Kamala Harris

Oct. 26 (UPI) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom confirmed Sunday that he is considering a bid for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.

Newsom, among President Donald Trump‘s most strident critics, said during an interview that aired on “CBS News Sunday Morning,” that he is likely to make his decision following the 2026 midterm elections.

“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” he said. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

Newsom’s current term expires in January 2027, and term limits prevent him from seeking another term as governor, which would clear the way for him to seek the presidential nomination.

“Fate will determine that,” Newsom continued, when asked about his plans to seek his party’s presidential nomination.

Newsom, 58, has made repeated trips to politically sensitive battleground states, including a visit in July to South Carolina, which is currently scheduled to hold the nation’s first 2028 presidential primary.

He met with party leaders and shook hands in local coffee shops, grass roots style, and even went behind the counter to serve espresso to customers, typical of would-be candidates measuring sentiment among likely voters even years before a key election.

“I happen to, and thank God, I’m in the right business,” he said during the interview when discussing his South Carolina trip. “I love people. I actually love people.”

Newsom said he is currently focused on promoting Proposition 50, a California ballot initiative that would allow Democrats in the state to temporarily redraw congressional district boundary lines, which would make them more favorable to his party.

The fate of the measure is scheduled to be decided in a special election this week.

Supporters have said the proposition is in response to efforts by states such as Texas, which has pushed to change district maps to be more favorable to GOP candidates, and increasing their odds of holding on to their slim majorities in the U.S. House.

Former presidential candidate Kamala Harris, another California resident, has also said she is considering another run for the White House.

Harris, a longtime politician whose ties run deep in progressive California politics, said in an interview with the BBC that she has more to offer.

“I am not done,” Harris said. “I have lived my entire career as a life of service and it’s in my bones.”

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who was the Biden administration’s ambassador to Japan, reportedly is also considering a run for the Democratic nomination.

WASHINGTON — Kamala Harris isn’t ruling out another run for the White House.

In an interview with the BBC posted Saturday, Harris said she expects a woman will be president in the coming years, and it could “possibly” be her.

“I am not done,” she said.

The former vice president said she hasn’t decided whether to mount a 2028 presidential campaign. But she dismissed the suggestion that she’d face long odds.

“I have lived my entire career a life of service, and it’s in my bones. And there are many ways to serve,” she said. “I’ve never listened to polls.”

Harris has recently given a series of interviews accompanying the September release of her book “107 Days.” It looks back on her experience replacing then-President Biden as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee after he dropped out of the race, in an election she lost to Republican Donald Trump.

In an interview with the Associated Press this month, Harris, 60, also made clear that running again in 2028 is still on the table. She said she sees herself as a leader of the party, including in countering Trump and preparing for the 2026 midterms.

Meanwhile, political jockeying among Democrats for the 2028 presidential contest appears to be playing out even earlier than usual.

Several potential candidates are already taking steps to get to know voters in key states, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Potentially 30 high-profile Democrats could ultimately enter the primary.

Oct. 3 (UPI) — The government shutdown continues into Monday afternoon after the Senate failed to approve one of two proposed temporary funding measures on Friday.

The Senate voted 54-44 on a Republican-sponsored and House-approved continuing resolution that would have funded the federal government for another seven weeks while negotiating a budget for the 2026 fiscal year that started on Wednesday.

The measure needs at least 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster and go to President Donald Trump for signing.

A counterproposal by Senate Democrats that would fund the federal government through the end of October but would add $1.5 trillion in spending and was defeated by a 46-52 vote.

The Senate convened at 11:30 a.m. EDT and adjourned at 3:57 p.m. following the defeat of the two temporary funding proposals.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., earlier said the government could reopen as soon as a funding bill is passed, but the Senate won’t reconvene until 3 p.m. on Monday.

Thune briefly discussed matters with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during Friday’s floor votes but said he likely would have more success by meeting with others in the Senate Democrats’ caucus, CBS News reported.

Many senators were hopeful of reaching an agreement to end the legislative impasse and reopen the government, but Schumer urged his colleagues to oppose the House resolution, according to The Hill.

The GOP reportedly is willing to extend tax credits for the Affordable Care Act after they expired on Tuesday.

With the GOP controlling 53 Senate seats, it would need support from all Republican Senators and seven more from the Democratic Caucus to approve the House-approved measure, but Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has been the lone dissenting Republican vote.

Thune earlier said the Senate will adjourn until Monday if the Senate does not approve one of the funding resolutions, which would extend the federal government through the weekend.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has halted $2.1 billion in federal funding for public transportation infrastructure in Chicago and $18 billion for projects in New York City.

The Trump administration also canceled $7.5 billion in funding for energy projects in states carried by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the Nov. 5 election.

President Donald Trump said his administration also will determine which federal agencies will be defunded and possibly eliminated.

Oct. 3 (UPI) — The President Donald Trump administration is withholding billions of dollars in funding from Chicago and New York transportation infrastructure funding.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought announced on X that $2.1 billion was being frozen that had been allocated to Chicago for its Red and Purple (train lines) Modernization Project “to ensure funding is not flowing via race-based contracting.”

The U.S. Department of Transportation Friday morning said, “This week, USDOT issued an interim final rule barring race- and sex-based contracting requirements from federal grants.”

“To continue implementation of this rule, USDOT today sent letters to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to inform them that two projects – the CTA Red Line Extension and the CTA Red and Purple Modernization Program – are also under administrative review to determine whether any unconstitutional practices are occurring,” the DOT said. “The remaining federal funding for both projects total $2.1 billion.”

Vought also announced Wednesday that the administration is freezing about $18 billion for infrastructure in New York City. The Hudson Tunnel Project is the main project suffering a funding freeze. The project helps connect New Jersey and New York, and the Second Avenue subway.

Later, the administration announced it was canceling $7.5 billion in funding for energy projects in states that voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

On Thursday, Trump said on Truth Social that he would meet with Vought to determine which “Democrat agencies” to cut.

“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump wrote.

Sept. 29 (UPI) — YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5 million, toward the construction of a new White House ballroom, to settle a lawsuit by President Donald Trump for suspending his channel in 2021 following the Jan. 6, riots.

The online video platform, owned by Alphabet, will pay $22 million from the settlement to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, which is “dedicated to restoring, preserving and elevating the National Mall, to support the construction of the White House State Ballroom,” according to court documents. The ballroom is estimated to cost $200 million, according to the White House.

The other $2.5 million from YouTube’s settlement will go to other plaintiffs, including the nonprofit American Conservative Union.

YouTube is the third tech platform to settle with Trump, who also settled with Meta and Twitter for banning his accounts in 2021. Trump settled with Meta for $25 million and with Twitter, renamed X, for $10 million.

All three platforms claimed Trump’s posts after the U.S. Capitol riots risked inciting further violence. Trump said the suspensions amounted to censorship. All of his accounts were reinstated after tech leaders took a more supportive stance, with Elon Musk of X, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Alphabet chief executive officer Sundar Pichai attending Trump’s inauguration in January.

Trump also has received settlements from media outlets, including CBS and ABC News. ABC and Disney settled with the president for $15 million toward his future presidential library after he accused the network and anchor George Stephanopoulous of defamation. And Paramount Global paid out $16 million for CBS’ editing of a Kamala Harris interview on “60 Minutes.”

Last week, YouTube said it would reinstate a number of banned accounts, which had violated the channel’s now defunct rules about posting misinformation about COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

YouTube “values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse,” the platform said.

Democrats, despite their hypersensitive, bleeding-heart reputation, can be harsh. Ruthless, even.

When it comes to picking their presidential nominee, it’s often one and done. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry were embraced and then, after leading their party to disappointing defeat, cast off like so many wads of wet tissue.

Compare that with Republicans, who not only believe in second chances but, more often than not, seem to prefer their presidential candidates recycled. Over the last half century, all but a few of the GOP’s nominees have had at least one failed White House bid on their resume.

The roster of retreads includes the current occupant of the Oval Office, who is only the second president in U.S. history to regain the perch after losing it four years prior.

Why the difference? It would take a psychologist or geneticist to determine if there’s something in the minds or molecular makeup of party faithful, which could explain their varied treatment of those humbled and vanquished.

Regardless, it suggests the blowback facing Kamala Harris and the campaign diary she published last week is happening right on cue.

And it doesn’t portend well for another try at the White House in 2028, should the former vice president and U.S. senator from California pursue that path.

The criticism has come in assorted flavors.

Joe Biden loyalists — many of whom were never great fans of Harris — have bristled at her relatively mild criticisms of the obviously aged and physically declining president. (She leaves it to her husband, former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, to vent about the “impossible, s— jobs” Harris was given and, in spite of that, the failure of the president and first lady to defend Harris during her low points.)

The notable lack of self-blame has rankled other Democrats. Aside from some couldas and shouldas, Harris largely ascribes her defeat to insufficient time to make her case to voters — just 107 days, the title of her book — which hardly sits well with those who feel Harris squandered the time she did have.

More generally, some Democrats fault the former vice president for resurfacing, period, rather than slinking off and disappearing forever into some deep, dark hole. It’s a familiar gripe each time the party struggles to move past a presidential defeat; Hillary Clinton faced a similar backlash when she published her inside account after losing to Donald Trump in 2016.

That critique assumes great masses of voters devour campaign memoirs with the same voracious appetite as those who surrender their Sundays to the Beltway chat shows, or mainline political news like a continuous IV drip.

They do not.

Let the record show Democrats won the White House in 2020 even though Clinton bobbed back up in 2017 and, for a short while, thwarted the party’s fervent desire to “turn the page.”

But there are those avid consumers of campaigns and elections, and for the political fiends among us Harris offers plenty of fizz, much of it involving her party peers and prospective 2028 rivals.

Pete Buttigieg, the meteoric star of the 2020 campaign, was her heartfelt choice for vice president, but Harris said she feared the combination of a Black woman and gay running mate would exceed the load-bearing capacity of the electorate. (News to me, Buttigieg said after Harris revealed her thinking, and an underestimation of the American people.)

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the runner-up to Harris’ ultimate vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, comes across as unseemly salivating and greedily lusting after the job. (He fired back by suggesting Harris has some splainin’ to do about what she knew of Biden’s infirmities and when she knew it.)

Harris implies Govs. JB Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer of Illinois and Michigan, respectively, were insufficiently gung-ho after Biden stepped aside and she became the Democratic nominee-in-waiting.

But for California readers, the most toothsome morsel involves Harris’ longtime frenemy, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The two, who rose to political power in the early 2000s on parallel tracks in San Francisco, have long had a complicated relationship, mixing mutual aid with jealousy and jostling.

In her book, Harris recounts the hours after Biden’s sudden withdrawal, when she began telephoning top Democrats around the country to lock in their support. In contrast to the enthusiasm many displayed, Newsom responded tersely with a text message: “Hiking. Will call back.”

He never did, Harris noted, pointedly, though Newsom did issue a full-throated endorsement within hours, which the former vice president failed to mention.

It’s small-bore stuff. But the fact Harris chose to include that anecdote speaks to the tetchiness underlying the warmth and fuzziness that California’s two most prominent Democrats put on public display.

Will the two face off in 2028?

Riding the promotional circuit, Harris has repeatedly sidestepped the inevitable questions about another presidential bid.

“That’s not my focus right now,” she told Rachel Maddow, in a standard-issue non-denial denial. For his part, Newsom is obviously running, though he won’t say so.

There would be something operatic, or at least soap-operatic, about the two longtime competitors openly vying for the country’s ultimate political prize — though it’s hard to see Democrats, with their persistent hunger for novelty, turning to Harris or her left-coast political doppelganger as their savior.

Meantime, the two are back on parallel tracks, though seemingly headed in opposite directions.

While Newsom is looking to build Democratic bridges, Harris is burning hers down.

When the 49th Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris called, Scott Evans, the host of the YouTube interview show “House Guest,” answered in disbelief.

“I was literally gobsmacked,” Evans tells The Times. “I wanted to make sure she felt the love and that we were ready to discuss anything she wanted.”

In its short-lived history, the Webby Award-winning, self-funded show has welcomed comedian Leslie Jones, Oscar winner Regina King and actor Keke Palmer. On Thursday, Evans entertained a guest with secret service stature.

During her visit, Harris discusses her book “107 Days,” which entails her experience as a presidential candidate during the 2024 election. She revealed to Evans he was the first person she discussed the book with outside of her team.

The housewarming vibes set the tone for a conversation that allowed Harris to speak with comfort and embrace emojis, a delicacy she had been without during her time in the White House.

Harris and Evans talking on “House Guest.”

(Ryan Handford)

As they discussed her book, Evans and Harris shared a cheese and anchovies pizza. The host made the choice to commemorate the day she found out President Joe Biden was going to drop out of the race for the house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

“The first day you found out that Joe Biden was not going to be running for reelection and that you got the go-ahead,” Evans said, “cheese pizza with anchovies is where you went.”

Harris reveals she found out Biden was going to drop out of the presidential race while playing with her niece’s daughters. She was in her sweatpants, with her hair in a ponytail, when the unexpected call went through.

“This is really happening and the only people staffing me are both under 4 feet tall,” Harris said. “My little baby nieces … firsthand witnesses to history.”

She recalls her team coming together immediately and turning her dining table from a breakfast setting to business. Work for her campaign began and as the day elongated and dinner time passed, they ordered pizza, including one with cheese and anchovies.

In her book, Harris calls the day she certified the election one of the hardest things she’s ever had to do. As vice president and president of the senate, it was her responsibility to confirm the election on Jan. 6, a date in infamy after the insurrection that took place on the same date in 2021. Evans asked her if there was ever a moment in which she didn’t want to take the high road.

“It was nonnegotiable in my mind that I would stand there and give it the process, the dignity that it deserves of showing what leadership should be about, which is a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris said.

“I was not going to let them, in any way, compromise every reason that I ran for president, which is that I do believe in the importance of the rule of law,” she added.

After conceding the election, Harris tells Evans she grieved and experienced emotions that resembled those she felt when her mother died.

“I choose not to allow circumstances or individuals disempower my spirit,” she added as an emotional Evans added: “If you can say that, if you can really believe that, then there are so many others of us who can feel confident in that as well.”

Sept. 24 (UPI) — The FCC is prohibited from influencing network content but Chairman Brendan Carr and President Donald Trump have used pressure campaigns on ABC and others to test those limits.

The Trump administration’s attempt to push Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air worked, briefly. While consumer backlash convinced Disney and ABC to reverse course, the alarm has been sounded over the weaponization of federal authority to suppress free speech.

Kimmel returned to ABC on Tuesday, lamenting the importance of standing up for free speech in his opening monologue, calling attempts to take shows like his off the air for sharing dissenting opinions “un-American.”

“Ten years ago this sounded crazy: Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, telling an American company ‘We can do this the easy way or the hard way,’ and ‘These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,'” Kimmel said. “In addition to being a direct violation of the First Amendment, it is not a particularly intelligent threat to be made in public.”

Section 326 of the Communications Act states that the commission cannot interfere with the right to exercise free speech.

Former FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler, who served during the Obama administration, told UPI Carr is bringing the commission into “uncharted territory.”

“The FCC is approaching 100 years old,” Wheeler said. “Over that period, one of its primary purposes has been to make sure when it comes to broadcasters using the people’s airwaves that there is a diversity of voices and a diversity of ownership.”

“That’s something that has held true until today, when we see the chairman of the FCC attempting to influence what people hear and we hear the president of the United States saying that he wants to consider yanking the broadcast licenses for those who don’t agree with him,” he continued.

One of the FCC’s chief responsibilities is licensing. It is responsible for ensuring that licenses are distributed and used in the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. The statute does not go on to define what public interest means, leaving it up to the heads of the FCC to determine this over the years.

Throughout its history, according to Wheeler, FCC chairmen have taken seriously the importance of fulfilling their duties in a neutral and independent way.

The FCC operations manual refers to Section 326 of the Communications Act and the First Amendment, stating that both “expressly prohibit the commission from censoring broadcast matter. Our role in overseeing program content is very limited.”

“Those are pretty explicit,” Wheeler said of the First Amendment and Section 326. “The public interest definition ought to presumably fall within the four corners of those kinds of descriptions.”

The FCC’s role in overseeing content may be limited, as its manual acknowledges, but it still has influence.

Networks are required to renew their licenses every eight years. This applies to all networks, including major networks like ABC and local companies.

The FCC must also approve the transfer of licenses when companies merge. For example, when Disney bought ABC, the ownership of its licenses needed to reflect this transfer of ownership. This is also true for companies like Sinclair and Nexstar purchasing local networks.

Nexstar has an agreement in place to purchase Tegna for $6.2 billion. If the deal is approved, Nexstar would own 265 stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia, including 132 of the top 210 TV markets in the country, expanding its reach to 80% of U.S. households.

The FCC has a 39% cap on how many households a network group can reach. It is called the National Television Ownership rule and its purpose is to maintain diversity, competition and localism by preventing a small number of companies from controlling the airwaves.

In June, the FCC Media Bureau filed a public notice that it seeks new public comments to refresh the record on television network ownership rules. It is looking for input on whether it should retain, modify or eliminate the 39% cap on network ownership. It last did this in 2017.

“The FCC has an economic lever over those that it regulates,” Wheeler said. “There’s economic leverage that Brendan Carr has been very successful in playing up.”

Nexstar owns 32 ABC affiliate networks and Sinclair owns more than 30. Both announced Tuesday that they will not air Jimmy Kimmel Live! despite ABC electing to bring it back.

The licenses held by networks permit them to use the public’s airwaves to broadcast content. It does not give them ownership of those airwaves. They belong to the public.

The licensing renewal process is usually straightforward and without much controversy, Gigi Sohn, Benton Institute senior fellow and public advocate, told UPI.

“Throughout almost the entire history of the FCC there has been one time and one time only that the FCC has denied a license renewal based on the content of programming,” Sohn said. “That was in the ’60s when a Mississippi radio and TV station refused to run any news program or any program of any kind about the Civil Rights movement and instead ran racist programming.”

Sohn added that the FCC, in that instance, did not tell the station it could not run one program and had to run another or had to change how it edited its programs. Instead, it determined the station was not serving the public interest because it was not giving its audience access to all the information related to the stories it was broadcasting.

“That is something that the FCC has the right to do when it looks at the overall programming of a broadcaster,” Sohn said. “What it doesn’t have the right to do is bully a network — into dropping one program because he made a joke about, not even about the president, not about Charlie Kirk, but about the way the president’s followers were reacting to the Kirk murder.”

After Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on his late-night show about the late Charlie Kirk, the FCC chairman threatened to take action against ABC and parent company Disney. Media companies Nexstar and Sinclair quickly followed with statements that were critical of Kimmel’s comments.

Within hours of Carr’s threats, ABC announced Jimmy Kimmel Live! would be preempted indefinitely.

According to Sohn and Wheeler, Carr wielded his regulatory power in this instance to influence ABC to remove Kimmel’s show from the airwaves due to his longtime criticism of the president. They add that it is not the first time Carr has done something like this since becoming chairman earlier this year.

A pending merger between Skydance and Paramount remained under scrutiny by Carr and the FCC for months before being approved in July. During the hold up, Carr investigated CBS News over its editorial decisions.

Trump meanwhile had an open lawsuit against CBS, seeking $20 billion over allegations that 60 Minutes edited an interview with former presidential candidate Kamala Harris in a way that was favorable to her and her candidacy. On July 2, it was reported that Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, settled with Trump for $16 million.

The FCC approved the Skydance-Paramount merger on July 24. As conditions of the merger, Skydance agreed to Carr’s demands that the company will end or not establish any diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

It also agreed to hire an ombudsman to oversee CBS News editorial decisions. The ombudsman, Kenneth Weinstein, is the former president and CEO of conservative think tank the Hudson Institute.

Harold Feld, senior vice president of Public Knowledge, told UPI a bad precedent is being set by networks like ABC and CBS as they give into pressure from the FCC and the president.

“Not only does it show the administration that these guys are going to cave and therefore we can keep pushing them, but it also means we won’t get coverage when the administration does this to other companies,” Feld said. “If the news has been cowed into submission it means the administration is free to do this to anyone and nobody will find out about it.”

Former FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a statement after the suspension of Kimmel’s program was reinstated.

“As this FCC considers steps that would let the same billion-dollar media conglomerates that caved in to government pressure grow even bigger, we must combat these efforts to stifle free expression,” Gomez said.

.

Sept. 24 (UPI) — Republican Jason Dickerson won a runoff in the special election for a Georgia state Senate seat, but Debra Shigley fared better than fellow Democrats did in the 2024 election in the highly red district.

Dickerson won 61% of the vote compared to Shigley’s 39% in Tuesday’s election in District 21 just north of Atlanta, The Washington Post reported. In the 2024 presidential election, President Donald Trump won with 67% of votes and former Vice President Kamala Harris won 33%.

The District 21 state Senate seat was left vacant in March after Trump tapped then-state Sen. Brandon Beach to serve as U.S. treasurer. The district comprises parts of Fulton and Cherokee Counties.

Shigley won the August general election for the seat with 40% of the vote. At that time, though, she faced a crowded ballot of six Republican candidates, The Hill reported. During that election, Dickerson received 17% of the vote, but since neither won an outright majority of votes, it forced a runoff.

Despite Shigley’s win in August, District 21 was largely expected to remain red.

Sept. 19 (UPI) — A $15 billion lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the New York Times was rejected by a federal judge Friday.

Judge Steven Merryday in Tampa, Fla., said Trump’s lengthy lawsuit had too much praise for the president and “superfluous allegations.”

Merryday said Trump’s two civil allegations against the newspaper are only mentioned in the last few pages of the 85-page complaint. The other pages are full of complaints about his political enemies and boasting of his accomplishments.

Merryday gave Trump 28 days to file another version of the lawsuit.

“As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective — not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” Merryday wrote. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”

“This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner,” the judge wrote.

The Times company wrote in a statement when Trump’s lawsuit was filed that his complaint is “without merit.” Times executive editor Joe Kahn on Thursday said he was confident the paper would win.

“He’s wrong on the facts; he’s wrong on the law. And we’ll fight it, and we’ll win,” Kahn said at an Axios Media Trends Live event Thursday. He said he did not see a scenario in which the Times would settle with the president.

When he filed the suit on Monday, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to accuse the newspaper of being a “virtual mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democratic Party,” but did not give details of the alleged falsehoods.

The action for damages amounting to more than the full market capitalization of The New York Times Company, was, Trump said, motivated by an imperative to “restore integrity to journalism.”

“The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” Trump said.

He also criticized the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris for president in the 2024 election.

Experts have said it was another instance of a strategy of using lawsuits of doubtful legality to gag critical voices and suppress free speech.

Trump has won multi-million dollar settlements from ABC News and CBS News, in December and July, respectively, prompting groups representing the journalism industry to warn that opting to settle out of court was only fueling Trump’s “lawfare.”

Addressing the Reporters & Editors 50th anniversary gala in New York on Monday, before the latest suit was filed, Times publisher AG Sulzberger warned of a growing so-called “anti-press playbook” trend among “aspiring strongmen” globally of leveraging civil law to exert financial pressure on media.

From the outside looking in, Gov. Gavin Newsom unofficially announced he was running for president on Thursday, March 30, 2023, the day he transferred $10 million from his state campaign funds to launch his PAC, Campaign for Democracy, along with a nationwide tour. Newsom unofficially suspended his campaign a month later, on April 25, the day President Biden announced he was seeking reelection.

This timeline is important when it comes to talking about Kamala Harris. Newsom, like Harris, has been in the wings for years as part of the next generation of Democratic national leaders — and, like Harris, he was ready for the spotlight when Biden decided to stick around instead.

The title of Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” is in reference to the amount of time she had to launch a campaign, write policy, secure the nomination and fundraise after Biden bowed out in the summer of 2024. An excerpt from the memoir titled “The Constant Battle” was published this week in the Atlantic. In it, Harris suggests some of the foes she was battling during her time in the White House were Biden loyalists who did not want to see her succeed as vice president.

It’s a rather scathing critique given the stakes of the 2024 election. The excerpt in its entirety is an uncomfortable glimpse into one of the most chaotic moments in American politics. Unsurprisingly there have already been reports of pushback from former Biden aides with one being quoted as saying: “No one wants to hear your pity party.”

Which is why it is important to remember the timeline.

In March 2020, while campaigning in Detroit, a 77-year-old Biden stood next to Harris, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and told his party that he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else,” adding: “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.” Recognizing his age was a concern for voters back then, the message Biden sent that day suggested he was running for only one term.

And then more than three years later, Biden changed his mind and his message. In doing so, he did not just go back on a campaign promise, he prevented the future of his party — like Newsom, Whitmer, Booker and Harris — from making a case for themselves in a normal primary.

That’s why the book is called “107 Days.” That’s how much time he gave his would-be successor to win the presidency.

Biden was a tremendous public servant whose leadership steered this nation out of a dark time. He also was conspicuously old when he ran for president and considered a short-timer. The first woman to be elected vice president didn’t decide to run for the top job at the last minute. But Biden went back on his word in 2023 and drained all the energy out of his party. It was only after the disastrous debate performance of June 2024 that the whispers inside the Beltway about his ability to win finally became screams.

“Joe was already polling badly on the age issue, with roughly 75 percent of voters saying he was too old to be an effective president,” Harris writes. “Then he started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.”

That’s not slander against Biden; that’s the timeline. It may not be what some progressives want to read, but that does not mean the message or messenger is wrong.

Legend has it James Carville, key strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, once went to a white board at the campaign’s headquarters in Arkansas and wrote three key messaging points for staffers. The catchiness and humor of one, “the economy, stupid,” elevated it above the other two: “change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” Clinton’s victory would later cement “the economy, stupid” as one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring political quips — which is really too bad.

Because the whole point of Carville going to the white board in the first place wasn’t to come up with a memorable zinger, it was to remind staffers to stay on the course. The Democrats’ 2024 chances were endangered the day Biden changed direction by running for reelection, not when he stepped aside and Harris stood in the gap.

That’s not to suggest her campaign did everything right or Biden staying in for as long as he did was totally wrong. But there’s a lot to learn right now. Democrats are extremely unpopular. Perhaps instead of dismissing the account of the party’s most recent nominee, former Biden aides and other progressives should take in as much information as they possibly can and consider it constructive feedback.

In 2020, Biden had one message. In 2023, it was the opposite. I’m sure there are things to blame Harris for. Losing the 2024 election isn’t one of them.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Los Angeles police Metropolitan Division officers, meant to be working crime-suppression assignments in hard-hit areas of the city, are instead providing security for former Vice President Kamala Harris, sources told The Times.

The department is “assisting the California Highway Patrol in providing protective services for former Vice President Kamala Harris until an alternate plan is established,” said Jennifer Forkish, L.A. police communications director. “This temporary coordinated effort is in place to ensure that there is no lapse in security.”

A dozen or more officers have begun working a detail to protect Harris after President Trump revoked her Secret Service protection as of Monday. Sources not authorized to discuss the details of the plan said the city would fund the security but that the arrangement was expected to be brief, with Harris hiring her own security in the near future.

Trump ended an arrangement that had extended Harris’ security coverage beyond the six months that vice presidents are usually provided after leaving office. California officials then put into place a plan for the California Highway Patrol to provide dignitary protection for Harris. At some point, the LAPD was added to the plan, according to the sources, as California law enforcement scrambled to take over from the Secret Service on Monday.

A security detail was captured outside Harris’ Brentwood home by a FOX 11 helicopter as the station broke the story of the use of L.A. police.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers, criticized the move.

“Pulling police officers from protecting everyday Angelenos to protect a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes and who can easily afford to pay for her own security, is nuts,” its board of directors said in a statement to The Times. Mayor Karen Bass “should tell Governor Newsom that if he wants to curry favor with Ms. Harris and her donor base, then he should open up his own wallet because LA taxpayers should not be footing the bill for this ridiculousness.”

Newsom, who would need to sign off on CHP protection, has not confirmed the arrangement to The Times. Izzy Gordon, a spokesperson for Newsom, simply said, “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”

Newsom’s office and Bass’ office had discussions last week on how best to address the situation, according to sources not authorized to talk about the details.

Bass, in a statement last week, commented on Trump scrapping the security detail for Harris, saying, “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances, and more. This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”

Her office did not respond to comment on the LAPD deployment on Thursday.

Two law enforcement sources told The Times that the Metro officers had been slated to go to the San Fernando Valley for crime-suppression work before their assignment changed.

Deploying LAPD officers to protect Harris was a source of controversy within the department in years past.

During L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck’s tenure, when Harris was a U.S. senator, plainclothes officers served as security and traveled with her from January 2017 to July 2018. It was an arrangement that then-Mayor Eric Garcetti said he was unaware of until Beck’s successor ended it. Beck said at the time through a spokesman that the protection was granted based on a threat assessment.

Beck’s successor, Michel Moore, ended the protection in July 2018 after he said a new evaluation determined it was no longer needed. The decision came as The Times filed a lawsuit seeking records from Garcetti detailing the costs of security related to his own extensive travel.

Trump signed a memorandum on Thursday ending Harris’ protection as of Monday, according to sources not authorized to discuss the security matter.

Former vice presidents usually get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, while former presidents are given protection for life. But before his term ended, then-President Biden signed an order to extend Harris’ protection beyond six months, to July 2026. Aides to Harris had asked Biden for the extension. Without it, her security detail would have ended last month, according to sources.

The Secret Service, the CHP and Los Angeles police do not discuss details of dignitary protection in terms of deployment, numbers, or travel teams. CNN first reported the removal of Harris’ protection detail.

The curtailing of Secret Service protection comes as Harris is about to begin a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, which include visits to London and Toronto. The book title references the short length of her presidential campaign. The tour begins next month.

Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president, was the subject of an elevated threat level — particularly when she became the Democratic presidential contender last year. The Associated Press reports, however, a recent threat intelligence assessment by the Secret Service conducted on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president.

Aug. 30 (UPI) — The California Highway Patrol reportedly will provide security protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris after she lost her Secret Service protection on Thursday.

California officials on Friday bestowed dignitary status on Harris, who has been a private citizen since leaving office on Jan. 19, and will provide her with security protection instead of the Secret Service, The Los Angeles Times reported.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom must sign off on CHP-provided security protection for Harris, but his office declined to comment on the matter.

“Our office does not comment on security arrangements,” Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gordon told The Los Angeles Times.

Harris lives in Los Angeles and has a pending 15-city book tour that starts in New York City on Sept. 24, according to USA Today.

The book tour is scheduled to last for 107 days, which would have required advance Secret Service work if Harris’ protection were to continue.

Outgoing vice presidents receive Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, but President Joe Biden extended Harris’protection beyond six months upon a request from her aides.

Harris continued benefiting from the protection until President Donald Trump ended it as of Monday via a signed memorandum on Thursday.

The president also had ended Secret Service protection for his adult children, Hunter and Ashley Biden, after their father extended the protection to them through July.

Hunter Biden recently traveled to South Africa with his Secret Service team, The Washington Post reported.

Only former presidents and first ladies receive lifetime Secret Service protection in accordance with federal law.

Ending Harris’ extended protection also ends all extended protections provided by the former president just before Biden left office in January.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris will receive protection from the California Highway Patrol after President Donald Trump revoked her Secret Service protection, law enforcement sources said Friday.

California officials put in place a plan to provide Harris with dignitary protection after President Trump ended an arrangement that gave his opponent in last year’s election extended Secret Service security coverage.

Trump signed a memorandum on Thursday ending Harris’s protection as of Monday, according to sources not authorized to discuss the security matter.

Former vice presidents usually get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, while ex-presidents get protection for life. But before his term ended, then-President Joe Biden signed an order to extend Harris’s protection beyond six months to July 2026. Aides to Harris had asked Biden for the extension. Without it, her security detail would have ended last month, according to sources.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would need to sign off on such CHP protection, would not confirm the arrangement. “Our office does not comment on security arrangements,” said Izzy Gordon, a spokeswoman for Newsom. “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”

The decision came after Newsom’s office and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were in discussions Thursday evening on how best to address the situation. Harris resides in the western portion of Los Angeles.

Bass in a statement, said “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more. This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”

The Secret Service, CHP and LAPD don’t discuss details of dignity protection in terms of deployment, numbers, and travel teams. CNN first reported the removal of Harris’s protection detail. Sources familiar with Harris’ security arrangements would not say how long the CHP would provide protection.

The curtailing of Secret Service protection comes as Harris is about to begin a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, which include visits to London and Toronto. The book, title references the short length of her presidential campaign. The tour begins next month.

Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president was the subject of an elevated threat level — particularly when she became the Democratic presidential contender last year. The Associated Press reports, however, a recent threat intelligence assessment by the Secret Service conducted on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president.

During his second term, President Trump stripped Secret Service protection from several one-time allies turned critics, including his former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, both of whom have been targeted by Iran. In March, he ended Secret Service protection for former President Biden’s children — Hunter and Ashley Biden — who both had been granted extended protection by their father.

Harris’ predecessor, Vice President Mike Pence, did not have extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Harris, a former senator, state attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, announced earlier this year she won’t seek to run for California governor in 2026.

During last year’s campaign, Trump faced two assassination attempts, including the July 2024 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a Secret Service counter sniper shot a gunman dead after he fired eight shots, killing an attendee, wounding two others and grazing Trump’s right ear.

Times Staff Writer Melody Gutierrez and the Associated Press contributed to this story

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

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

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

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

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

(Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

Twitter: @philwillon

ALSO:

Issa challenger came out of nowhere, raised more money

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

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

Updates on California politics

Aug. 8 (UPI) — Skydance Media and Paramount Global have completed their merger, creating a new media conglomerate and ending months of turmoil over the deal that has drawn allegations of corruption directed at the Trump administration.

The new company — Paramount, a Skydance Corporation — began trading on the Nasdaq under the ticket symbol PSKY on Thursday, the day the merger completed.

“Today marks an exciting and pivotal moment as we prepare to bring Paramount’s legacy as a Hollywood institution into the future of entertainment,” David Ellison, CEO and chairman of Paramount, a Skydance Corporation, said in a statement.

“It is truly an honor and a privilege to help lead this iconic brand into its next chapter.”

Skydance announced the deal in July of last year, but the merger was hung up as President Donald Trump sparred with CBS News, a Paramount Global subsidiary.

Trump sued CBS News during his re-election campaign for $10 billion over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his political opponent, Democrat Kamala Harris. He later upped the damages to $20 billion after winning re-election.

Despite many saying it was litigation that was “meritless” and that Trump wouldn’t win, Paramount Global reached a $16 million settlement with Trump last month. The president then said Skydance has pledged $20 million more in advertising, PSAs and other programming, for a total of $36 million.

The deal attracted allegations from Democrats and critics that it was a bribe and an attack on free speech.

After the settlement was reached, the FCC voted 2-1 in favor of the merger, with the commissioners stating that Skydance has made several assurances to the Trump administration over content and that it will not establish any diversity, equity and inclusion policies — an ideology that seeks to create inclusion environments that the far-right president has been seeking to remove from both public and private sectors on the grounds of alleged discrimination.

Commissioner Anna Gomez, who assumed office under the Biden administration, lambasted the merger in a warning that it will not be the last time Trump threatens the First Amendment.

In a statement Thursday, she said the completion of the Skydance-Paramount merger marks the final chapter “of a dark moment in our nation’s history.”

She said the new company is “born in shame” for trading away First Amendment principles for profit, while agreeing to “never-before-seen forms of government control over newsroom decisions and editorial judgement.”

A so-called government-approved “truth arbiter” will be at CBS, with the role of ensuring journalists “do not criticize this administration or express views that conflict with its agenda,” she said.

“Sadly, this will not be the end of this administration’s campaign of intervention in media to silence critics, gain favorable coverage and impose ideological conformity on newsrooms that should remain independent,” she said.

“With longstanding institutions like CBS compromised in this way, it will be up to us — as citizens — to hold this administration accountable for its abuses.”

The announcement also comes as Trump has targeted public broadcasting.

In May, he signed an executive order to halt funding to PBS and NPR, while calling the public news broadcasters “biased.”

William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, was the last commander in chief born a British subject and the first member of the Whig Party to win the White House. He delivered the longest inaugural address in history, nearly two hours, and had the shortest presidency, being the first sitting president to die in office, just 31 days into his term.

Oh, there is one more bit of trivia about the man who gave us the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Harrison was the last politician to lose his first presidential election and then win the next one (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson managed that before him). Richard Nixon lost only to win way down the road. (Grover Cleveland and Trump are the only two to win, lose and then win again.)

Everyone else since Harrison’s era who lost on the first try and ran again in the next election lost again. Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice and lost twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each ran three times in a row and lost (Clay ran on three different party tickets). Voters, it seems, don’t like losers.

These are not encouraging results for Kamala Harris, who announced last week she will not be running for governor in California, sparking speculation that she wants another go at the White House.

But history isn’t what she should worry about. It’s the here and now. The Democratic Party is wildly unpopular. It’s net favorability ( 30 points) is nearly triple the GOP’s (11 points). The Democratic Party is more unpopular than any time in the last 35 years. When Donald Trump’s unpopularity with Democrats should be having the opposite effect, 63% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the party.

Why? Because Democrats are mad at their own party — both for losing to Trump and for failing to provide much of an obstacle to him now that he’s in office. As my Dispatch colleague Nick Cattogio puts it, “Even Democrats have learned to hate Democrats.”

It’s not all Harris’ fault. Indeed, the lion’s share of the blame goes to Joe Biden and the coterie of enablers who encouraged him to run again.

Harris’ dilemma is that she symbolizes Democratic discontent with the party. That discontent isn’t monolithic. For progressives, the objection is that Democrats aren’t fighting hard enough. For the more centrist wing of the party, the problem is the Democrats are fighting for the wrong things, having lurched too far left on culture war and identity politics. Uniting both factions is visceral desire to win. That’s awkward for a politician best known for losing.

Almost the only reason Harris was positioned to be the nominee in 2024 was that she was a diversity pick. Biden was explicit that he would pick a woman and, later, an African American running mate. And the same dynamic made it impossible to sideline her when Biden withdrew.

Of course, most Democrats don’t see her race and gender as a problem, and in the abstract they shouldn’t. Indeed, every VP pick is a diversity pick, including the white guys. Running mates are chosen to appeal to some part of a coalition.

So Harris’ problem isn’t her race or sex; it’s her inability to appeal to voters in a way that expands the Democratic coalition. For Democrats to win, they need someone who can flip Trump voters. She didn’t lose because of low Democratic turnout, she lost because she’s uncompelling to a changing electorate.

Her gauzy, often gaseous, rhetoric made her sound like a dean of students at a small liberal arts college. With the exception of reproductive rights, her convictions sounded like they were crafted by focus groups, at a time when voters craved authenticity. Worse, Harris acquiesced to Biden’s insistence she not distance herself from him.

Such clubby deference to the establishment combined with boilerplate pandering to progressive constituencies — learned from years of San Francisco and California politics — makes her the perfect solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Her choice to appear on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” for her first interview since leaving office was telling. CBS recently announced it was terminating both Colbert and the show, insisting it was purely a business decision. But the reason for the broadcast network’s decision stemmed in part from the fact that Colbert narrow-casts his expensive show to a very small, very anti-Trump slice of the electorate.

“I don’t want to go back into the system. I think it’s broken,” Harris lamented to Colbert, decrying the “naïve” and “feckless” lack of “leadership” and the “capitulation” of those who “consider themselves to be guardians of our system and our democracy.”

That’s all catnip to Colbert’s ideologically committed audience. But that’s not the audience Democrats need to win. And that’s why, if Democrats nominate her again, she’ll probably go down in history as an answer to a trivia question. And it won’t be “Who was the 48th president of the United States?”

@JonahDispatch

Kamala Harris does not want to be governor of California, which has a whole lot of contenders (and some voters) doing a happy dance this week.

But with her announcement Wednesday that she is bowing out of a race she never officially entered, Harris has ignited a flurry of speculation that she’s warming up for another run at the White House in 2028.

Whether you like Harris or not, a possible run by the XX chromosome former vice president raises a perennial conundrum: Can a woman win the presidency?

“This question is legitimate,” Nadia E. Brown told me.

She’s a professor of government and director of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. She points out that post-election, Democrats can’t figure out who they are or what they stand for. In that disarray, it may seem easy and safe in 2028 to travel the well-worn route of “a straight, old white guy who fills the status quo.”

That may be especially true in the Trump era, when an increasingly vocal and empowered slice of America seems to believe that women do, in fact, belong in the kitchen making sanwhiches, far away from any decision beyond turkey or ham.

Brown points out that even Democrats who flaunt their progressive values, including how much they’d love to vote for a female president, may harbor secret sexism that comes out in the privacy of the voting booth.

Post-2024, Harris’ defeat — and deciphering what it means — has caused a lot of “morning-after anxiety and agita,” she said. “We’re all doing research, we’re all in the field trying to figure this out.”

While confused Democrats diddle in private with their feelings, Republicans have made race and gender the center of their platform, even if they cloak it under economic talk. The party’s position on race has become painfully clear with its stance that all undocumented immigrants are criminals and deserving of horrific detention in places such as “Alligator Alcatraz” or even foreign prisons known for torture.

The Republican position on women is slightly more cloaked, but no less retrograde. Whether it’s the refusal to tell the public how Trump is included in the Epstein files, the swift and brutal erosion of reproductive rights, or claims, such as the one by far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk, that the only reason for women to attend college should be to get a “Mrs.” degree, Republicans have made little secret of the fact that equality is not part of their package.

Although Trump’s approval ratings have tanked over immigration, he did win just over half of the popular vote last fall. So that’s a lot of Americans who either agree with him, or at least aren’t bothered by these pre-civil rights ideas on race and gender.

Add to that reality the eager pack of nice, safe Democratic white guys who are lining up for their own chance at the Oval Office — our current California governor included — and it does beg the question for the left: Is a woman worth the risk?

“I’ve definitely seen and heard consultants and, you know, even anxious women donors say, ‘Maybe this means we can’t run a woman.’ And I think it’s completely normal for certain elements of the party to be anxious about gender,” said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, a grassroots advocacy group.

She too thinks the gender question is “logical” since it has been blamed — though not by her — as “the reason we lost to Donald Trump twice in a row, right? Whereas Biden was able to beat him.”

While Timmaraju is clear that those losses can’t — and shouldn’t — be tied to gender alone, gender also can’t be ignored when the margins are thin.

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive political organizing group Our Revolution, which backed Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, said that gender and race are always a factor, but he believes the bigger question for any candidate in 2028 will be their platform.

Harris, he said, “lost not because she was a woman. She lost because she did not embrace an economic populist message. And I think the electorate is angry about their standard of living declining, and they’re angry about the elites controlling D.C. and enriching themselves.”

Greevarghese told me he sees an opposite momentum building within the party and the electorate — a desire to not play it safe.

“Whoever it is — male, female, gay, straight, Black, white, Asian — the candidate’s got to have a critique of this moment, and it can’t be a normie Dem.”

Brown, the professor, adds, rightfully, that looking at the question of a female candidate’s chances through the lens of just Harris is too narrow. There are lots of women likely to jump into the race. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just two names already in the mix. Brown adds that an outside contender such as a woman from a political dynasty (think Obama) or a celebrity along the lines of Trump could also make headway.

The criticisms of Harris, with her baggage of losing the election and critiques of how she handled the campaign and the media, may not dog another female candidate, especially with voters.

“Whether Kamala runs again or not, I’m optimistic that the American people will vote for a female president,” Vanessa Cardenas told me. She is the executive director of America’s Voice, an advocacy group for immigrants’ rights.

Cardenas points out that Hillary Clinton received more than 65 million votes (winning the popular vote), and Harris topped 75 million. If just Latinos had gone for Harris, instead of breaking in an ongoing rightward shift, she would have won. Cardenas thinks Latino votes could shift again in 2028.

“After the chaos, cruelty and incompetence of the Trump presidency, Latino voters, like most Americans, will reward candidates who can speak most authentically and seem most ready to fight for an alternative vision of America,” she said. “I believe women, and women of color, can credibility and forcibly speak to the need for change rooted in the lived experiences of their communities.”

Timmaraju said that regardless of what Harris decides, Democrats will probably have one of the most robust primaries in recent times — which can only be good for the party and for voters.

And rather than asking, “Can a woman win?” the better question would be, “Do we really want a system that won’t let them try?”

In her first interview since losing the election to President Trump and leaving office, former Vice President Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert on “The Late Show” that her decision not to run for California governor was more “basic” than saving herself for a “different office” — which is to say, another run for president in 2028.

After years of being a “devout public servant,” Harris said in the interview, set to air Thursday night, she just doesn’t want to be “in the system” right now.

“Recently I made the decision that I just — for now — I don’t want to go back in the system,” she said. “I think it’s broken.”

She said that was not to take away from the important work being done every day by “so many good people who are public servants,” such as teachers, firefighters, police officers and scientists.

“It’s not about them,” she said. “But you know, I believe, and I always believed, that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that they’re not as strong as they need to be.”

She said she instead wants to travel the country and talk to Americans in a setting that isn’t “transactional, where I’m asking for their vote.”

Colbert said to hear Harris — whom he called “very qualified for the presidency” — say that the American system is broken was “harrowing.”

“Well, but it’s also evident, isn’t it?” Harris replied, to applause from the studio audience.

The interview came on the heels of Harris’ announcements this week that she is not running for California governor and is releasing a memoir about her short, whirlwind presidential campaign following President Biden’s decision to drop from the race, and it was a big get for Colbert in what appears to be his final chapter on late-night TV.

CBS, blaming financial concerns across late night, announced July 17 that the 2025-2026 season of “The Late Show” would be its last.

The announcement followed Colbert sharply criticizing Paramount Global’s $16-million settlement with Trump over a CBS News “60 Minutes” interview with Harris during the presidential campaign, which Trump accused the venerable news show of manipulating to make her look better.

Paramount Global was at the time seeking a major merger with Skydance Media and needed the Trump administration’s approval, which it ultimately got. Just days before the announcement that his show would be ending, Colbert described the “60 Minutes” settlement as a bribe to get the merger deal done.

All that caused many observers and allies of Colbert to speculate that the cancellation of the show was political in nature. The Writers Guild of America, for example, said the company appeared to be “sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration.”

Trump said it was “not true” that he was “solely responsible for the firing of Stephen Colbert,” and that the “reason he was fired was a pure lack of TALENT” and that Colbert’s show was losing Paramount millions of dollars a year.

“And it was only going to get WORSE!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Paramount has said the decision was “not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,” though some polling has suggested many Americans don’t believe the company.

It’s unclear whether Harris considered any of that in granting Colbert her first interview since leaving office. However, it would almost certainly not have been her only reason.

Colbert is liberal and seen as a friendly interviewer by Democrats.

During Thursday’s interview, the late-night host heaped praise on Harris. After saying it was “harrowing” to hear she feels the system is broken, he asked whether she was giving up fighting.

Harris said she was not.

“I am always going to be part of the fight,” Harris said. “That is not going to change.”

July 24 (UPI) — The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday announced its approval of Skydance’s $8 billion acquisition of Paramount Global, ending months of uncertainty surrounding the deal but inflaming allegations of corruption directed at the Trump administration.

The FCC voted 2-1 in favor of Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount and all of its subsidiaries, including Paramount Pictures, CBS television, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

Among the commitments Skydance made to the Trump administration was ensuring it will include news and entertainment programming that “will embody a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum” and that CBS News’ reporting “will be fair, unbiased and fact-based,” according to the FCC.

Skydance has also pledged that it will not establish any diversity, equity and inclusion policies — ideology that seeks to create inclusive environments that the Trump administration has been seeking to remove from both public and private sectors on allegations of discrimination.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr described the merger as a change that will instill public trust in media.

“It is time for a change,” he said in a statement.

“That is why I welcome Skydance’s commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network.”

Though the FCC said Skydance does not have any DEI programs, Carr said the agreement “marks another step forward in the FCC’s efforts to eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination.”

Skydance announced the deal in July of last year, but the merger has stalled amid frictions with the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump has sparred with CBS News.

Trump sued CBS News while campaigning for re-election in October for $10 billion in a lawsuit many saw as one he wouldn’t win over editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his political opponent, Democrat Kamala Harris. He then upped the amount in damages to $20 billion after winning re-election.

Earlier this month, Paramount Global reached a $16 million settlement with Trump that Democrats and critics of the Trump administration are calling a bribe and an affront to free speech — accusations that only intensified after Trump earlier this week said Skydance has pledged $20 million more in advertising, PSAs and “other Similar Programming, for a total $36 MillIon Dollars.”

Paramount Global told UPI that the $16 million, minus fees and costs, will be allocated to Trump’s future presidential library.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat of the three commissioners and the only one not appointed by Trump, dissented to the merger, and described Paramount’s settlement as “cowardly capitulation” and accused the FCC of losing its independence.

In her strongly worded dissent, Gomez warned that this merger will not be the last time the Trump administration threatens the First Amendment.

“The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can — and should — abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment and secure positive media coverage,” she said.

“It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country.”

Democrats were quick to lament their concerns online.

“Trump filed a sham lawsuit against CBS, but instead of fighting it CBS’ parent company, Paramount, paid Trump $16 million to his future library. So, you got to ask, why did Paramount do that if the suit was quote ‘meritless’?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a video statement published online. “Well, maybe because they needed Trump to approve their multibillion-dollar merger, which Trump just did.

The appearance of this wink-wink deal basically let’s every other company and every other billionaire know that Trump is open for business, apparently happy to accept offers in exchange for favors.”

Warren has called for a full investigation into the deal.

Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., described Thursday as “a dark day for independent journalism” and called the approval of the merger “a stain on the storied history of the Federal Communications Commission.

“The FCC’s approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger reeks of the worst form of corruption. The timing speaks for itself: Paramount settled with Trump for $36 million on Tuesday and the FCC approved the merger on Wednesday,” they said in a joint statement.

“The stench of this transaction will linger over the commission for years.”