africa under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief over policy differences.

The U.S. State Department is winding down the funds South Africa receives from PEPFAR to care for the roughly 8 million people there who are living with HIV, Semafor, Politico and The BBC reported.

PEPFAR was launched in 2003 by former President George W. Bush and, over the last two decades, has partnered with health authorities in more than 50 nations to save 25 million lives and prevent millions of new HIV infections, State Department figures show.

President Donald Trump in a February 2025 executive order accused South Africa of permitting discrimination against white Afrikaners and has slowly pulled back U.S. funding for its HIV programs over the last year.

“The United States has decided to initiate a phased drawdown of PEPFAR programming in South Africa following South Africa’s failure to make demonstrable progress on policy requests by the administration,” State Department officials told Semafor.

Upon retaking office in 2025, President Donald Trump took aim at the program as part of his administrations efforts to slash federal government spending, with specific attention paid to South Africa, which has the largest number of people living with HIV in the world.

Since 2003, more than $8 billion has been sent to South Africa to both care for people living with HIV and distribute medications that can prevent spread of the virus, though funds sent there have been halved in each of the last two years.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa earlier this month announced that the country was working Gilead to launch the company’s twice-yearly HIV prevention drug Lenacapavir, generic versions of which are set to be manufactured and sold there.

Experts have raised concerns that ending support for PEPFAR programs could lead to millions more HIV infections globally, potentially canceling out 20 years of progress against the virus.

The Trump administration and some of its Republican allies in Congress have said, however, that the program was never meant to be permanent and should be wound down.

WASHINGTON — In congressional races across the country, a new crop of super PACs is taking to the air with millions of dollars worth of advertisements to sway voters.

“President Trump said it best, ‘Celeste Maloy will never let you down,’” says one advertisement supporting the Utah Republican representative in her upcoming primary election.

“Standing up to big pharma, fighting for local jobs, Val Hoyle doesn’t back down,” says an ad backing the Oregon Democratic representative ahead of her primary victory last month.

The super PACs have nondescript names — such as Jobs and Democracy PAC and American Mission — and the text is so generic that it almost seems to have been created by artificial intelligence.

That isn’t so far off the mark. The AI industry has funded the ads.

One network of super PACs is linked to Anthropic, maker of the popular AI tool Claude, and the other to Open AI, maker of ChatGPT.

They have been among the most prolific political spenders so far in the 2026 midterm elections, splashing out more than $37 million to date to influence races across the country and making the groups among the biggest outside spenders so far in congressional races. That number could grow exponentially as campaign season heats up closer to the November election — and as the Silicon Valley giants prepare initial pubic offerings that are poised to raise billions of dollars for the companies and their executives.

The AI political spending boom comes as emerging technology companies have become increasingly “comfortable with using their power to achieve a political goal,” said Adam Kovacevich, a former Google public policy executive and founder of Chamber of Progress, a technology trade group with a progressive orientation.

The leading AI companies have a history.

Anthropic was formed by former OpenAI employees who were concerned that the company was less focused on its original mission to safely harness the power of AI.

The companies are now the leading drivers of the burgeoning AI industry, and their competing views about how the technology should be regulated are playing out in a wide-ranging political ad spending war that has targeted congressional races in big cities and rural areas alike.

OpenAI thinks AI should be regulated solely at the federal level.

Anthropic calls for more stringent regulation and supports efforts by states such as New York and California that have passed more aggressive AI laws.

The groups spending in these races are super PACs, which are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in federal races thanks to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

In some races, the AI-backed political groups have spent more than the candidates they are backing.

“There was no way as a grassroots person that I could compete with that kind of money,” said Al Olszewski, whose opponent in a Montana Republican congressional primary beat him by 30 points after getting a boost from $877,000 in ads from a super PAC backed by OpenAI’s co-founder. “I got crushed.”

The AI behemoths have emphasized that they are independent from the political groups.

One group counts $25 million in support from OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, alongside $100 million tied to one of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capital firms, which holds a large stake in OpenAI. The global policy chief for OpenAI was reportedly involved in conceiving the group.

The other side has gotten $20 million from Anthropic and millions more from donors whose identities are not public.

This anonymous political cash is commonly known as dark money, and its prevalence is growing.

(Los Angeles Times photo illustration; source photos courtesy of the Tech Oversight Project)

“This has become very normalized now,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insights at OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign spending. “In 2024, we tracked over $1 billion in dark money.”

That total was $350 million higher than the previous presidential election.

The crypto playbook

The political activity of these AI companies and executives reflects a dramatic shift from how emerging technology companies have historically engaged with politics.

Google, for example, didn’t hire its first in-house Washington lobbyist until after the company had gone public in 2005.

“I think that for a long time, the tech industry lobbying strategy was just ‘leave us alone,’” Kovacevich said.

He sees the spending by these AI-linked super PACs as following the recent playbook developed by the cryptocurrency industry, which has funded the only network of political groups that has spent more on congressional races this year than those linked to OpenAI.

“I think what the crypto industry realized was that there’s no substitute for building up political power,” Kovacevich said.

The political stakes for these technology companies are significant.

“AI policy is far from settled,” said Asad Ramzanali, the former deputy director for strategy in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Biden administration and the director of artificial intelligence and technology policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration banned foreign nationals from using the most powerful AI model developed by Anthropic — and even banned the company’s own employees from it — which forced the company to restrict access for all users.

Manhattan matchup

The two super PAC networks have largely shied away from producing ads that mention AI and have mostly chosen to avoid competing against each other in the same races.

There’s one big exception.

In the marquee Manhattan Democratic congressional primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), each side has spent millions of dollars.

While the field includes Kennedy scion and social media star Jake Schlossberg and former Republican turned Trump critic George Conway, the target of all the AI-backed spending has been Alex Bores, a former Palantir data scientist who now serves in the New York state Assembly.

New York congressional candidate sponsored a state measure Bores requiring major AI companies to be transparent about their safety protocols and promptly report safety incidents.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

That’s because Bores sponsored a state bill, known as the RAISE Act, that requires major AI companies to be transparent about their safety protocols and promptly report safety incidents. The bill was signed into law in December 2025.

The ads sponsored by the group tied to OpenAI, which has spent more than $7.5 million in the race, paint Bores as someone who can’t be trusted.

They cite his support from other tech billionaires, including former crypto mogul and convicted financial fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, whose super PAC spent $100,000 to support Bores in 2022 when he first ran for New York Assembly.

“Is that really who should be shaping AI safety for our kids?” one ad asks.

An ad sponsored by the Anthropic-backed network, which has also spent more than $7.5 million supporting Bores, makes the case that the bill he sponsored is exactly why he should be elected.

“As a computer engineer, Alex Bores saw how dangerous unregulated AI could be and he wrote New York’s RAISE Act to put real safeguards on A.I. and hold big tech accountable,” the ad says.

The AI ad barrage in New York has even included what might be considered a kumbaya moment in the ad wars — another super PAC created to support Bores is most heavily backed by both an employee of Anthropic and an employee of OpenAI, who both focus on AI safety.

The group, Dream NYC, has spent more than $1.7 million supporting Bores.

Bores and fellow New York State Assemblymember Micah Lasher have been atop the most recent polls in the race ahead of the June 23 primary.

A general view of businesses in St. George, Utah, on Wednesday.

(Ian Maule / For The Times)

Rural Republicans

For voters in many parts of the country, the debate over AI policy has played out locally as a debate over the massive data centers required to power the technology.

In Utah, a proposed data center in Box Elder County, backed by “Shark Tank” television personality Kevin O’Leary, has generated controversy because of questions about its impact on resources in the drought-prone state and its environmental effect on the nearby Great Salt Lake.

In the state’s most competitive Republican congressional primary — the vast, newly drawn 3rd Congressional District — both candidates expressed concerns about how the project has been developed and called for greater transparency in this plan and for future data centers in the state.

Utah congressional candidates Phil Lyman and Celeste Maloy in a debate on June 1. A super PAC backed by Anthropic has spent more than $920,000 to support Maloy.

(Rick Egan / Pool / The Salt Lake Tribune Via Associated Press)

Despite their similar position on the project, a super PAC backed by Anthropic has spent more than $950,000 to support Maloy, who is running in the new district after the boundaries of her old district changed.

“It’s a lot of money to throw at a race,” said her opponent, Phil Lyman, a former conservative Republican state Representative who ran to the right of Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox in an unsuccessful primary challenge in 2024.

Lyman insists he is no AI skeptic.

“I’m not anti data centers, I’m pro-transparency,” he said. “I think the future is bright with AI.”

The group said it is backing Maloy because it sees her as “someone who’s worked the issue” of AI regulation and who “has demonstrated leadership” with Republicans in Congress.

Maloy’s campaign didn’t respond to request for comment.

Utah congressional candidate Phil Lyman speaks during a Cottage Meeting at the SunRiver Community Center Ballroom in St. George, Utah, on Wednesday.

(Ian Maule / For The Times)

But Lyman suspects the group’s support for Maloy ahead of their June 23 primary has more to do with old-fashioned politics than any emerging technology.

One of the two co-founders of the political group is Chris Stewart, Maloy’s predecessor in Congress.

“Everything that they’re doing feels very coordinated,” Lyman said. “It makes you wonder if he’s still really controlling that seat.”

British armed forces intercepted an oil tanker believed to be part of Russia’s sanctioned shadow fleet. The oil tanker ‘SMYRTOS’ was taken in an first-ever operation by the British military in the English Channel.

WASHINGTON — The House Appropriations Committee has approved $875 million to fund public transportation for the 2028 Olympic Games, a positive sign for LA28 after the exclusion of Olympics transit funding from President Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget request this spring.

The funding must be passed by Congress in a future spending bill — part of a lengthy 2027 budgeting process that is underway now — but its approval in committee last week is a crucial signal of investment from Washington after weeks of uncertainty.

“We are encouraged by the House Appropriations Committee’s action,” spokesperson Maya Pogoda of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority said in a statement, “and we look forward to continuing to work with the Senate and the White House to make America’s Games the best ever in history.”

LA Metro has sought $2 billion in federal funding for the planned transit service for the Games, which includes leasing buses, hiring drivers and building temporary depots. With the clock ticking to start projects that require significant lead time to be completed before the Games, the absence of any funding in Trump’s budget request in April had raised concerns among lawmakers and other stakeholders.

In recent weeks, the transit authority, the city and LA28 had publicly pressed for federal funding; LA28 Chief Executive Casey Wasserman reportedly met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill in April.

“The House Appropriations Committee’s most recent transportation bill is another positive signal of the continued bipartisan support in Congress to provide federal transit money for the Games,” LA28 spokesperson Jacie Prieto Lopez told The Times.

The inclusion of the funding in the bill conveyed bipartisan support for the Games, an event that Trump — who places an outsize importance on displays of patriotism — is likely to want to see go well during his tenure.

“This is on the American stage,” said former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who was on the City Council during the 1984 Olympic Games. “The success of the Games are the success of the country.”

The Olympics item was included in the fiscal year 2027 transportation funding bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee last week. In its report, the committee noted that the funding is intended for all host cities, including those outside California.

“The 2028 games will put our nation on center stage, and this investment will help ensure that we are prepared to meet the moment and showcase why the United States is the best country in the world,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), who chairs the subcommittee that put forth the bill, said in a statement.

The Games in Los Angeles are expected to draw massive crowds and will be the first Summer Olympics held in the United States since Atlanta hosted in 1996. More than 4 million tickets were sold during LA28’s first ticket release; a second ticket drop is coming in August.

The massive event requires federal involvement not just on funding but also on issues including athlete visas and the import of Olympic horses.

LA Metro has planned to lease 1,700 buses from transit agencies across the country, build three temporary transit depots and create dedicated traffic lanes for athletes, officials and others as required by the International Olympic Committee. Metro estimates that 1 million additional trips per day will be taken during the 16-day Games.

It’s crucial for federal funding to come through in a timely manner, Yaroslavsky said, particularly given the scope of the security and transportation considerations for the sprawling Games.

“The city and the LA28 committee need to know that this money is going to be made available,” Yaroslavsky said. “This has to be in place long before the Games start.”

Israel continues to expand settlements in the occupied territory, which are illegal under international law.

The Israeli government has allocated a first tranche of an expected $388m in new funds for the construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The anti-settlement group Peace Now reported on Thursday that the government had allocated 152 million shekels ($51m) to prepare construction plans for 69 illegal settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank.

The cabinet later reportedly postponed a decision about a 1-billion-shekel ($338m) allocation. That proposal, if passed, would mark one of the largest expansions of illegal Israeli settlements in decades.

“The government decided to postpone the decision [on the 1-billion-shekel allocation] and refer it to the Security Cabinet which is expected to convene on Sunday,” Peace Now wrote.

Under the yet-to-be-approved plan, construction for the settlements, including infrastructure and public buildings, would begin despite necessary planning protocols not having been carried out in accord with Israeli law.

Peace Now accused the government of intending to bypass planning and construction regulations.

“October 7 proved that the right-wing approach has failed: the conflict cannot be ‘managed,’ and the Palestinians cannot be ‘defeated’,” the group said in a statement.

“Israel must reach a political solution and diplomatic agreement, but instead the government is only sinking us deeper into the mire and condemning us to many more years of bloody conflict.”

Israel has come under growing condemnation for expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law.

On Tuesday, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Norway imposed sanctions on networks involved in financing, enabling and carrying out settler violence against Palestinians.

According to Peace Now, the current Israeli government has approved 103 settlements since it took office in December 2022. From that figure, 51 are entirely new settlements.

On Wednesday, Amnesty International published a report accusing the Israeli government of playing a central role in what it describes as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The report described the government’s actions as “integral”.

At least 117 villages in the West Bank have been subject to either complete or partial displacement due to settler attacks, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Amnesty also condemned the upcoming “Great Israeli Real Estate Event”, which is due to take place in London on Sunday.

The event, which has also been held in the United States and Canada, promotes the sale of properties in the occupied West Bank, which campaigners say is in violation of international law.

WASHINGTON — As Bill Clinton struggles with his draft history and President Bush his tax promises, they might look back wistfully at something that happened 40 years ago last week. Richard M. Nixon, in much worse trouble, talked his way out with a single TV appearance that became famous as the “Checkers” speech.

On Sept. 23, 1952, the newly minted vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party faced allegations that threatened to force him off the ballot and end his political career–the disclosure of an $18,000 fund set up for him by rich businessmen.

Nixon, a first-term senator from California, dealt with the crisis dramatically, gambling everything that the public could be won over to his side with a mixture of pathos and candor in a single speech.

He denied any impropriety in using the private fund. But that part is hardly remembered.

“One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don’t, they will probably be saying this about me, too,” Nixon told a television audience of 60 million. “We did get something, a gift, after the nomination.”

He explained it was a black-and-white cocker spaniel that 6-year-old Tricia Nixon had named Checkers. “I just want to say this, right now,” said Nixon, in a fight to stay on the ticket with Dwight D. Eisenhower, “regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”

The “Checkers” speech also included Nixon’s famous reference to wife Pat’s “Republican cloth coat” to point out that she didn’t wear mink. He ended it with a defiant vow not to quit. He urged listeners to tell the Republican National Committee “whether you think I should stay on or whether I should get off.”

The outpouring of sympathetic support cemented his spot on the ticket.

The fund had been set up by Dana Smith, a Los Angeles lawyer who had been finance chairman for Nixon’s successful 1950 race for the Senate. Smith intended it to pay for Nixon’s political travel, printing and mailing of speeches and clerical help, which would not be reimbursed by the Senate.

Once the existence of “the millionaire’s club” exploded in headlines, it ballooned and overshadowed everything else in the 1952 campaign. Eisenhower’s advisers urged the general to dump Nixon and find himself a new running mate.

Nixon got scant comfort from Eisenhower, who told him: “I have come to the conclusion that you are the one who has to decide what to do,” Nixon recalled, in his book “Six Crises.” “I think you ought to go on a nationwide television program and tell them everything there is to tell, everything you can remember since the day you entered public life. Tell them about any money you have received.”

To others, Eisenhower insisted that Nixon prove himself “clean as a hound’s tooth.”

The GOP and the Senatorial Congressional Campaign Committee pledged the $75,000 to buy a half-hour in prime time for Nixon’s speech, which was broadcast from the 750-seat El Capitan Theater in Los Angeles–the same hall where the “Colgate Comedy Hour” and “This Is Your Life” originated.

An hour before he left for the theater, came a call from Thomas E. Dewey, a two-time losing candidate for president and then a member of Eisenhower’s inner circle. He insisted that Nixon end his broadcast with his resignation–and even resignation from the Senate.

“If they want to find out they’d better listen to the broadcast,” Nixon shouted at Dewey. “and tell them I know something about politics too.”

Nixon went on the air in the empty theater. “Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to my personal use,” he said. “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.”

He listed his assets and his debts, in detail, then said of his wife, “Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable cloth coat. And I always tell her that she’d look good in anything.”

The next day, Nixon flew to Wheeling, W.Va., to meet with Eisenhower. Just as he was about to leave the plane, Eisenhower came up the steps.

“You didn’t have to come down here to meet me,” said Nixon.

“You’re my boy,” said the general. And Nixon wept.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans will look to get nearly $70 billion for immigration enforcement over the finish line Tuesday, enough to fund a pair of Homeland Security agencies through the next three years and the rest of President Donald Trump’s time in office.

Speaker Mike Johnson will need near perfect attendance and unity on his side to complete weeks of action on the bill. The legislation got sidetracked when Republicans sought to include $1 billion for enhanced security on the White House grounds, including for Trump’s new ballroom, and the Trump administration tried to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies of the president who claim they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted. Those proposals proved politically toxic and were scrapped.

Now, the bill is focused entirely on immigration enforcement, a topic that Republicans have treated as a defining issue between the two major political parties and one they hope will carry them to victory in this year’s midterm elections. The bill provides $38 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $26 billion for the Border Patrol and another $5 billion to cover unforeseen costs, fueling Trump’s deportation agenda.

“It’s long overdue,” said Johnson, R-La., of the bill. “We have to fund border security and immigration enforcement, and it’s sad that Republicans have to do it on our own.”

Funding accelerates Trump’s deportation agenda

The funding comes on top of the nearly $140 billion that the Republican-controlled Congress gave ICE and Customs and Border Protection last year as part of Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill.

Democrats objected to giving the agencies more money without significant changes in the way they operate after the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis. For example, Democrats insisted that agents be required to display their ID badges during enforcement operations and that they get a judicial warrant before entering private property. Instead, the funding will come with virtually no strings attached.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed his party would oppose the package.

“We believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people – not give ICE another $70 billion blank check so that they can unleash brutality on American citizens and violently target law-abiding immigrant communities,” said Jeffries of New York.

Homeland Security faced longest shutdown in history

The package is the result of a monthslong standoff in Congress after Democrats refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis and other American cities, leading to the longest shutdown in agency history.

Negotiations had been underway with the White House to alter ICE operations as Democrats were demanding. When those negotiations failed, Republicans turned to a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the immigration funding with no Democratic votes.

If approved, the package would next go to Trump for his signature, all but assuring an essentially uninterrupted flow of funds for his immigration enforcement and deportation agenda into 2029.

The Senate completed its work on the legislation last week during an all-night session that extended into the early morning hours Friday. The final 52-47 vote on the bill was nearly party line, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska the only Republican to oppose it.

Money comes at pivotal time for immigration agenda

The money will come at a pivotal time for the Department of Homeland Security, which is under new leadership after Trump replaced Kristi Noem with new Secretary Markwayne Mullin in March.

While Mullin has vowed to keep the department out of the headlines, the administration is under pressure from anti-immigration advocates to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise of the largest deportation operation in American history.

So far, the administration has not hit its goal of 1 million deportations a year, but Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, has promised more to come, including hinting at immigration enforcement actions in New York, the nation’s biggest city, which is heavily Democratic.

At the same time, the administration is making it more difficult for legal immigrants to remain in the U.S. by working to end Temporary Protective Status, changing the processes for obtaining green cards and leaving some Dreamers — the young people who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children — reporting delays in renewing their status, which allows them to stay and work.

Tight vote ahead

On the House side, Johnson has little margin for error. Republicans can afford to lose only a couple of votes if every lawmaker is present. GOP leadership opted to avoid any hiccups and sent lawmakers home last week rather than take up the bill early Friday once the Senate had completed its all-nighter.

The bill is just a slim package, without the hundreds of pages of details and directives that typically come from Congress when it provides funding for agencies.

Leading up to the vote, Democrats portrayed DHS as an agency that has used its new resources to buy private jets for its leadership, warehouse immigrants in deplorable conditions and attack U.S. citizens.

“To give these rogue agencies another $70 billion now when they still have $100 billion in the bank from last year would implicate all of us in the escalating corruption and shameful actions of this department,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democratic member on the House Judiciary Committee.

Republicans countered that they were fulfilling their duty to safeguard the nation and support the men and women charged with enforcing the law.

“Democrats can say whatever they want, but what it’s about is public safety. What’s it about is keeping Americans safe,” said Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn.

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Disability rights advocates on Monday gathered outside the state Capitol to push back on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed cuts to in-home supportive services.

“These aren’t just numbers in a budget; these are real people,” said Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio). “These are children, seniors, veterans and individuals with disabilities whose independence and quality of life depend on these services every single day.”

The In-Home Supportive Services program helps disabled and elderly people remain in their houses by providing in-home care. It pays assistants to help with tasks such as showering, cooking or attending doctor appointments. Newsom’s revised budget proposal, which was unveiled last month, would cut $367.7 million from the program and shift some of that financial burden onto counties.

Gonzalez explained that the issue hits close to home for his family. He said his son has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder, and relies on assistance to live with dignity.

“Families should not have to wonder every budget season whether the support they rely on will be taken away,” Gonzalez said. “These services should not be treated as bargaining chips in budget negotiations.”

Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) questioned why a successful state like California would need to enact such cuts.

“It’s hard to go a day without hearing the governor or the administration brag about how we are the fourth-largest economy in the world and yet we can’t fully fund [this program for] the most vulnerable?” Davies said.

The governor has previously explained that difficult decisions must be made as the state could soon face an economic downturn. The budget proposal relies on a tax windfall, largely attributed to the stock market success of artificial intelligence companies, to erase California’s deficit — but some analysts have warned that the AI bubble could burst.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance, on Monday said some of the proposed cuts are a byproduct of the federal government’s changes in funding and eligibility for health and human services programs.

The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Trump last year shifted federal funding away from safety-net programs, he said.

Palmer stressed that state budget negotiations are ongoing.

“Until we land on an agreement, speculation regarding the resolution of any specific differences between the Governor’s budget plan or the Legislature’s respective budget proposals would be premature,” he stated by email.

Monday’s event drew some bipartisan support. Brody Fernandez, communications director for Assemblymember Esmeralda Z. Soria (D-Fresno), said the legislator had been fighting for In-Home Supportive Services funding since she was elected.

Fernandez said his daughter has special needs and her mother had to give up her career to become a full-time caregiver. “This is personal for us and for many of the incredible individuals standing behind me,” he said.

Graham Knaus, chief executive of the California State Assn. of Counties, told The Times that he appreciated efforts to raise awareness about the burden these changes would place on counties.

“We applaud the Senate and Assembly for recognizing counties’ concerns and rejecting this proposal,” he said. “We ask them to hold the line in final negotiations.”

Elizabette Guecamburu, a bookkeeper who has a rare neuromuscular disorder, spoke at Monday’s rally and implored the governor to remember the teachings of their shared alma mater Santa Clara University, a Jesuit-led private school.

“I want him to remember where he came from,” she said, adding that students were taught to value compassion and community. “Don’t forget your Jesuit roots.”

June 4 (UPI) — Melinda French Gates has added another $215 million to her organization Pivotal, which funds social initiatives for women and families around the world.

The latest boost in funding is specifically to address problems with women’s reproductive and menopause health, she said. French Gates has contributed $600 million to women’s health over the past two years.

As part of this round, she is donating $10 million to The Menopause Society for the education of healthcare professionals and to expand outreach in areas where access to menopause care is limited.

“For too long, perimenopause and menopause have been treated as invisible — something women are expected to manage quietly, without clear answers or support. That must change. By getting healthcare practitioners better training and investing in research, we can help ensure women have the care they need to live full and healthy lives,” French Gates said in a statement.

While midlife issues have seen more attention, thanks to social media, that attention doesn’t always translate to correct information from practitioners.

“The piece that I’m focused on with Pivotal is: How do we make sure that women get accurate information about what we do know about this phase of life? And how do we make sure that all providers are trained?” she told Time in an interview.

“In midlife, I would say we both don’t have enough knowledge or tools,” she said. “The research should have been started more than 50 years ago. We should have had many, many, many studies about this period of life, so that we have different tools, not just hormone replacement therapy. Then, we have a lack of provider training, which is the piece I’m going to work on with this particular amount of funding.”

The Menopause Society said the funding will help reach women who need the care.

“Menopause is a universal life stage, but quality care is not universally available,” said Dr. Stephanie Faubion, medical director of The Menopause Society, in a statement. “With this funding, we can scale evidence-based training for front line clinicians and extend our reach to areas where menopause care has long been overlooked. This is a meaningful step toward ensuring that women receive the informed, compassionate care they need and deserve so they can make smarter healthcare decisions. It also allows for exploration and a better understanding of the need for system changes.”

While the donation is critical, Faubion said the attention generated by French Gates is even more important.

“It shows that somebody like Melinda Gates and Pivotal feel that this is an important issue,” Faubion told the Independent. “It will illuminate the gaps that are still there … and it makes people not only aware, but maybe motivated to take some action.”

Though women make up half the population, health issues that affect them get only 2% of private healthcare funding, according to the World Economic Forum.

“The role of philanthropy, in my opinion, is to look at some of these societal problems that have been left behind, and shine light on them, show ways of making progress so you can then crowd in other donors and ultimately crowd in government funding,” French Gates told The Independent. “Part of what I’m doing here, I hope, is sending a signal to say, ‘This is really important. Let’s do something about it.’ And my hope is that I’ll be able to get others who will join me.”

With California facing increasingly destructive wildfires, experts and officials have long urged the strategic removal of dense, flammable vegetation that can erupt into particularly destructive flames from a lightning bolt or the spark of a power line.

But after years of record investment by the state in such wildfire risk mitigation, two key money sources are drying up, potentially reducing the state’s annual budget for vegetation removal by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wildfire resiliency advocates are warning that the loss of these funds will leave the state vulnerable to devastation, and are calling on California’s next governor to take that threat seriously.

Currently, California relies heavily on two funding sources for wildfire mitigation work: A state program that charges polluters for their emissions and a climate bond approved by voters in 2024.

Late Friday, however, state officials adopted a new structure for the emissions program, called cap-and-invest, that analysts say will likely reduce wildfire mitigation funding by $200 million per year. At the same time, the governor’s latest budget proposal puts the state on track to allocate the majority of the climate bond’s $1.5 billion in wildfire prevention money within just three years.

As a result, California could go from routinely pulling more than $600 million a year from these sources, to just $150 million, according to an estimate from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition — a group of more than 80 organizations representing conservationists, business owners, fire officials and tribal leaders.

The coalition is urging the state to find new sources of funding for the work.

“We have the scientists, we have the technicians, we have the advocates,” said Michelle Decker, who is on the coalition’s executive committee and serves as president and CEO of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. “We see this problem. We can get ahead of this problem. It is a revenue issue.”

California wildfires have become increasingly costly. The 2025 L.A. fires alone caused an estimated $250 billion in damage and economic loss. Insurance companies have already paid out $22.4 billion.

In attempt to reduce the risk of damage to communities and ecosystems, the state has employed a wide range of tactics. These includes fortifying homes against wildfires, replanting fire-ravaged forests and thinning out vegetation with prescribed burns, goat grazing and manual thinning with heavy machinery to reduce the intensity of potential fires.

Research suggests wildfire mitigation work pays off. A recent analysis of 285 fires in the western U.S. found that every dollar spent on landscape projects saved about $3.75 in wildfire damage.

But as funding from cap-and-invest and the climate bond dwindle, the state must increasingly turn to Cal Fire, which devotes only a small portion of its budget to mitigation work.

“This is not an issue that can be pushed off to a timeline based solely on politics,” said Steve Frisch, a founding member of the coalition and president of the Sierra Business Council. “Fire happens whether we want it to or not.”

After a series of destructive wildfires in Northern California and the 2017 Thomas fire in Southern California, the state legislature began to explicitly focus on funding wildfire mitigation.

In 2018, lawmakers directed $200 million per year of cap-and-invest funds to wildfire mitigation projects.

As the Woolsey fire in Southern California and the Camp fire in Paradise raged later that fall, Trump accused the state of “gross mismanagement” of forest lands and threatened to cut off federal funds unless it was corrected.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the legislature, with a significant budget surplus, began earmarking even more funds, leading to a peak of $1.1 billion in wildfire mitigation investments during the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

After the surplus dwindled, the legislature opted in 2024 to put a $10-billion climate bond in front of voters — $1.5 billion of which was dedicated specifically for wildfire mitigation work.

Newsom has since pointed to this high state funding to call on the federal government to step up its own investments into forest management work.

The federal government manages 57% of all forests in the state. While the U.S. Forest Service spent $3.1 billion mitigating wildfire conditions in the state over the last few years, California spent $4.3 billion, according to the California Forest Resilience and Wildfire Task Force.

However, the state has already allocated about $600 million of the climate bond’s wildfire mitigation pot for the 2024-2025 and current fiscal years. The latest budget proposal would allocate more than $300 million for this upcoming fiscal year. While many advocates support allocating the money quickly, it leaves little for future years.

Once that money is spent, California has to pay off the $10 billion bond with interest. The result is an estimated price tag of $16 billion, paid in roughly $400 million increments every year, for 40 years, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

As for the cap-and-invest funds, a fraught months-long debate at the California Air Resources Board on how to extend the program beyond 2030 resulted in a compromise that will cut the revenue it generates in half, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates.

Since other projects get priority — including $1 billion every year for California’s high-speed rail project — the new proposal would “likely leave no funding” for the wildfire and forest resilience line item, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found.

Cal Fire still holds a modest annual budget for wildfire mitigation work. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the agency had $500 million for forest management and fire prevention that was not directly tied to cap-and-invest or the bond — up from about $65 million two decades prior.

As for the federal government, independent analyses by Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and NPR found that Forest Service wildfire mitigation work is on the decline amid federal staffing cuts. The Forest Service claims the decrease in work was primarily due to poor weather conditions for activities like prescribed burns and staff being occupied with firefighting.

Both the state and federal government’s investments pale in comparison to the spending of California’s investor-owned utilities. In 2025 alone, the utilities planned to spend more than $9.2 billion on preventing their equipment from sparking the next devastating wildfire, primarily funded by Californians’ electricity bills.

Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar said he expects to finalize a political agreement with Ursula von der Leyen over the release of billions of euros in frozen European Union funds during talks in Brussels.

The negotiations focus on unlocking financial support that had been suspended under the previous government led by former Prime Minister Viktor Orban due to long standing EU concerns regarding corruption, rule of law standards, and judicial independence.

Hungary is seeking access to approximately 6.5 billion euros in EU recovery grants and 3.9 billion euros in low interest loans before a critical August deadline. Additional structural funds worth around 7 billion euros also remain frozen.

The talks come at a crucial moment for Hungary’s economy, which has struggled with weak growth, fiscal pressure, and budgetary strain over the past three years.

Why It Matters

The potential agreement carries major economic and political significance for both Hungary and the European Union.

For Hungary, securing the release of EU funds is essential to stabilizing public finances, supporting economic growth, and restoring investor confidence. The country’s economy has experienced prolonged stagnation, while high spending pressures and limited fiscal flexibility have increased urgency around external financing.

For the European Union, the negotiations represent an important test of how Brussels balances financial support with enforcement of democratic and governance standards among member states.

The dispute over frozen funds has become one of the most prominent examples of tensions between the EU and governments accused of weakening judicial independence or failing to address corruption concerns.

A successful agreement could signal improving relations between Brussels and Hungary after years of political friction under Orban’s leadership.

Key Stakeholders

Hungary’s Government

Prime Minister Peter Magyar is under pressure to secure financial relief while also demonstrating willingness to meet EU governance expectations.

European Commission

The European Commission must balance political compromise with maintaining credibility on rule of law enforcement and anti corruption standards across the bloc.

Hungarian Economy

Businesses, investors, and public institutions in Hungary are closely watching the outcome because EU funding plays a major role in infrastructure, development, and economic stability.

European Union Member States

Other EU governments are monitoring the negotiations as they could shape future disputes involving rule of law conditions and access to EU financial support.

Analysis

The negotiations reflect a broader shift in Hungary’s relationship with the European Union following the political transition away from Viktor Orban’s administration.

Under Orban, disputes with Brussels became increasingly confrontational, particularly over democratic governance, judicial reforms, media freedoms, and corruption allegations. Peter Magyar appears to be pursuing a more pragmatic approach focused on rebuilding trust with EU institutions while securing urgently needed economic support.

However, the remaining disagreements over anti corruption measures suggest Brussels still wants stronger guarantees before fully releasing funds. This highlights the EU’s growing willingness to use financial leverage as a tool for enforcing governance standards within member states.

For Hungary, the pressure is primarily economic. Frozen EU funds have limited the government’s financial flexibility at a time when growth remains weak and fiscal conditions are strained. Unlocking the money would provide both immediate economic relief and an important political victory for Magyar’s government.

At the same time, the negotiations also carry symbolic importance for the EU itself. Brussels will want to demonstrate that compromise does not come at the expense of accountability, especially after years of criticism over democratic backsliding within the bloc.

Future Outlook

If a political agreement is finalized, Hungary could begin unlocking critical EU funding in the coming months, easing fiscal pressure and improving economic confidence.

However, implementation will remain important. Brussels is likely to continue closely monitoring Hungary’s anti corruption reforms and governance commitments before fully releasing all frozen funds.

A successful deal may also help normalize Hungary’s relationship with the European Union after years of tension, potentially opening the door for broader cooperation on economic and political issues.

At the same time, the outcome could influence future EU disputes involving rule of law conditions and financial oversight, particularly as Brussels increasingly links access to funding with governance standards.

For Hungary, the immediate priority remains economic stabilization. But politically, the negotiations may also determine whether Peter Magyar can establish a more cooperative and sustainable relationship with Europe while distancing his administration from the confrontational legacy of the Orban era.

With information from Reuters.

The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated his threat to withdraw U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities in a move that could jeopardize international flights.

The U.S. Travel Assn. said that Mullin confirmed he is considering withdrawing the officers in a meeting where the trade group was pressing its concerns about other proposals the Trump administration is considering that could hamper travel. The travel association and major airlines quickly condemned the idea, and even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it doesn’t make sense to him.

“U.S. Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the industry group said Friday in a statement.

Details of the meeting were first reported by the Atlantic.

Duffy said at a congressional hearing this week that he wasn’t familiar with Mullin’s remarks, and he’d like to learn more about the context and maybe ask Mullin a question about what he meant. But Duffy said it would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views. After all, he acknowledged, at some point Democrats will be in charge and “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon, Mr. Chairman.”

“We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places. We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said.

So it’s not clear how much support this idea has within the administration, though President Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities.

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally refer to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And courts have rejected the idea of pulling funding from them in the past.

In Trump’s first term in office, in 2017, courts struck down his effort to cut funding to the cities.

It’s not clear exactly which cities and airports Mullin might target, but the Justice Department last year published a list of three dozen states, cities and counties that it considers to be sanctuary jurisdictions. They include California, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego County.

The Airlines for America trade group was quick to say the idea would hurt the economy and disrupt travel.

“Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

Funk and Yamat write for the Associated Press.

Hundreds marched in Buenos Aires against President Javier Milei’s austerity policies and cuts to Argentina’s healthcare system. Protesters said funding cuts and rising costs are worsening access to healthcare and medicines and pushing the public health system into crisis.