GOP

At the Republican Party’s midterm convention, President Trump said he would make his crusade against transgender rights a major campaign issue ahead of the Nov. 3 election — calling the message that “men should not be playing in women’s sports” one of his party’s “great sound bites of all time.”

During a recent campaign trip, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a longtime LGBTQ+ advocate and likely Democratic contender for president in 2028, stood by his remark last year that allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports is “deeply unfair,” saying, “I haven’t been able to figure out how to make it fair from my perspective.”

For the second election cycle in a row, the rights of transgender people have taken center stage politically, despite their accounting for only about 1% of the U.S. population and many voters identifying other issues as far more important — splitting Republicans and Democrats, but also Democrats among themselves and putting the party on the defensive.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez, third from right, sits with other athletes at the CIF State Track Championship finals in Clovis on May 30, 2026.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

The politics are part of a much broader, international battle playing out in education, sports and the law, from local California classrooms and high school sports to the Olympic stage and the U.S. Supreme Court. Polling for years has shown most Americans oppose discrimination against transgender people, but also that a majority — including a substantial portion of Democrats — oppose transgender athletes participating in girls’ sports and children receiving gender-affirming care such as surgery or puberty blockers.

Republicans are pushing a well-funded message that transgender rights should be dismantled across the board, in healthcare, education, sports, the military and public spaces such as restrooms. Conservative mega-donors such as Elon Musk have spent millions amplifying that message in competitive races from Alaska to Ohio to Texas.

And to some degree, those tactics have worked. While many Democrats have ardently defended transgender rights, particularly in California, others in the party have sided with Republicans or softened their support.

Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico appears with Jeffrey Epstein abuse survivors in Dallas on Sept. 10.

(Anja Schlein / Dallas Morning News )

James Talarico, the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Texas, backpedaled from past votes by saying young transgender athletes shouldn’t be allowed to play “if it risks safety or fairness,” while others including Rob Sand, a candidate for Iowa governor, and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) have said they shouldn’t play.

Such messaging has dismayed transgender people and their families, as well as LGBTQ+ rights groups who have been trying to refine Democratic messaging on trans issues since Vice President Kamala Harris — another longtime LGBTQ+ advocate from California — responded to Trump’s anti-trans attacks in 2024 with a message some considered muddled.

Imara Jones, a transgender journalist and founder of TransLash Media, a platform built to spotlight trans people’s own experiences, said the party’s conflicting messaging “underscores the degree to which the Republicans have actually successfully weaponized trans issues.”

“You’re seeing a really sharp political calculus among Democrats,” Jones said, with those “in tight races, where they need to have Republican votes,” bending one way, and others who “want to make a statement about principle” and defending LGBTQ+ rights moving in the other.

Many Democrats in California say they believe the issue is a moral one and that Democrats only hurt themselves by ceding ground on human rights.

A volunteer for Toni Atkins, the former president pro tempore of the California State Senate, is silhouetted holding a Pride flag at the Harvey Milk Coachella Valley Diversity Breakfast, at the Palm Springs Convention Center in Palm Springs Thursday, May 8, 2025.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“The solution is not to be ambiguous, but to be firm that we support basic human rights and the basic humanity of trans people,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a leader on pro-LGBTQ+ legislation running to replace retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). “Then go on to talk about the big issues facing our country, like this illegal war, like the fact that Congress has done nothing to regulate AI, like the explosive cost of energy and child care and housing.”

A national conversation

Trump has signed executive orders to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, prohibit federal funding for gender-affirming care for youth, oust transgender service members from the military and deny recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities on critical documents such as passports.

The Justice Department has sued California and other states over their trans-inclusive sports policies, and successfully threatened large hospitals into ending gender-affirming care programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services barred federal Medicaid spending on gender-affirming medication or surgeries for minors.

Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaks at Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington on Dec. 18, 2025.

(Stefani Reynolds / Bloomberg)

Trump campaigned on such policies, and he and other Republicans clearly see them as helpful in the midterms. In his convention speech, Trump said he’s been surprised more Democrats haven’t abandoned transgender rights given polling showing a majority of Americans oppose transgender athletes in girls’ sports.

“They say it’s an 80/20 issue,” Trump said, in an apparent reference to a January 2025 New York Times/Ipsos poll that found 79% of respondents believed transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports. More recent polls have shown a smaller majority opposed.

The debate has prompted new bans on transgender athletes in college sports and in the Olympics and divided some of the most well-known professional women athletes in the world. It has also put transgender kids in California and elsewhere under an intense microscope — and on the receiving end of harassment from protesters who show up with loudspeakers to local track meets.

Demonstrators at a Rainbow Families Action march in Emeryville, Calif., on Dec. 8, 2025.

(Jessica Christian / San Francisco Chronicle )

Arne Johnson, a Bay Area father of a transgender child who helps run the advocacy group Rainbow Families Action, said being targeted by Republicans is scary, but watching Democrats “find ways to be more flexible about the rights of human beings” has been profoundly disappointing.

But he said he’s also been encouraged by some more recent polling showing Americans moving back toward the middle on transgender rights, which he believes is in part due to people being deluged with anti-trans ads getting frustrated that the political conversation isn’t focused on issues they care more about, like affordability and healthcare.

Ramiro Sarmiento, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, which has tracked at least $50 million in anti-trans political ads this cycle, agreed, saying, “MAGA wants to talk about trans kids because they’re losing the conversation voters actually care about.”

Conservative groups reject that framing. Many deny tht transgender people exist, while others say they are working to protect cisgender children or defend religious beliefs. They have also scoffed at Democrats who have changed their positions in the lead-up to the election, with the conservative American Principles Project accusing Talarico of only pretending to shift away from his “gender radicalism” on sports in order to win votes.

Allison Schuster, a White House spokesperson, said the Biden administration “spent four years pushing a radical agenda” of gender-affirming care for children, while Trump “pledged to restore common sense” and has since “delivered by consistently taking strong action to protect children from these dangerous, life-altering medical practices.”

The fight in California

In California, transgender athletes competing in youth sports has been raised as an issue in the governor’s race, where Republican hopeful Steve Hilton has rallied against their inclusion, and featured prominently in the races for the next state attorney general and the next state superintendent of public schools.

Transgender athlete AB Hernandez competes for Jurupa Valley High School at the 2025 CIF state track and field championships.

(Tomas Ovalle / For The Times)

Several Democrats running for Congress in the state have been criticized for their records on transgender rights, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert, who is seeking the redistricted congressional seat of departing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), as well as Reps. Adam Gray (D-Merced) and Derek Tran (D-Orange).

Christian Martinez, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson, has accused Von Wilpert of having a “perverted agenda [that] pushes hormone treatments on kids,” and Gray of being “for they/them, not for Californians.”

Marni von Wilpert, a Democratic candidate for California’s 48th Congressional District, canvasses in a neighborhood Friday, May 29, 2026, in San Marcos, Calif.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office is fighting on multiple fronts to protect gender-affirming care and successfully rebuffed a Justice Department lawsuit over the state’s transgender sports policies. But pressure is coming not only from the Trump administration.

The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school athletics, also revised its rules to ensure that transgender athletes in individual sports do not displace cisgender ones from rankings or medal podiums. And after local California teachers sued, the U.S. Supreme Court in March ruled against a controversial California student privacy law that precluded teachers from revealing a child’s interest in presenting in gender nonconforming ways in school to their parents if the child requested confidentiality, finding that the policy infringed on parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers just passed at least a dozen measures aimed at bolstering LGBTQ+ rights, including by restoring an LGBTQ+ youth suicide and crisis hotline; helping discharged LGBTQ+ service members find housing and jobs; requiring California gender-affirming healthcare providers who are subpoenaed to inform Bonta’s office if they intend to respond; improving access to HIV prevention care and enhancing LGBTQ+ data privacy.

Newsom signed all those measures into law — his office said California “will not stand” for Trump’s “all-out assault on the LGBTQ community” — but vetoed a bill that would have barred future governors from allowing the extradition of abortion or gender-affirming care providers in California to states where such care is illegal, citing concerns about reduced executive discretion.

The 2026-27 state budget appropriated $66 million for gender-affirming care, including up to $30 million for underinsured patients in the Uncompensated Care Program, $26 million to assist organizations that provide such care and $10 million to cover care for poor children who lost it under the new Medicaid rules. Wiener called the latter a “short-term solution” that will protect kids while the state figures out a more permanent billing pathway under Medi-Cal.

A.W., a Bay Area mother of a transgender teenager who requested anonymity because she fears being targeted by the Trump administration, said her child’s gender-affirming care — a lifeline for him in recent years — was disrupted by the Medicaid rule change, and the state’s temporary fix was too little, too late.

A.W. said families like hers “shouldn’t have to make medical decisions based on politicians in Washington,” particularly for care so critical to her son and other kids. “If he had not had access to gender-affirming care, I don’t know where we would be,” she said. “It scares me to think about it.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

CHICAGO — Dennis Hastert, the nation’s longest-serving Republican House speaker, who helped turn much of President George W. Bush’s agenda into law before his own political legacy was forever fouled by allegations that he molested high school athletes when he was a wrestling coach, died over the weekend, a coroner said Monday. He was 84.

Hastert, who was speaker from 1999 until 2007, died of natural causes at his home, according to Kendall County Coroner Jacquie Purcell.

When he was sentenced in 2016 to more than a year behind bars, the former history teacher became one of the highest-ranking American politicians ever ordered to prison.

In the late 1990s, Hastert was a little-known Illinois lawmaker with a reputation for congeniality that had helped him ascend the ranks of congressional leaders. When Newt Gingrich lost support because of ethics violations and the GOP’s poor showing in an election, Republicans elected Hastert to succeed him. In his first weeks on the job, he presided over the House while the Senate conducted Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.

After the GOP reclaimed the White House, Hastert took much of what Bush proposed and steered it to passage, including massive tax cuts and a measure that amounted to a huge expansion of prescription drug benefits — the biggest change in Medicare in decades.

His legacy was suddenly thrown into doubt in 2015, when he was accused of evading banking regulations as part of a plan to pay hush money to conceal unspecified “prior misconduct.” Nearly a year later, prosecutors filed papers that described what media reports had suggested for months: Hastert’s misconduct involved the sexual abuse of teenage boys on his wrestling team in the small town of Yorkville, west of Chicago.

During a 16-year coaching career, he led his team to a state championship and was named national coach of the year in 1976. But behind the accolades, prosecutors said, Hastert sexually abused at least four team members from 1965 to 1981.

The person Hastert was paying, identified in court papers only as Individual A, said the abuse occurred in a motel room when he was 14 on the way home from wrestling camp. Hastert allegedly touched other wrestlers in a locker room after saying he would give them massages. Two wrestlers said Hastert performed sex acts on them.

Prosecutors also described a recliner where Hastert often sat in the locker room with a direct view of the stalls where the boys showered.

Hastert agreed to plead guilty to evading banking laws. In all, he paid more than $1.7 million out of $3.5 million that he had promised to Individual A, sometimes in lump sums of $100,000 cash.

At the sentencing hearing where he received 15 months behind bars, the visibly angry judge called Hastert a “serial child molester.” A former wrestler struggled with his emotions as he told the court about his “dark secret” from adolescence.

In his own statement, Hastert said he was “deeply ashamed” and admitted that he “mistreated” some of his athletes. But he never referred directly to sexual abuse.

The public knew nothing about Hastert’s past when Republicans lost seats in the 1998 midterm elections. Hastert confronted Gingrich about dissatisfaction in the GOP ranks, saying it was unlikely Gingrich could hold his post, Hastert wrote in “Speaker: Lessons from 40 Years in Coaching and Politics.”

“Well, I’ll make them support me,” he quoted Gingrich saying of the GOP rebels. Told that was unlikely, Gingrich asked Hastert what to do.

“Do what you have to do,” he replied. The next day, Gingrich stepped down as speaker and left the House.

Hastert’s path to the speaker’s office was cleared when Louisiana Rep. Bob Livingston, who was considered a lock to replace Gingrich as speaker, resigned after acknowledging several extramarital affairs.

In January 1999, Hastert broke with tradition by delivering his acceptance speech from the House floor and by allowing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, a Missouri Democrat, to briefly preside over the day’s proceedings.

“Solutions to problems cannot be found in a pool of bitterness,” Hastert said in his speech. “They can be found in an environment in which we trust one another’s word, where we generate heat and passion, but where we recognize that each member is equally important to our overall mission of improving the life of the American people.”

Hastert was aware of the personal pitfalls of holding the powerful position.

“You know, in this business, especially in a job like this, you can get your head someplace where it shouldn’t be,” Hastert said in a 1999 interview with The Associated Press. “But you come back home, and you’re home. You’re back where you’ve always been, and your feet are back on the ground.”

He was generally viewed as a friendly, even-tempered lawmaker. His wrestling experience followed him to Washington, with GOP colleagues often calling him “coach.”

Hastert said he lacked the appetite for higher office.

As the recount of the 2000 presidential election dragged on, Hastert’s aides briefed him on the possibility that he might become acting president in the event of an Electoral College deadlock.

“I really didn’t want to be president, temporary or otherwise,” he wrote in his book. But he decided that he would not pass the office to the constitutional officer next in line if an Electoral College deadlock extended beyond Inauguration Day. In the end, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling ended the recount, and Bush moved into the White House.

Hastert’s journey to Congress from his boyhood farm appeared to be the result of fate and luck.

In 1980, he finished third in an Illinois House primary. But the incumbent became fatally ill, and GOP leaders chose Hastert to take his place on the November ballot, where he won in a traditional GOP stronghold.

Hastert became a congressional candidate in 1986, when local Republican leaders put him on the primary ballot, replacing freshman Rep. John Grotberg, who was battling cancer. Hastert went on to beat the Democrat with 52 percent of the vote, his smallest margin of victory in a congressional race.

In Washington, Hastert served quietly in House leadership, working closely with Gingrich and then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay after Republicans took control in 1995. Several years later, DeLay was the force driving Clinton’s impeachment and was simply too toxic to seek the speaker’s chair.

Hastert’s tenure was marked by a shift of power from committee chairmen to GOP leaders, fealty to the Bush administration and an explosion of congressional pet projects known as earmarks. Democrats fumed that he weakened the ethics process that ensnared DeLay, who left Congress under a cloud of criminal charges in 2006.

Hastert became wealthy largely through a complex web of transactions that coincided with one of his own highway earmarks increasing the value of land he had purchased in his district.

He was forced to step down as speaker in 2007, when Democrats gained control of the House, and he resigned his seat later that year. In 2008, he joined the Washington lobbying firm of Dickstein Shapiro as a senior adviser, specializing in government law and strategy.

Born in Aurora, Illinois, Hastert earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from Wheaton College in 1964 and a master’s in education from Northern Illinois University in 1967.

In 2007, Wheaton named its newly created public policy center the J. Dennis Hastert Center for Economics, Government and Public Policy. After Hastert’s indictment, the school removed his name in 2015. Other organizations abandoned associations with Hastert, and his portrait was removed from a hallway outside the House chamber.

Hastert lived his entire life in Chicago’s suburbs, primarily in the Yorkville area. While growing up, he helped his father with the family feed business.

Survivors include his wife, Jean, and two adult sons.

Tarm and McCann write for the Associated Press. Tarm and McCann are former Associated Press reporters.

There are few people, if any, who’ve tracked U.S. elections for longer or in greater depth than Charlie Cook.

Ever since 1984, when he started his eponymous political newsletter, Cook and his stellar crew of nonpartisan analysts have plumbed many thousands of races — for president, Congress, governor — following the money, sussing out the candidates, watching their ads and assaying the campaign landscape at a granular level.

Cook calls this midterm election the strangest he’s ever seen.

What appeared to be a fairly normal election for a president halfway through his term — a probable setback, as unhappy voters register their discontent — has the potential, Cook said, to turn into a disaster for Republicans. Big losses aren’t rare for the party in the White House. Democrats picked up 41 House seats in President Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018.

What’s unusual, Cook suggested, is the prospect of big Democratic gains when Republicans started out this election season with so many advantages. (And that was before the GOP set off on a gerrymandering jag at Trump’s behest.)

Roughly two-thirds of the Senate seats up in November are in states Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races are in states Trump won, several by double digits.

On the House side, Republicans maintain control by an exceedingly narrow margin, meaning there aren’t a lot of low-hanging districts for Democrats to aim for. As Cook rightly noted, “A party cannot lose a seat they don’t have.”

But Trump’s deteriorating approval rating, an unpopular war, persistent inflation and the president’s egotistical indulgences have jeopardized a number of GOP-held seats that normally would be automatic wins, including contests in such Republican strongholds as Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and even Texas.

“I’m not a meteorologist, but it’s kind of like three competing weather fronts collided,” Cook said. “One was Iran and gasoline, diesel prices going sky high … Then there’s trade, tariffs, overall non-energy cost of living, tariff impact on farmers. And then the third is kind of the catch-all and it’s everything from ballrooms, reflecting pools, arches, vaccines, Medicaid cuts.”

We’ll get to predictions in a moment. (Patience, dear reader.)

First, let’s hear from Nathan Gonzales, another longtime election handicapper. He’s been tracking political contests nationwide for more than 25 years and edits and publishes Inside Elections — formerly the Rothenberg Political Report — another nonpartisan field guide to campaigns. Like Cook, he traffics in clear-eyed, dispassionate analysis, not partisan wish-casting or political spin.

Gonzales, too, sees a bad moon rising for Republicans.

A detail of the exhibit in the Epstein Files Bookmobile during a campaign stop for Democratic House candidate Bob Brooks at the United Steelworkers of America office in Bethlehem, Pa. Brooks is challenging Republican incumbent Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) in Pennsylvania’s highly competitive 7th Congressional District in the upcoming midterm election.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Trump’s performance — his approval rating is flirting with record lows — “has inspired Democrats, turned off independents and created a group of apathetic Republicans,” Gonzales said, “and those are the ingredients for a good or great Democratic year.”

He noted Democrats don’t need a big wave to seize control of the House. A pickup of just three seats would flip the House, marking the seventh straight midterm election in which one chamber or the other changed partisan hands.

(For the record, there is no authoritative definition of a wave election, though it’s generally agreed the term applies to an election in which one party or the other gains a large and lopsided number of House and Senate seats.)

It’s beginning to feel a lot like 2006, Gonzales said.

“We had an unpopular Republican president, a war in the Middle East that drove up gas prices. Some members on Capitol Hill that were behaving badly,” Gonzales recalled. “I remember talking to Republicans after the fact and they admitted that, while they thought they had great research on Democratic candidates and they had a fundraising advantage, voters just didn’t care. Voters weren’t in the mood to listen to what they were saying about Democrats because they were so frustrated with what was going on with the status quo and the direction of the country.”

In that election, at the midpoint of President George W. Bush’s second term, Democrats gained six seats to take control of the Senate and netted 31 in the House, allowing the installation of Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker in history. “A thumpin’,” Bush called it.

So, 2026.

Gonzales and his team of experts believe the House is most likely gone for Republicans, forecasting a Democratic gain of seven to 15 seats, unless the bottom falls out for the GOP and their losses climb much higher.

In the Senate, where Democrats need to pick up four seats to take control, Gonzales sees the chamber teetering on a knife’s edge, forecasting a Democratic gain of three to five seats.

“It’s too late to fundamentally change the trajectory of this election,” Gonzales said. “But if Republicans can boost Republican turnout, it might be enough to save the Senate.”

For his part, Cook agrees that Mike Johnson may be nearing the end of his speakership. The best-case scenario for the GOP would be keeping its losses to 25 House seats or less, Cook said, which is right around the average for midterm elections going back well over half a century.

“It starts getting into eyebrow-raising territory if it gets north of 35,” Cook said, “because that shouldn’t be possible with the few competitive districts we have now.”

As for the Senate, he suggested the best Republicans can hope for is a net loss of two seats, keeping the GOP barely in control. (A loss of three would mean a 50-50 split, leaving Vice President JD Vance poised to be the tiebreaker on close votes — and wouldn’t he love having to drop off the 2028 campaign trail to be on hand, just in case.)

Of course, there’s still an election to be held, votes to be cast and ballots to be counted.

Blue wave, tsunami or a pale sapphire puddle?

We’ll know in a little more than four weeks.

MIAMI — A former Miami congressman and longtime friend of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison in connection with a secret $50 million lobbying campaign on Venezuela’s behalf during the first Trump administration.

Republican David Rivera has been jailed since jurors found him guilty in May on all counts, including failing to register as a foreign agent and conspiracy to commit money laundering as part of his work for former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro ’s government.

Rivera, 61, appeared stone-faced as Judge Melissa Damian denounced him for betraying his life’s mission, saying he would surely have been judged harshly his many friends had the millions of dollars come from the Cuban regime instead of its allies in Caracas.

“Nobody would accept that’s ok and I don’t think this is different,” the judge said. “There’s no dispute this money came from the Maduro regime.”

The seven-week trial offered a rare glimpse into Miami’s role as a crossroads for foreign influence campaigns aimed at shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America, highlighting the city’s reputation as a magnet for both anti-communist crusaders and corruption among its sizable exile population.

It included testimony from President Trump’s secretary of state, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas and a top Washington lobbyist — all of whom testified they felt betrayed when learning of Rivera’s mammoth consulting contract with a U.S.-based affiliate of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA.

Attorneys for Rivera plan to appeal and in June applied for a presidential pardon. Rivera faces additional federal charges in Washington, D.C., in a related foreign lobbying case.

Prosecutors said betrayal featured coded figures — ‘Sombrero’ and ‘Miss Clairol’

In an indictment unsealed in 2022, prosecutors alleged that Rivera was tapped by then Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — now Venezuela’s acting president — to work Republican connections to get the first Trump administration to abandon its hard line and crippling sanctions on Venezuela.

As part of the charm offensive, Rivera and a co-defendant, political consultant Esther Nuhfer, sought to manipulate influential friends, including Rubio and Sessions. Their goal was to normalize relations with the new Trump administration even as the Maduro government faced sanctions over serious accusations of human rights violations.

But Rivera and Nuhfer didn’t disclose their lobbying work as required, for fear it would have ended Rivera’s political career as an anti-communist stalwart, prosecutors argued at trial.

“The United States and the public were the true victims of this fraud,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Roger Cruz said in urging a stiff sentence. “He used his position of trust — and betrayed it consistently and repeatedly.”

To hide his work, prosecutors allege, Rivera also set up an encrypted chat group called MIA — for Miami — with his main conduit to the Maduro government: Venezuelan media tycoon Raúl Gorrín, who was subsequently charged in the U.S. with bribing top Venezuelan officials.

Members of the group used playful code words to discuss their activities: Maduro was the “bus driver,” Sessions “Sombrero,” Rodríguez “The Lady in Red,” and their windfall payments “La Luz,” Spanish for “The Light,” according to copies of text messages presented to the jury. Rubio was known as “Miss Clairol,” because rubio means blond in Spanish.

Defense said only missing paperwork made the $50 million contract illegal

At Friday’s sentencing, attorneys for Rivera repeated their trial argument that the former congressman believed he was under no requirement to disclose the work. The three-month, $50 million contract with Rivera’s one-man consulting firm, they said, was focused on luring oil giant ExxonMobil back to Venezuela — commercial work that is generally exempt from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

“David Rivera does not deserve to die in prison because he failed to file a FARA registration,” defense attorney Ed Shohat said at Friday’s hearing. “If he had filed that paper, that form, everything he did, including the $50 million contract, which totally distorted this case, is perfectly legal.”

Wholly distinct from that consulting work, they say, were Rivera’s meetings with Rubio and Sessions, which were focused on ushering in leadership in Venezuela that would be less hostile to the U.S. – not supporting Maduro in normalizing relations with the U.S.

“There’s not one word in any chat, not one document, not one thing he did to help Nicolás Maduro,” said Shohat.

Prosecutors said Rivera used the contract with the affiliate, New York-based PDV USA, as cover for illegal lobbying.

“This is a classic money laundering case,” the judge said Friday in rejecting Rivera’s motion to lower the federal guidelines range.

Where did the money go? A luxury yacht, among other things

The partners tried to hide the work — backdating documents and coming up with sham agreements, like one to justify a wire transfer of $3.75 million to a South Florida company that maintained Gorrín’s luxury yacht, prosecutors said.

The political activity included setting up meetings for Rodríguez in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas. As part of the effort, Rivera roped in Sessions, who later tried to broker a meeting for Rodríguez with the ExxonMobil executive who took over as CEO when Rex Tillerson became Trump’s first-term secretary of state. After a secret meeting in Caracas with Maduro, Sessions also agreed to deliver a letter from the Venezuelan president to Trump.

The outreach quickly unraveled, however. Within six months of taking office, Trump sanctioned Maduro and labeled him a “dictator,” launching a “maximum pressure” campaign to unseat the president.

And now, nearly a decade later, Rodríguez has emerged as the second Trump administration’s trusted partner after the U.S. military’s ousting of Maduro.

Rubio’s former housemate faced scandal before, but Cuban Americans support him

Before being elected to Congress in 2010, Rivera was a high-ranking Florida legislator and shared a Tallahassee home with Rubio, who eventually became the Florida House speaker.

Rivera faced earlier controversy, including allegations that he secretly funded a Democratic spoiler candidate in a 2012 congressional race. Last year, federal prosecutors dropped that case after an appeals court threw out a sizable fine imposed by a lower court. Rivera was also investigated — but never charged — for alleged campaign finance violations and a $1 million contract with a gambling company while serving in the Florida Legislature.

Despite all that, Rivera remains popular among Miami’s Cuban American establishment.

Friends of the former congressman, including the former president of Florida International University and Miami-Dade County’s supervisor of elections, packed the courtroom to show their support.

Sessions, in a letter seeking leniency that was read into the record by his chief of staff, said his former congressional colleague devoted decades to public service, much of it focused on defending liberty and democracy.

“I don’t think it’s productive for society by sending David away for a long, long time,” testified Liliana Ros, a longtime Miami GOP committee member.

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

With gas prices topping $6 a gallon and an unpopular war continuing in Iran, President Trump’s approval has slipped with California Republicans — a falloff that could diminish the party’s chances in the state’s few competitive congressional races.

A new poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 76% of Republican voters in the state approve of the president’s performance, down from 83% last year.

The president’s approval has softened even among those who still support his performance. Only 44% of Republicans in California said they strongly support Trump’s performance, down from 57% who said the same in August 2025.

That could translate into lower Republican turnout in the state’s few competitive races, said the poll’s director, Mark DiCamillo.

“Republicans are losing some of their enthusiasm in terms of being motivated to vote,” he said.

In addition, the more Trump tries to make the midterm elections about himself — such as the pro-Trump ads recently sponsored and paid for by the government — the more Democrats might be inclined to show up, said G. Cristina Mora, the UC Berkeley institute’s co-director.

“That might actually have a galvanizing effect on voters,” she said.

Trump’s sinking support in California mirrors a national decline in the president’s approval, even among Republicans.

The congressional map in the state was already challenging for Republicans after voters last year approved a referendum championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw districts to be more favorable for Democrats — a response to similar efforts by Republicans in Texas and other states.

In the new map, only four of the state’s 52 districts are currently considered safe Republican districts, while three additional districts are seen as competitive, according to the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political handicapper.

The remaining 45 districts are seen as either likely or solidly Democratic in a state where Democrats hold a roughly 20% advantage in party registration.

Only one race is considered by Cook to be a true toss-up — California’s 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, which is held by Republican Rep. David Valadao.

“We’re looking at the best case scenario for Democrats at this point,” said Erin Covey, Cook’s U.S. House editor.

Valadao, one of only 10 Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, faces progressive Democrat Randy Villegas, a political science professor who has the backing of Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator is joining Villegas this weekend for a rally in Bakersfield.

Valadao first won a seat in Congress in 2012, but was ousted from office during the Democrats’ “blue wave” election in 2018, in which the party gained 40 seats in the House in the first election after Trump took office in 2016. Valadao was able to win back his seat in 2020 and has held it since.

There has been scant public polling in the race, but a poll conducted in June by a political committee backing Villegas showed the Democrat holding a 4-point lead over Valadao.

Two other congressional districts in the state are listed by Cook as leaning Democratic:

• California’s 48th Congressional District in Riverside and San Diego counties, now held by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who opted to retire rather than seek reelection in the redrawn district.
• California’s 13th Congressional District in the San Joaquin Valley, where Democratic Rep. Adam Gray is trying to fend off a challenge from Republican Kevin Lincoln, the former mayor of Stockton.

Trump’s approval also dipped among Black and Latino voters in the poll. Both groups were part of Trump’s winning coalition in the 2024 presidential election.

The poll also found broad disapproval of two signature Trump administration policies.

It found that 70% of California voters disapprove of Trump’s decision to go to war in Iran, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

Also, 70% of California voters believe that the president’s immigration policies are hurting California’s economy and local businesses, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20 and included the opinions of 6,989 registered California voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

House Speaker Mike Johnson plans to visit California on Wednesday to stump and fundraise for Republican candidates in a state that could determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives during President Trump’s final two years in office.

Johnson (R-La.) plans to visit the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, a sign of the importance of California congressional contests in the November midterm election.

David Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said that Johnson is attempting to mitigate the aftermath of Proposition 50, the redrawing of California’s congressional districts that voters approved in November in response to Trump’s efforts to tilt districts in his favor elsewhere in the nation, notably Texas.

“If it weren’t for Republican efforts to redraw Texas, Proposition 50 wouldn’t have seen the light of day,” said Wasserman, who predicts Democrats will win control of the House, and said that Republicans would have a better chance at holding more seats if they hadn’t prompted the redistricting fight.

Redrawing congressional districts typically happens once a decade after the U.S. Census, and in California, voters in 2010 decided to hand the power of crafting the state’s districts to an independent commission. After Trump pushed Texas to redraw its congressional boundaries to increase GOP representation in Congress last year, California Democrats responded by persuading voters to reshape its districts to favor Democrats, who already dominate the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

“California Republicans are on the verge of extinction because of the White House action,” Wasserman said.

In Chowchilla, Johnson is scheduled to hold a fundraiser and a rally in support of former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln, who is trying to topple Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced) in one of the most competitive congressional races in the nation. He is expected to be joined by Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters, California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin and Congress members from Texas and Michigan.

He is also holding a get-out-the-vote event in support of Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), a longtime Democratic target given the voter makeup of his Central Valley district. Johnson is also holding an evening fundraiser in Riverside for Jim Desmond, a member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors who is running in the district being vacated by longtime Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista).

Issa decided to retire after his congressional district was redrawn because of Proposition 50. He has endorsed Desmond to represent the new district, which spans San Diego and Riverside counties.

The California trip is part of Johnson’s plans to campaign in 22 states in an effort to help Republicans retain control of the House before the Nov. 3 election.

Despite California’s sapphire tilt — registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one — the state’s residents are often the largest donors to politicians on both sides of the aisle. Democrats headed here in coming days include gubernatorial candidates Amy Acton of Ohio, Deb Haaland of New Mexico and Gina Hinojosa of Texas.

Trump sent followers a fundraising appeal Tuesday focused on Democrats’ ability to win control of Congress, which would upend his agenda during his final two years in office.

“I’ve never asked for sympathy. I’ve never asked this country to feel sorry for me. I’ve never asked for anything,” he said in the email. “That changes today. With less than 45 days until midterm elections, the left is ready to put the final nail in my coffin.”

Christian Martinez, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, pointed to the pivotal role California will play in determining control of Congress.

“California’s House races will decide whether working families keep fighters like David Valadao, James Gallagher, Kevin Lincoln, and Jim Desmond or get more of the same from Democrats who raised costs, left the border wide open, and made communities less safe,” Martinez said. “Californians are done paying more, waiting longer, and living with less safety so corrupt Sacramento and Washington Democrats can protect their socialist agenda.”

Anna Elsasser, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, shot back that the policies and beliefs of Desmond, Lincoln and Valadao have deeply harmed California families, including high gas prices and the cost of living.

“That’s why Mike Johnson is swooping in to try and save their fledgling campaigns. Voters won’t forget who sold them out to hand massive tax breaks to billionaires and wealthy corporations by gutting health care and food assistance, championing chaotic tariffs, and refusing to rein in a costly war that has sent gas prices soaring,” she said. “Californians are ready for change, not another two years of Mike Johnson and DC Republicans’ status quo.”

The White House has spent days fiercely defending three taxpayer-funded advertisements that glorify President Trump — approaching at least $1.5 million in public spending — calling them public service announcements.

“Don’t let the Fake News get away with their lies about our epic Public Service Announcements that have been running on tv,” White House communications director Steven Cheung posted on X on Sunday.

But the Republican administration’s ads attracted mounting criticism on Monday, including from members of Trump’s own party.

“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters.

“It would not have been something that I would have done. And I know that the White House is not covered by the same guidance that we are, but it’s not something that I would have done,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, another South Dakota Republican.

Multiple legal experts consulted by the Associated Press said the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes, including a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for “publicity or propaganda” and a law that limits the partisan political activities of government employees.

They said the new ads, which are airing on network and cable TV and streaming, differ from other administrations’ PSAs because they aren’t designed to help Americans access any specific program.

“You watch all three ads, they’re sheer propaganda,” said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics czar under Republican President George W. Bush. “This is increasingly looking like what authoritarian governments do to promote their leaders.”

The heightened scrutiny comes as the Trump administration has increased spending on the ads and bought time on popular TV shows, including college football and National Football League programming. It remains unclear which part of the government is supplying the funds.

With both chambers of Congress led by Republicans, any oversight would likely have to come from Trump’s allies, decreasing the likelihood of hearings or other accountability efforts before November’s midterm elections.

Three ads have aired in less than a week, totaling well over $1M

The first ad in the campaign, which began airing last Wednesday, features clips of Trump talking about defeating communism interspersed with onscreen text promoting the “largest tax cuts in history,” “reigniting American manufacturing” and a call to “defend law and order and police.”

Later in the week, a second ad began running, showing scenic videos of Mount Rushmore at night with quotes and clips from Trump’s Fourth of July weekend speech there honoring the country’s 250th anniversary.

The latest of the ads, a spot first aired over the weekend, is virtually identical to an ad for Trump’s Republican reelection campaign in 2024. It shows him walking down a hallway as his voice can be heard warning of a “final battle” against “globalists” and “warmongers.”

All three ads end with a message that says: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” The White House hasn’t responded to inquiries about which part of the government is paying.

According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the spots have so far cost more than $1.4 million and run across a wide range of TV networks around the country. The actual amount spent could be significantly more, depending on whether networks classified the ad as a political ad.

The ads are different from past PSAs, experts say

In defending the campaign, the White House published a list of PSAs from recent Democratic and Republican administrations.

Among the examples it cited were Bush’s Republican administration touting a Medicare law, Barack Obama’s Democratic administration promoting Affordable Care Act subsidies and Joe Biden’s Democratic administration running ads promoting COVID-19 vaccinations.

“The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action,” the White House wrote. “Instead, the announcements are a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it’s worth defending — at home, at the border, and abroad.”

Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said in her view the new ads differ from the examples the White House provided because they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

“These ads are nothing more than government propaganda, aimed at helping Trump,” she said.

Painter, who joined the Bush administration after the Medicare PSAs went out, said that ad campaign toed the line on appropriateness because it included misleading information about Medicare Part D. But he said Trump’s campaign is a far more egregious violation of the statute that blocks congressionally appropriated money from being spent on publicity or propaganda.

“There’s nothing in here about a particular policy that’s at all focused,” Painter said of Trump’s ads. “One of them is just about the evils of the deep state. Another one of them is about communists and Marxists.”

In its support for the ads, the White House also referenced the administrations of President Woodrow Wilson and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom used posters, radio and film to rally the country during World Wars I and II.

James Kimble, a communication professor at Seton Hall University who studies domestic propaganda, said it’s true that Wilson’s Democratic administration used propaganda to rally Americans. But he said most Americans no longer view its actions in a positive light.

“By almost any objective measure, looking back, we find what they did pretty repulsive,” he said.

Skepticism of the campaign grows on the Hill

Top Democrats on the Senate and House appropriations committees last week wrote to the White House demanding the ads be taken down and requesting more information on how much money was spent to create and air them.

In the days since, more than a dozen Democrats and a handful of Republicans have spoken up to further criticize the ads. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the latest ad “an absolute violation of what a democracy is supposed to look like.”

“Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force-fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime,” he said in a Senate floor speech Monday.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that no public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves.

And Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, had his own harsh words for the administration on Monday.

“Don’t worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the President has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics,” he wrote in an X post.

The Republican chairs of the Senate and House appropriation committees didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Steven Sloan contributed to this report.

Sept. 23, 2026 1:44 PM PT

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine Democrats on Wednesday assailed U.S. Sen. Susan Collins over a news report that the FBI investigated how much she knew about illegal campaign contributions that sent one of her donors to prison.

The ProPublica report, published Tuesday, states that the FBI in 2024 planned to launch an investigation into Collins’ dealings with Navatek, a Hawaii defense contractor and donor to her campaign. The investigation, which focused on an alleged pay-to-play scheme, failed to commence after President Trump took office after winning the election, according to ProPublica.

The report arrived six weeks before an election in which Collins is seeking a sixth term against Democrat Troy Jackson. Democrats have targeted the seat, in a state that Trump lost in 2024, as the party tries to win control of the Senate, making it one of the most competitive races on the November ballot.

Collins on Tuesday called the entire story “absolutely outrageous” and said it is frustrating and unfair to have such claims made against her so close to the election. Her campaign manager, Steve Abbott, also said Wednesday that the allegation that “we charge people to have meetings” is categorically false and Collins accepting campaign cash for contracts “did not happen.”

Jackson called the allegation “corruption of the highest order.” He was not present Wednesday when a group of Maine Democrats held a news conference near Collins’ Portland office, calling the allegations a betrayal of trust.

“I cannot stress enough here today the seriousness of these allegations. Maine people deserve clear and real answers from Susan Collins right now,” Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Devon Murphy-Anderson said.

FBI says allegations were already investigated

The ProPublica report stated that the head of a Collins super PAC met with executives from defense contractor Navatek in 2019 and asked them for a $500,000 campaign donation. The company’s chief executive, Martin Kao, sent an initial $150,000 donation using a shell company, the report stated. ProPublica reported that it reviewed an internal company email from Kao in which the CEO later told Navatek executives that Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in Navy contracts.

Kao and two other Navatek executives were later indicted on charges of funneling illegal donations to Collins. Kao sought to reduce his prison sentence by revealing to the FBI the full scope of illegal contributions to Collins, ProPublica reported.

Collins said Kao is “a liar” whose story is untrustworthy.

“He has been twice convicted in separate federal court cases. He’s been convicted of money laundering. He’s been convicted of bank fraud. He has been convicted of false submissions to the FEC. He’s being convicted of a lot of crimes,” she said.

An FBI spokesperson said in a statement that the allegations “had already been investigated by the FBI years ago and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is totally false.”

The ProPublica article also states that Trump’s return to the White House left the Justice Department unable to perform the investigation.

Corruption investigations have decreased in Trump’s second term

The number of FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors specializing in corruption investigations plummeted in the first months of the Trump administration. The Justice Department, for instance, decimated its elite Public Integrity Section in early 2025 and the FBI disbanded a white-collar fraud and public corruption squad based out of its Washington field office.

The administration has also fired numerous law enforcement officials who participated in investigations into Trump, including over his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election he lost and his retention of classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

An email seeking comment was sent to the Justice Department on Wednesday.

Collins said she first learned of the company through the University of Maine because of the research the Navy found to be valuable, which had to do with 3D printing for production.

She said the Justice Department has already reviewed the matter.

“I’m telling you this is completely false,” Collins said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune dismissed the idea that Collins would be implicated in a pay-to-play scheme, calling the allegations “a political hit job.”

Whittle and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. Mascaro reported from Washington. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Eric Tucker in Washington and Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

Sept. 22, 2026 7:23 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Donald Trump Jr. used his proximity to the presidency for financial benefit, after his recent wedding party was partially bankrolled by a Russian oligarch.

In a letter sent Tuesday, Curtis called on the committee to subpoena Trump Jr. over his business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts or other benefits he has received and any instances in which his relationship to President Trump, a Republican, “was invoked or understood to provide value.” Curtis called for the same scrutiny of Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

“The country should not have to accept one standard for the family of a Republican president and another for the family of a Democratic president,” Curtis wrote in the letter addressed to GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the committee, and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.

The letter comes as a few Republicans have shown a growing willingness to criticize Trump after largely avoiding public breaks with the president during much of his second term. The unpopular war in Iran, high gas prices and mounting concerns about the GOP’s prospects in November’s midterm elections have brought increased scrutiny of the president from within his own party.

The Trumps say it was a generous gift from a dear friend

ProPublica first reported last week that Umar Kremlev, who has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, helped pay to rent a private island and for a fireworks show when Trump Jr. and socialite Bettina Anderson were married in the Bahamas in May.

In a subsequent post on her Instagram page signed by the couple, Bettina Trump wrote that Kremlev, head of the International Boxing Association, was a “dear friend” who “very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us AFTER our wedding.”

The president, who did not attend his son’s wedding, defended Kremlev’s involvement but said the money would be paid back.

Curtis calls the funding ‘corruption’

Curtis, first elected to the Senate in 2024, vowed upon taking office not to shy away from disagreeing with Trump. He has publicly broken with the president several times since, including rejecting Trump’s calls to eliminate the Senate filibuster. In a July Wall Street Journal op-ed, Curtis wrote that “under no circumstance” would he support efforts to end or alter the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber.

Curtis’ criticism involving Trump’s son goes beyond those policy disagreements. Curtis last Friday called the gift “corruption” and vowed to say more in the coming days.

“A Russian oligarch paid for a lavish wedding after-party for Donald Trump Jr., which to me just stinks. It’s corruption. I don’t like it,” Curtis said in a video posted on social media.

On Tuesday, Curtis wrote on social media that Republicans “nearly wore out the subpoena machine investigating Hunter Biden’s foreign relationships” and that they “should not unplug it now.”

Any congressional committee can launch an investigation at any time. In 2017, Grassley led a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, including a meeting that Trump Jr. held with Russians in 2016. The panel has also conducted multiple investigations of Hunter Biden.

Clare Slattery, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee, confirmed that the committee had received Curtis’ letter but indicated that a hearing before the end of the year would be difficult, citing the limited Senate schedule and the amount of time it takes to prepare for an investigative hearing. She did not say whether the committee will investigate.

Republicans investigated the Bidens

Grassley worked alongside House Republicans in 2023 and 2024 to investigate whether Hunter Biden used his father’s name and political position to benefit his business dealings with foreign interests. The Biden family dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and denied any wrongdoing.

The GOP effort culminated in a report accusing Joe Biden of participating in a conspiracy to use his public office to enrich his family. But the House never voted on articles of impeachment against him.

“‘Trust us’ was not enough then, and it is not enough now,” Curtis wrote.

Democrats have foreshadowed plans to investigate Trump and his family if they win control of Congress in November, with particular scrutiny on the family’s financial interests. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement that the revelations surrounding Trump Jr.’s wedding “may be the most serious allegation against you to date.”

Cappelletti and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

President Trump came to battleground North Carolina doubling down on a tantalizing and implausible midterm promise. “If we win,” he said, “we’re going to get you $5,000. So that’s it. Very simple.”

The Republican candidates who spoke at the rally had nothing to say about it.

Their silence reflects a broader pattern. About a week after the president unveiled his “Trump dividend” pledge at the party’s unusual midterm convention in Dallas, there is little evidence that Republicans in competitive races have incorporated it into their campaigns.

The pledge hasn’t been a staple of television advertising, whether from Trump’s own political operation or his party’s candidates. It usually only comes up when reporters ask about it, prompting most Republicans to sidestep the idea.

The Republican National Committee considers the proposed payments part of Trump’s broader economic vision and says candidates should get behind it.

“Of course we encourage all Republican candidates to run on his agenda, and that includes efforts to put more money in the pockets of the American people,” spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said.

There are some exceptions. Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who is seeking reelection in a battleground Wisconsin district, has praised the proposal.

The idea comes as the economy confronts rising interest rates, continuing inflation and climbing fuel costs. Republicans are fighting to keep their majorities in the House and Senate.

Trump previously promised to use savings from his White House advisory team, which he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and revenue from tariffs on imports to distribute payments of $2,000 or more, but none of that came to pass. The president has said he did not think congressional approval would be needed for the idea, which could cost more than $1 trillion, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated the promise would require lawmakers to act.

Democrats point to those previous suggestions for a payout to raise skepticism about the $5,000 pledge.

“This idea is nothing more than a recycled broken promise that voters know Republicans will never deliver,” said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the House Democratic campaign arm.

Republican campaign advertising has largely focused on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including provisions that temporarily cut taxes on tips and overtime. Other candidates are concentrating on local issues or attacks against their opponents.

Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former Republican National Committee communications director, said there is little mystery about why candidates have been reluctant to embrace the pledge.

“It’s a dumb idea,” Heye said. “There’s no way to pay for it and it would spike inflation.”

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

A Bay Area Republican Party leader who earlier this year claimed dead people cast votes in Marin County in the Proposition 50 special election has backtracked on that comment.

But don’t expect him to stop digging. In an interview with The Times, John Turnacliff, chairman of the Marin County Republicans, said he still thinks more should to be done to ensure voter rolls are accurate, and indicated that he and his group would continue their probe.

At a Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting last week, Turnacliff apologized for his dead-voter claims. SFGATE was first to report on his apology.

“I’m here today to retract that statement I made a few months ago as far as those voters being on the roll,” he said at the meeting. “I did not find them. I apologize to the Board of Supervisors and to the registrar’s office and to the registrar for any angst and consternation that could have put on you since then.”

When the county supervisors met on Feb. 10, he claimed that Marin Republicans found that 73 dead people voted in the Nov. 4 Proposition 50 special election following a ballot analysis. The proposition, which passed by a wide margin, takes effect in January and redraws California’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.

Turnacliff then called on Natalie Adona, the county’s registrar of voters, to investigate.

“In summary, dead people are voting in Marin County, and we would like to know why,” he said at the meeting.

The county voluntarily reviewed the list of names provided to them by the Marin Republicans, according to reporting by SFGATE; the registrar found that there were up to five deceased people in the list, but there was no record of votes in their names following their deaths.

Following the county’s investigation, Turnacliff checked his work. He bought subscriptions to Ancestry.com and another personal information database. As he looked up the names on his group’s list, he realized that many were in fact alive.

“I jumped the gun,” he told The Times on Wednesday, referring to his “dead people” list. “I just thought, if I was wrong, I should admit it.”

He publicly apologized because he wanted to take the “aggressive high road,” and because he does not want to have an adversarial relationship with the registrar and her office, since he intends to work with them in the future and plans to observe future vote counts, he said.

He’s been praised for his admitting he was wrong, but some people have incorrectly interpreted the apology as an admission that voter fraud doesn’t exist, he said.

Turnacliff, who works in equipment leasing, began digging into Marin County voter rolls after the 2020 election, which he described as “not right,” echoing claims touted by Trump and beliefs held by many Republicans. “It comes from the heart. … There’s no political agenda,” Turnacliff said of his intentions.

He later added, in an email, that his group planned to keep investigating “other irregularities.”

“The next time I speak about election irregularities, I will have bulletproof evidence,” he said in the email.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday forcefully rejected calls to slow the development of artificial intelligence, dismissing concerns about its risks as a “hoax” and warning the United States remains locked in a fierce technological race with China.

The president’s position has put him at odds with a growing chorus of industry leaders and bipartisan lawmakers warning that AI could soon advance beyond human control.

Top executives from three of the country’s leading AI companies — OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and SpaceXAI’s Elon Musk — issued exceptional calls this past weekend for collaboration on a path forward that could “pace the frontier” of AI development.

Rare flashes of bipartisanship have also emerged on Capitol Hill, where Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican, is working with Democrats on legislation aimed at guarding against AI’s most catastrophic risks, including its potential use to develop biological weapons.

And Democratic elders, including former President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have urged their party to treat the threats posed by AI as an acute national security crisis.

But Trump remained steadfast in his pushback, blaming the political backlash on a “conspiracy” perpetuated by China, the only major competitor in the field.

“AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX,” Trump wrote in a series of social media posts. “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!”

The Trump administration, the president continued, “has stopped AI ‘people’ from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,’ like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a ‘perfect little angel’ — and we will continue to do so! We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies!”

Calls for action have grown since a former researcher at Anthropic posted a dire alert on social media that AI development could lead to an extinction-level event. His message went viral, prompting Amodei, the founder of Anthropic, to issue a public letter calling for a slowdown.

Altman said he agreed with Amodei, announcing the company would delay its initial public offering until 2027 over safety concerns. In July, OpenAI discovered a swarm of rogue AI agents had secretly plotted to escape their virtual sandbox, infiltrating the open internet and hacking a private company — a spectacular omen of how quickly AI systems could become difficult to contain.

“Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet, potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage,” Amodei wrote over the weekend, “and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.”

Still, Trump and several of his Republican allies rejected the prospect of government regulation — or cast doubt on Altman and Amodei’s motives.

The Defense Department posted a graphic on X promoting “AI-First,” and stating the government would advocate “Americanism, not effective altruism.” The image appeared generated by artificial intelligence.

“If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible,” David Sacks, Trump’s former AI czar now serving as co-chair of the president’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, wrote on X. “But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability.”

“Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic,” Sacks added. “You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack.”

Regardless of the companies’ motives, Democrats are seizing the moment as an opportunity to pursue meaningful regulatory reforms.

At a Thursday fundraiser with Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, Obama said AI should move to the center of the Democratic agenda, both in Congress and on the campaign trail ahead of the 2028 presidential primary.

“I would strongly urge that the Democrats put together a framework for a very public conversation,” Obama said. “This is something that is moving very fast in private hands, and if we don’t get on top of it, I think can be dangerous.”

The following day, Clinton said AI was becoming “too dangerous” for partisanship to paralyze Washington.

“The one good thing that Donald Trump did in his first term was Warp Speed,” Clinton said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” referring to a federal program in Trump’s first term to expedite the development of a vaccine for COVID-19. “Let’s put an AI commission on warp speed, and figure out what we’re going to do to sensibly regulate.”

AI leaders “are basically saying, ‘Stop us before something really bad happens,’” Clinton continued. “‘Help us stop.’ The president of China is coming to the White house in two weeks. There should be a concerted effort by this government to get off of the lies, get off of social media, quit worrying about ballrooms and ridiculous arches, and come up with a plan to enlist the Chinese.”

But China’s rapid progress in AI has so far pushed Trump to let U.S. industry move ahead with few constraints.

China’s spy chief issued a rare warning Monday that AI development could risk the future of Chinese Communist Party control over the country. But China’s foreign ministry responded defensively to the U.S. debate. “Fearmongering, confrontation and vicious competition will only disrupt the process of global AI governance which serves no one’s interest,” a spokesperson said.

Leading AI companies in the United States have begun using their most advanced models to train new ones, in a process known as recursive self-improvement. Within the industry, experts and researchers believe the first AI company to master recursive self-improvement will kick off exponential development, “winning” the race by making it impossible for competitors to catch up.

But that achievement — reaching endless intelligence improvements, generated by machines — could also drive intelligence growth beyond human control.

“There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China,” Trump wrote Monday. “WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!”

In the U.S. House, strange bedfellows from the Republican and Democratic parties, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), have come together to try to tackle legislation that might contain AI’s greatest dangers. One bill, introduced by Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), proposes embedding independent government auditors in AI labs and installing a federal “kill switch” to shut down agents in case of emergencies.

But it is far from clear whether Rep. Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House and a close Trump ally, would allow any such bill to come to the floor.

“We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overlap us, and that’s the challenge,” Johnson said Sunday. “It’s national security balanced with the immediate security of making sure the models are safe.”

“We need to handle this new technology like we have others in the past and make sure we’re doing everything we can responsibly to also not smother American innovation,” Johnson added. “We have to do both things simultaneously.”