Kamala Harris

The Democrats running for California governor have spent the spring and summer working to win over the powerful donors and interest groups who could help them squeak through a competitive primary election.

But the candidates, and many deep-pocketed Democrats, are still waiting for the decision that will have the biggest impact on the race: whether former Vice President Kamala Harris is running.

Since Harris lost to President Trump in November, the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom has been in suspended animation, with candidates trying to plan their campaigns without knowing who their biggest opponents will be. A few are making contingency plans to run for other offices. And some major donors are waiting to write big checks.

“It creates a little bit of a limbo situation,” said Tony Thurmond, the state superintendent of public instruction who launched his gubernatorial campaign in 2023.

The Democrats in the race are talking to many of the same potential donors, Thurmond said, and most have the same question: “Is she going to run?” The only answer, Thurmond said, is an unsatisfying one: “We don’t know.”

Since leaving Washington in January, Harris has mostly stayed out of the public eye, settling back into her Brentwood home with her husband, Doug Emhoff, and talking to close friends and confidantes about what she should do next. She is weighing whether to leave politics, run for governor or run for president for a third time. She is expected to make a decision about the gubernatorial race by the end of summer.

The Democrats who are already running for governor lack Harris’ star power, and her entry could upend the race. But the former vice president would also face questions about her 107-day sprint to the White House, what she knew about President Biden’s decline and whether someone who has run unsuccessfully for president twice really wants to be California’s governor.

“She is looking closely where is the best place to put her energy and focus and her time,” said Debbie Mesloh, a longtime Harris ally.

The few public appearances Harris has made this year — meeting with firefighters in Altadena, attending a high school graduation in Compton and headlining a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in the Bay Area — have been fodder for those trying to read the tea leaves. What does it mean that Harris skipped the state Democratic Party convention? That Emhoff has taken a teaching job at USC?

Harris had originally planned to take a two-week vacation at the end of this month but has canceled her trip, according to someone familiar with her plans.

Harris has also been in New York, where she attended Broadway plays and the exclusive Met Gala; in San Francisco, where she dined with her niece Meena at the high-end Japanese restaurant Shoji; and in Los Angeles, where she has shopped for groceries at a 99 Ranch Market in Westwood and the Brentwood Farmers Market.

As the months have worn on, some gubernatorial campaigns have started to think that Harris’ victory feels like less of a foregone conclusion than if she’d announced in January after leaving office.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden Cabinet secretary Xavier Becerra and former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine have said that they will stay in the race no matter what.

Veteran state Senate leader Toni Atkins of San Diego said she is also staying in if Harris runs, saying in a statement that “while the vice president has her own path, our campaign is moving full speed ahead.”

Former state Controller Betty Yee said in an interview this week that even if Harris runs, she is staying in, too.

“No, no, no,” Yee said, of the possibility of seeking another statewide office. Being governor, she said, “is what I feel like I’ve prepared to do. I will be staying in the race and really leaning into my fiscal and financial background.”

Yee said when she talks to donors, they want to know two things: how California can push back against the Trump administration, and what she will do if Harris enters the race.

Dan Newman, a political strategist who’s worked for Newsom, Harris and several of the gubernatorial candidates, said that the race is at an odd inflection point, with candidates who “don’t know who their potential voters are, because they don’t know who they’re running against,” and some donors who are waiting — at least for now — to write big checks.

“They’ve got a good excuse to not give, because even if they are a big fan of a candidate who’s in the race now, they don’t know if the candidate will stay in the race,” Newman said. “Then there are others who don’t want to give to someone who might run against her.”

Eric Jaye, a political strategist who previously worked for Villaraigosa’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign and advised Newsom when he was mayor of San Francisco, said he’s hearing “frustration” from donors who are ready to see the race pick up speed.

“They’re not going to wait much longer,” Jaye said. “There are going to be donors who say, ‘We have to go. We’re not going to wait for you.’”

But even if Harris entered, that wouldn’t be a guarantee that donors would back her again, including those who are angry that she spent nearly $1.5 billion in campaign funds in her compressed campaign for the White House in 2024.

“The money is very, very upset with her,” said gubernatorial candidate Stephen Cloobeck, a businessman and Democratic donor who is running for California governor. “They’re my friends. I’m part of that money. Everyone is thoroughly reeling.”

The amount of money that candidates raise is one way to gauge their support — and prospects. That picture remains a little fuzzy, though, since gubernatorial candidates have until July 31 to report their fundraising hauls from the first half of the year.

The only candidate to release numbers so far is Becerra, who said he raised $2.4 million since entering the race in early April, including a $1.1-million transfer from his congressional campaign account. Becerra’s campaign has $2 million on hand, including the largest contributions allowed by law — $39,200 — from the politically connected Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Pechanga Band of Indians.

Campaigns are required to report contributions of $5,000 or more shortly after they receive them. Those figures don’t represent total fundraising, but can still show a campaign’s trajectory.

Three of the eight candidates have raised less than $100,000 this year in chunks of more than $5,000 at a time, state data show. Yee reported $71,900 and Thurmond, $32,500.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis reported raising $70,000, including $5,000 from Google. Her campaign said Kounalakis, who has been raising money since entering the race in April 2023, has $9 million on hand.

“I want to be clear that I’m in this race to win,” Kounalakis said.

Villaraigosa, who entered the race last summer, has raised almost $1 million this year through large donations, data show. Atkins reported about $381,000 this year, and Cloobeck, about $132,000.

Porter, who entered the race in March, reported almost $475,000 in larger contributions, according to state data. She also transferred $942,000 from her U.S. Senate account to her gubernatorial account, according to federal filings made public Tuesday.

With President Trump continuing to bulldoze through American politics, Democrats are forced to confront a fundamental question: Do voters even want what they’ve been offering?

The meteoric rise of Zohran Mamdani, a fiery young Democratic Socialist who recently claimed a shocking New York mayoral primary win, points to a grim answer.

It’s presumptuous to extrapolate too much from one state or local race. (Remember how Scott Brown’s special election win in Massachusetts was supposed to signal the end of liberalism? Exactly.) But underestimating moments like this is also dangerous because tectonic rumbles often precede a political earthquake.

Even if Mamdani isn’t the solution — and he likely isn’t — his stunning victory suggests a sobering possibility: The very thing Democrats have been running from is precisely what voters are chasing.

For a decade now, there have been basically two prevailing theories about how to beat Trump.

The first is simple: Be whatever he isn’t. If Trump is vulgar, be decent. If Trump is chaotic, be stable. If Trump breaks things, fix them. This theory is comforting, but it also assumes that voters will respond to decency and logic. An assumption that, as it turns out, is dubious.

The second theory, while cynical, may be more accurate: Fight fire with fire. If you can’t beat him, join him. Not on policy — that would be insane — but on vibe. If Trump is a spectacle, Democrats should find one of their own.

Trump understood the importance of dominating the public’s attention from the start. Apparently, so does Mamdani. And so do a handful of other left-wing firebrands (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, et al.) who make the party’s establishment look like buttoned-up accountants.

There are different ways to break through in the modern era. You can be young and hip. You can be weird and magnetic. You can master the art of long-form podcast appearances and creating viral social media videos. But above all, you must eschew the trite pablum of scripted politicians.

In this regard, it’s difficult to divorce style from substance. It’s no coincidence that today’s most attention-grabbing pols tend to promote the most radical proposals that also happen to excite previously underserved portions of the electorate.

“Build the wall.” “Lock her up.” “Defund the police.” “Medicare for all.” These slogans are all, to varying degrees, unworkable — and previously unthinkable. But they all sound unorthodox and decisive, which in the contemporary political ecosystem is more effective than being wise or correct. Case in point: Trump can shift an entire news cycle by suggesting we should invade Canada or Greenland.

Could a mainstream Democrat, if he or she were charismatic and talented enough, cut through that noise? In theory, yes. But the problem with moderates is that they tend to be moderate. Even in how they talk and how they dress.

It’s not just their policies that feel safe — it’s their entire aesthetic. And in the attention economy, that’s a real handicap.

The center, to paraphrase Yeats, cannot meme.

This is why Mamdani’s radical take on politics is so resonant. Like Trump before him, he proposes ideas that have been wildly outside the political mainstream, and he actually seems to believe what he’s saying.

This last part is key. Younger voters, especially, don’t merely want revolutionary policy positions; they want existential authenticity.

So what is his radical take on politics? Mamdani wants to freeze rents and make buses and childcare free. He doesn’t think billionaires should exist. He has floated the idea of government-run grocery stores. He’s openly anti-Zionist. He refuses to condemn the incendiary phrase “globalize the intifada.” He’s confrontational. He’s shocking. He’s newsworthy. He’s … a complete turnoff to middle-aged, conservative commentators like me — which is proof he’s succeeding!

It might be horrible for America to have not one, but two extremist parties; but after years of trying to sell candidates who won’t scare the suburban normies (with Kamala Harris being an earnest yet flawed attempt at this), you could forgive Democrats for wondering if what they really need is a Trump of their own. Someone who is fiery, meme-ready and authentically combative (albeit in a younger and entirely different package than Trump).

It’s way too soon to say if this will be their trajectory. But it’s worth noting that, outside of Mamdani’s victory, the only Democratic moments this year that have evoked any real excitement or virality came during AOC and Bernie rallies.

Still, nothing is guaranteed. If Democrats decide to go this route (say, with an AOC candidacy in 2028), they risk alienating otherwise “gettable” swing voters and dragging down the entire ticket.

Indeed, some of Trump’s most potent 2024 ads involved pointing out Harris’ previous dalliances with “woke” politics. And that was with a candidate going out of her way to appear moderate.

What energizes the base can just as easily terrify the middle. And it could hand fresh ammunition to a suddenly rudderless Republican Party, which without Trump on the ballot in 2028 could be quite vulnerable to losing to a standard-issue “vanilla” Democrat.

Nevertheless, there’s an increasing sense that Democrats have no choice but to crawl into the carnival tent Trump built and become louder, flashier and fringier than he was. Not just because trying to be the respectable (read “boring”) party of institutions failed, but because our modern media milieu all but demands it.

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

July 11 (UPI) — The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into Minnesota’s hiring practices, the third legal or administrative action the Trump administration has taken against the Democratic-led state in just over two weeks.

The Justice Department informed Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison of the investigation into the state’s hiring practices in a letter dated Thursday.

“Our investigation is based on information that Minnesota may be engaged in certain employment practices that discriminate against employees, job applicants and training program participants based on race and sex in violation of Title VII,” Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.

“Specifically, we have reason to believe the Minnesota Department of Human Services is engaging in unlawful action through, among other things, the adoption and forthcoming implementation of its ‘hiring justification’ policy.”

Early this month, the Minnesota Department of Human Services announced a new hiring policy set to take effect Aug. 12. It directs hiring supervisors to “provide a hiring justification when seeking to hire a non-underrepresented candidate when hiring for a vacancy in a job category with underrepresentation.”

The purpose of the directive is to ensure the department meets its affirmative action responsibilities, comply with state laws and increase the diversity of its workforce.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has sought to roll back so-called progressive practices, including diversity, equity and inclusion policies. In an executive order issued on his second day in office titled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, he specifically ordered the federal government to cease demanding that contractors adopt affirmative action policies, describing it as illegal discrimination.

The Justice Department on Thursday described the Minnesota Department of Human Services’ new policy as part of a broader effort by the state to engage in race- and sex-based employment practices.

“Minnesotans deserve to have their state government employees hired based on merit, not based on illegal DEI,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has been a critic of Trump and ran against his ticket as the vice presidential candidate with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

Since then, the two have clashed.

After a man assassinated a state lawmaker and wounded another in Minnesota in mid-June, Trump declined to call Walz.

“I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out — I’m not calling him. Why would I call? I could call him and say, ‘Hi, how are you doing?’ The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess. So, I could be nice and call him, but why waste my time?” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Late last month, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit challenging Minnesota laws that provide some undocumented immigrants with higher-education tuition benefits not offered to all U.S. citizens.

The next day, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services opened a civil rights investigation into the Minnesota Department of Education over a transgender teenager competing on a girls’ softball team.

July 4 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed into law House Resolution 1, which he called “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” while hosting a Military Family Picnic event at the White House on Friday evening.

The bill signing included a flyover of a pair of F-35 fighters escorting a B-2 Spirit bomber, which is the same type that dropped 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 21.

Some 150 airmen and airwomen from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri were among the military members and their families who attended the picnic and bill signing.

“The American people gave us a historic mandate in November,” Trump said of his election victory over former Vice President Kamala Harris.

A triumph of democracy

Trump called the bill’s passage a “triumph of democracy on the birthday of democracy,” and said it is “the most popular bill ever signed in the history of our country.”

It includes the single largest tax cut, the largest spending cut and the largest border security investment in U.S. history, the president said.

He said the measure modernizes the military, funds the creation of a” golden dome” national air defense system and drives economic growth.

“This bill will fuel massive economic growth and lift up the hardworking citizens who make this country run — the factory workers, farmers, mechanics, waiters, waitresses, police officers, firefighters, coal miners [and] truck drivers,” Trump said.

The bill makes tax cuts permanent, including no tax on tips, overtime and Social Security, the president said.

It also makes the child tax credit permanent, creates a tax deduction on the interest paid on the purchase of new U.S.-made vehicles and eliminates the estate tax on family farms and small businesses.

The ‘Golden Age’ of America

Trump said the bill cuts taxes on new businesses and existing ones that build and expand their operations.

“We have hundreds of factories, including car plants and [artificial intelligence], coming into our country at levels we have never seen,” he told the audience.

“Not only will we have the strongest economy on Earth, we also will have the strongest borders,” Trump said, adding that there were no recorded illegal border crossings into the United States in June.

“We are creating an economy that delivers wealth for the middle class, a border that is sovereign and secure, and a military that is unmatched[and] unequaled anywhere in the world,” Trump said.

“The Golden Age of America is upon us,” the president said. “It’s going to be a period of time, the likes of which … the country has never experienced before.”

Lawmakers were thanked ahead of signing

Trump thanked House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and other Republican lawmakers who were among those in attendance for delivering the bill for signing on Independence Day.

The controversial measure provides funding for the federal government for fiscal year 2026, which begins on Oct. 1, but adds an estimated $3.4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Trump said it reduces spending by $1.7 trillion while also delivering the “largest tax cut” in the nation’s history.

Trump delivered the 25-minute speech from the south portico of the White House and signed the bill into law from a small desk placed outside, while surrounded by supporters at 5:45 p.m. EDT

Johnson then presented the gavel used when the House passed the bill on Thursday.

Trump accepted the gavel and banged it several times on the small desk to conclude the signing and end the bill’s legislative journey on Capitol Hill.

July 2 (UPI) — Paramount has reached a settlement with Donald Trump, who sued CBS News for $20 billion over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.

The move is expected to further raise concerns with press freedom and democracy advocates who have characterized Trump’s lawsuit as frivolous, a attack on the free press and unprecedented, while some Democrats have warned that it may violate bribery laws.

The announcement comes a day after both sides of the lawsuit asked the court to stay ongoing proceedings in the case “because the parties are engaged in good faith, advanced, settlement negotiations,” which the court agreed to on Tuesday.

On Tuesday night, Paramount said it agreed to pay $16 million, excluding legal fees, to Trump’s future presidential library to settle the lawsuit, The New York Times reported.

No apology was included in the settlement, Paramount said it agreed to release written transcripts of future 60 Minutes interviews with presidential candidates.

UPI has contacted Paramount for confirmation and comment.

60 Minutes is a program on CBS News, whose parent company is Paramount.

Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS News in October as he was running for president, taking issue with the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Harris, which Trump described as being deceptively doctored.

The lawsuit focuses on an answer Harris gave to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a preview of the interview that ran on Oct. 5, Harris was edited giving one answer. Then during the 60 Minutes episode that aired the next night, she was seen giving another answer. A transcript of the entire interview later published by CBS News shows that both responses came from the same, longer answer that Harris gave to the question.

Trump and his legal team accused CBS News in the lawsuit of “substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party.”

While many in the legal community believed that Trump’s lawsuit would fail, as nothing factually incorrect was reported during the interview, it came as Paramount was seeking a multibillion-dollar merger with Skydance Media and the deal has been pending review by the Federal Communications Commission.

In May, amid speculation that Paramount was seeking to settle with Trump, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, sent Shari Redstone, chairwoman of Paramount, a letter warning her that under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence their official acts.

“Because the merger will involve the transfer of ownership of CBS broadcast licenses, the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review the deal and has an opportunity to block it. Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the administration in order to secure merger approval,” the senators said.

“Paramount’s apparent capitulation to President Trump is a sharp contrast from its earlier position that it would ‘vigorously defend’ against the lawsuit.”

Ahead of Paramount’s announcement, the Freedom of the Press Foundation issued a petition urging CBS to not settle.

“Freedom of the Press Foundation has announced plans to file a shareholder derivative suit against Paramount’s directors and officers if they settle,” it said.

Trump is known as litigious, bringing lawsuits against those he feels have done him wrong, including news organizations.

In December, ABC News agreed to pay Trump $15 million in a defamation suit against the network after George Stephanopoulos repeatedly said in an interview that Trump was found “liable for rape” when a jury had found the president liable for sexual abuse.

He has also filed a $49 million lawsuit against journalist Bob Woodward over allegedly unauthorized use of audio recordings.

June 30 (UPI) — Two U.S. House members — Democrat Dwight Evans and Republican Don Bacon — announced Monday they will not seek a third term in 2026 after both have served since their 2016 elections.

Evans, 71, has represented Philadelphia and Bacon, 61, in Nebraska, including Omaha.

Evans, who suffered a stroke last year and has missed several months of votes, had intended to run again in Pennsylvania’s heavy Democratic Third Congressional District.

Bacon is moderate in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District, which was won by Vice President Kamala Harris in her bid to become president last year and President Joe Biden in 2020. That gave each of them an electronic vote in the state, which is not winner-take-all.

The U.S. House currently has a breakdown of 220 Republicans and 212 Democrats with three vacancies after the deaths of three Democrats.

Longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an 81-year-old Democrat from Illinois, said earlier this year she wouldn’t run again.

Republican Mark Green, 60, of Tennessee, said he will retire after the budget policy bill goes through Congress.

Dwight Evans

“Serving the people of Philadelphia has been the honor of my life,” Evans said in a statement. “And I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking re-election in 2026. I will serve out the full term that ends Jan. 3, 2027.”

He succeeded Chaka Fattah, who resigned after being indicted on federal corruption charges.

“I am deeply proud of what I have been able to accomplish over my 45 years in elected office — from revitalizing neighborhoods block by block to fighting for justice, economic opportunity, investments in infrastructure and education,” he said. “I cannot express the gratitude that I have for the trust that voters put in me as their voice in both state and federal office. It has been a privilege of a lifetime to serve as their advocate in government.”

Evans was elected as the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in 1990, serving 20 years.

Evans said he has remained “rooted in his neighborhood” throughout his career, and lived just blocks from where he grew up in the city.

He was a public school teacher and community organizer with the Urban League until he began working in government at 26 in 1980. He was elected to the state’s House of Representatives.

Politico reported there could be a fierce battle between establishment Democrats and progressives, including socialists.

State Sen. Sharif Street on Monday posted on X his intention to run for Evans’ seat, writing “I’m in.” Street, who has worked with Republicans on some issues, is chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

Two state representatives, Chris Raab and Morgan Cephas, told WCAU-TV they are considering seeking the seat. They are both progressives.

Don Bacon

“After three decades in the Air Force and now going on one decade in Congress, I look forward to coming home in the evenings and being with my wife and seeing more of our adult children and eight grandchildren, who all live near my home,” Bacon said in a statement.

“I’ve been married for 41 years, and I’d like to dedicate more time to my family, my church, and the Omaha community,” he added. “I also want to continue advocating for a strong national security strategy and a strong alliance system with countries that share our love of democracy, free markets and the rule of law,” he added.

At times, he has not gone with what other Republicans, including President Donald Trump, want.

He told The New York Times in an interview removing deportation protection for Afghans in the U.S. was wrong and has criticized Trump’s position on Russa’s war with Ukraine. He was the only Republican to vote against changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

“It’s one thing when you have the opposing party fighting you, but when you have divisions in your own party, you know — it makes it harder,” he said in May at an Omaha roundtable with business leaders to discuss Congress’ tax bill.

Bacon approved the spending bill, which went to the House by a 215-214 margin. If the Senate approves the bill and with changes, it goes back to the House.

“I think the Senate has done some new provisions in there that are concerning … But there’s a lot of amendments being voted out today. So I’m going to keep my powder dry, see how it turns out,” Bacon told reporters.

Bacon, who was born in Chicago, served 29 years in the U.S. Air Force.

He served as an aide to U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry in Nebraska’s First District, and a professor at Bellevue University in Nebraska before running for office.

Bacond is a member of House Armed Services Committee, and chairman of the conservative-centrist Republican Main Street Caucus in the House.

No one has announced plans to run in either primary.

June 19 (UPI) — Paramount has pulled back on a $35 million settlement with President Donald Trump after he sued the media company over a segment on CBS’ News’ “60 Minutes.”

The lawsuit alleges that the program edited an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election to change how she would appear to viewers.

The stalled settlement is holding up a potential $8 billion takeover of Paramount by Skydance, a deal that the two companies negotiated over a year ago.

Despite the legal wrangling, Trump has said he is encouraged by the proposed merger in its current form, and endorsed the deal proposed by Skydance’s David Ellison.

“Ellison is great,” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn Wednesday. He’ll do a great job with it.”

Trump seemed to have connected the delay in the deal to his Paramount lawsuit.

The internal debate over the Trump lawsuit and the way it was being handled prompted CBS News President Wendy McMahon to resign in May, saying in a memo that she and the company could not agree on a path forward.

The Paramount-Skydance deal has been pending review by the Federal Communications Commission since last fall.

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

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

Wilson bucked that sentiment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

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

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

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

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

Try that as one of 47 straitjacketed senators.

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

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

Wilson didn’t much care.

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

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

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

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

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

June 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump escalated a war of words with California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday, as the administration authorized the deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent over the weekend.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the deployment to help defend federal agents amid protests over immigration raids.

“We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers — even if Gavin Newsom will not,” Hegseth said Monday.

“Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,” Hegseth added in a post on X.

On Monday night, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell warned anyone involved in violence or vandalism during the demonstrations will be arrested. McDonnell said officers were forced to fire flash-bang grenades Monday at hundreds of protesters as they tried to push the crowd back from the city’s Little Tokyo section.

“There is no tolerance for criminal activity under the guise of protest,” McDonnell told reporters and warned “there will be many more subsequent arrests.” Approximately 70 people were arrested over the weekend.

Meanwhile, Trump and Newsom ramped up their rhetoric as the president publicly endorsed calls to arrest the governor. The war of words escalated after the Trump administration deployed 2,000 National Guardsmen over the weekend to protect buildings and residents, a move Newsom called inflammatory for “peaceful” protests, as the administration called the demonstrations “chaos.”

“While Los Angeles burns — officers ambushed, city in chaos — Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Maxine Waters call the riots and insurrection ‘peaceful,'” The White House wrote Monday in a post on X, showing video of burning cars and protesters closing Highway 101. “They side with mobs. President Trump stands for law and order.”

In response to a reporter question Monday, Trump was asked whether he supported Newsom’s taunt to “border czar” Tom Homan to “come and arrest him.”

“I would do it if I were Tom,” Trump said Monday. “I think it’s great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,” Trump said, as he called Newsom a “nice guy,” but “grossly incompetent.”

Newsom responded on social media saying, “The president of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.”

“I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,” Newsom wrote in a post on X.

By Monday evening, Newsom said he would send 800 more state and local officers to Los Angeles.

“Chaos is exactly what Trump wanted, and now California is left to clean up the mess,” Newsom wrote in a new post on X. “We’re working with local partners to surge over 800 additional state and local law enforcement officers to ensure the safety of our L.A. communities.”

Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta also announced Monday that they have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its activation of the state’s National Guard without getting state and local approval first.

“California’s governor and I are suing to put a stop to President Trump’s unlawful, unprecedented order calling federalized National Guard forces into Los Angeles,” Bonta said. “The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. This is an abuse of power — and not one we take lightly.”

During Friday’s raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, demonstrators flooded the streets and freeways to protest their actions. The fire department said it responded to “multiple vehicle fires“ during the unrest. Waymo autonomous electric vehicles were among those targeted, according to Los Angeles Fire Department public information officer Erik Scott.

“Due to the design of EV battery systems, it’s often difficult to apply the water directly to the burning cells, especially in a chaotic environment, and in some cases, allowing the fire to burn is the safest tactic,” Scott said.

Over the weekend, demonstrators spilled out onto the 101 freeway that runs through downtown L.A. Approximately 70 people were arrested after being ordered to leave the downtown area. Some were also seen throwing objects at officers.

“I just met with L.A. immigrant rights community leaders as we respond to this chaotic escalation by the administration,” L.A. Mayor Karen Bass wrote Monday evening in a post on X.

“Let me be absolutely clear — as a united city, we are demanding the end to these lawless attacks on our communities. Los Angeles will always stand with everyone who calls our city home.”

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania disagreed, and said the protests are not peaceful.

“I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations and immigration — but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos,” Fetterman wrote Monday night in a post on X.

“My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings and assaulting law enforcement.”

June 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump publicly endorsed the arrest of California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday during a war of words, as the administration authorized the deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE immigration protests that turned violent over the weekend.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the deployment to help defend federal agents amid protests over immigration raids.

“We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers — even if Gavin Newsom will not,” Hegseth said Monday.

“Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,” Hegseth added in a post on X.

Meanwhile, Trump and Newsom ramped up their rhetoric after the Trump administration called in 2,000 National Guardsmen over the weekend to protect buildings and residents, a move Newsom called inflammatory for the “peaceful” protests as the administration called it “chaos.”

“While Los Angeles burns — officers ambushed, city in chaos — Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Maxine Waters call the riots and insurrection ‘peaceful,'” The White House wrote Monday in a post on X, showing video of burning cars and protesters closing Highway 101. “They side with mobs. President Trump stands for law and order.”

In response to a reporter question Monday, Trump was asked whether he supported Newsom’s taunt to “border czar” Tom Homan to “come and arrest him.”

“I would do it if I were Tom,” Trump said Monday. “I think it’s great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,” Trump said, as he called Newsom a “nice guy,” but “grossly incompetent.”

Newsom responded on social media saying, “The president of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.”

“I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,” Newsom wrote in a post on X.

By Monday evening, Newsom said he would send 800 more state and local officers to Los Angeles.

“Chaos is exactly what Trump wanted, and now California is left to clean up the mess,” Newsom wrote in a new post on X. “We’re working with local partners to surge over 800 additional state and local law enforcement officers to ensure the safety of our L.A. communities.”

Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta also announced Monday that they have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its activation of the state’s National Guard without getting state and local approval first.

“California’s governor and I are suing to put a stop to President Trump’s unlawful, unprecedented order calling federalized National Guard forces into Los Angeles,” Bonta said. “The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. This is an abuse of power — and not one we take lightly.”

During Friday’s raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, demonstrators flooded the streets and freeways to protest their actions. The fire department said it responded to “multiple vehicle fires“ during the unrest. Waymo autonomous electric vehicles were among those targeted, according to Los Angeles Fire Department public information officer Erik Scott.

“Due to the design of EV battery systems, it’s often difficult to apply the water directly to the burning cells, especially in a chaotic environment, and in some cases, allowing the fire to burn is the safest tactic,” Scott said.

Over the weekend, demonstrators spilled out onto the 101 freeway that runs through downtown L.A. Approximately 70 people have been arrested after being ordered to leave the downtown area. Some were also seen throwing objects at officers.

“I just met with L.A. immigrant rights community leaders as we respond to this chaotic escalation by the administration,” L.A. Mayor Karen Bass wrote Monday evening in a post on X.

“Let me be absolutely clear — as a united city, we are demanding the end to these lawless attacks on our communities. Los Angeles will always stand with everyone who calls our city home.”

June 8 (UPI) — More than 1,000 people gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Sunday as part of WorldPride 2025 to protest what organizers called a “coordinated and systemic attack” on human rights.

The rally, which promotes LGBTQ+ visibility with events around the world and pushes back on an increasingly hostile attitude towards gay, lesbian and transgender people that organizers said has been stepped up under the Trump administration.

“Our fundamental freedoms — and our very democracy — are at risk,” a statement on the WorldPride website said. “And if we fail to recognize the urgency of this moment, we’ll only have ourselves to blame. Resist the marginalization and persecution of people just for being who they are.”

The Washington event, which saw marchers gather at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, is being hosted by DC’s Capital Pride Alliance, which is marking 50 years of celebrating Pride Month in the capital.

Marchers gathered near the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial waving rainbow colored Pride flags representing transgender and bisexual communities and held up signs that read “Proud and Gay,” “Trans rights are human rights,” and “Gender affirming care saved my life.”

The rally and march on the National Mall came a day after a march through the streets of Washington. The Sunday event is scheduled to conclude with a festival and concert.

Former vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris made an unannounced appearance at the Sunday event.

Hundreds of people gathered along the parade route, and marchers waved rainbow flags and balloons as they gathered along the steps and columns of the National City Christian Church.

June is Pride Month and is celebrated this year amid President Donald Trump‘s push to remove transgender members from the military and roll back diversity, equity and inclusion policies at federal agencies and at universities that receive federal money.

To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there.

But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president.

Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend’s state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris’ 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing.

Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out.

Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts?

Barabak: I’ll start by noting this is the first convention I’ve attended — and I’ve been to dozens — rated “R” for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome.

I’ve covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don’t recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “I have a [expletive deleted] dream.” Both were pretty darned effective leaders.

Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn’t going to win them back the White House or control of Congress.

Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I’m not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand “toxic.” Walz told his fellow Dems: “We’re in this mess because some of it’s our own doing.”

It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I’m not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance.

I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I’m starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris’ loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values?

Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why.

That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election.

This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It’s not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness.

Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection.

In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected.

Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: “A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.”

Sound familar?

So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout.

Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one.

I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it’s all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don’t like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don’t want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won’t hold the line until the midterms.

They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there’s a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation.

Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it?

Barabak: No, and no.

I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000.

But Trump’s margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn’t even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%.

As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute’s Yuval Levin, who noted Trump’s victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century.

Challengers “win elections because their opponents were unpopular,” Levin wrote, “and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists’ agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.”

It’s a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028.

But Levin is sure looking smart.

Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I’d argue that Harris wasn’t resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some.

Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy “maybe” period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable.

But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.”

Sometimes there’s truth in anger. Musk’s money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn’t resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication?

Barabak:

Chabria: Mark?

Barabak: Sorry.

I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world’s richest man going all neener-neener with the world’s most powerful man I lost track of where we were.

With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It’s not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage.

Then, come 2028, they’ll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment.

Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.

It’s not easy being a Democrat in these Trumpian times, as each day brings fresh tales of conquest and pillage.

Still, despite all that, 4,000 stiff-upper-lipped partisans showed up in Anaheim over the weekend, seeking solace, inspiration and a winning way forward.

As mouse-eared pilgrims plied the sidewalks outside, the party faithful — meeting several long blocks from Disneyland — engaged in their own bit of escapism and magical thinking.

“Joy is an act of resistance,” state party Chairman Rusty Hicks gamely suggested at a beer-and-wine reception, which opened the party’s annual three-day convention with as much conviviality as the downtrodden could muster.

That’s certainly one way to cope.

But the weekend gathering wasn’t all hand-wringing and liquid refreshment.

There were workshops on top of workshops, caucus meetings on top of caucus meetings, and speaker after speaker, wielding various iterations of the words “fight” and “resist” and dropping enough f-bombs to blow decorum and restraint clear to kingdom come.

President Trump — the devil himself, to those roiling inside the hall — was derided as a “punk,” “the orange oligarch,” a small-fisted bully, the “thing that sits in the White House” and assorted unprintable epithets.

“My fellow Golden State Democrats, we are the party of FDR and JFK, of Pat Brown and the incomparable Nancy Pelosi,” said a not-so-mild-mannered Sen. Adam Schiff. “We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower. Not now, not ever. We say to bullies, you can go f— yourself.”

The road from political exile, many Democrats seemed to feel, is richly paved with four-letter words.

Two of the party’s 2028 presidential prospects were on hand. (Another of those — Gov. Gavin Newsom — has fallen out of favor with many of his fellow California Democrats and found it best to stay away.)

A highly caffeinated New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, of 25-hour filibuster fame, summoned past glories and urged Democrats to find their way back to the party’s grounding principles, then fight from there.

“We are here because of people who stood up when they were told to sit down. We’re here because of people who spoke up when they were told to be silent. We’re here because of people who marched in front of fire hoses and dogs,” Booker hollered in his best preacherly cadence. “We are here because of people who faced outrageous obstacles and still banded together and said we shall overcome.”

Tim Walz, the party’s 2024 vice presidential nominee and the weekend’s keynote speaker, was on hand after jetting from a morning appearance in South Carolina. He delivered the most thorough and substantive remarks.

He began with a brief acknowledgment and thanks to his 2024 running mate, Kamala Harris. (She, too, stayed away from the convention while pondering her political future. The former vice president’s sole presence was a three-minute video most noteworthy for its drab production and Harris’ passion-free delivery.)

By contrast, Walz gleefully tore into Trump, saying his only animating impulses were corruption and greed. He noted the callous hard-heartedness the president and his allies displayed during California’s horrific January firestorm.

“They played a game, a blame game, and they put out misinformation about an incredibly tragic situation,” Minnesota’s governor said. “They didn’t have the backs of the firefighters. They didn’t hustle to get you the help you needed. They hung you out to dry.”

Keeping with the weekend’s expletive-laden spirit, Walz blasted Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bull—” legislation and mocked congressional Republicans as the “merry band of dips—” who lend him their undying support.

But much of his 30-minute speech was devoted to flaying his own party — “like a deer … in goddamned headlights” — saying Democrats can blame only themselves for being so feckless and off-putting they made the odious Trump seem preferable by comparison.

“There is an appetite out there across this country to govern with courage and competency, to call crap where it is, to not be afraid, to make a mistake about things, but to show people who you truly are and that they don’t have to wonder who the Democratic Party is,” Walz said to a roaring ovation.

“Are you going to go to a cocktail party with somebody who’s super rich and then pass a law that benefits them?” he demanded. “[Or] are you going to work your ass off and make sure our kids get a good education?”

And yet for all the cursing and swagger and bluster, there was an unmistakable air of anxiety pervading the glassy convention center. This is a party in need of repair and many, from the convention floor to the hospitality suites, acknowledged as much.

Alex Dersh, a 27-year-old first-time delegate from San Jose, said his young peers — “shocked by Trump’s election” — were especially eager for change. They just can’t agree, he said, on what that should be.

Indeed, there were seemingly as many prescriptions on offer in Anaheim as there were delegates. (More than 3,500 by official count.)

Anita Scuri, 75, a retired Sacramento attorney attending her third or fourth convention, suggested the party needs to get back to basics by speaking plainly — she said nothing about profanity — and focusing on people’s pocketbooks.

“It’s the economy, stupid,” she said, recycling the message of Bill Clinton’s winning 1992 campaign. “It’s focusing on the lives people are living.”

Gary Borsos said Democrats need to stop dumbing-down their message and also quit harping on the president.

“There’s a lot of ‘Trump is bad,’ ” said the 74-year-old retired software engineer, who rode eight hours by train from Arroyo Grande to attend his first convention.

“What we’re doing is coming up with a lot of Band-Aid solutions to problems of the day,” Borsos said. “We’re not thinking long-term enough.”

Neither, however, expressed great confidence in their party going forward.

“I’m hopeful,” Scuri said. “Not optimistic.”

If Kamala Harris runs for California governor, the job is essentially hers for the taking.

So goes the common wisdom.

After all, she’s a household name, which is no small consideration in a state as vast and politically inattentive as California. She has a coast-to-coast fundraising base and a record of winning statewide contests going back to 2010, when she was first elected attorney general.

Who better, supporters say, to engage President Trump than the former prosecutor who whipped him in their one debate and only just lost the popular vote after being thrust overnight into a drastically truncated campaign?

Antonio Villaraigosa isn’t buying that for a second.

Unlike others in the crowded race for governor, who are likely to drop out if Harris jumps in, L.A.’s former mayor said he’s not budging.

In fact, Villaraigosa insists he wants Harris to run — just so he can beat her and, he says, send an anti-elitist message to those Democrats who have their noses in the air rather than eyes fixed on hard-pressed voters and their myriad frustrations.

“I think she’s been OK that we’ve been a party of just people that drive a Tesla and not a Toyota pickup, or ride a bus like my mother did,” Villaraigosa said. “I think she has no idea what it means to buy a carton of eggs and spend $12 at Ralph’s.”

Harris is “the face of that party,” he went on, warming to the heat of his smoldering rhetoric. “The party that thinks that people that don’t have a college education are stupid. The party that believes that … people voted for Trump just because he’s a great used-car salesman and not because what he was selling resonated with people that work every day. The people who shower after work. Not before.”

As Harris uses the summer to decide her future — retiring from politics or running again for president being other options — no Democrat has been as brash and bold as Villaraigosa when it comes to assailing the putative front-runner and erstwhile leader of the national party.

Earlier this week, he accused Harris and Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra of helping cover up President Biden’s decline in office, seizing on the scandal fueled by a new book, “Original Sin,” that offered details of Biden’s eroding mental and physical state.

“She could say she didn’t know,” Villaraigosa said, elaborating on that initial volley during a lengthy conversation. “They can’t prove that she did. But last time I looked, she had lunch with him pretty regularly … She had to have seen what the world [saw] over time and particularly in that debate. The notion that she didn’t? Come on. Who’s going to buy that?”

That sort of talk is more typical of, say, Fox News than a candidate bidding for the support of fellow Democrats. Villaraigosa, a former labor leader who’s gotten crossways with teacher unions among other party mainstays, professed not to care. If anything, he said, he’s been encouraged by the response.

“For every one of those people” — upset by Villaraigosa’s remarks — “there are three of them, maybe not as high up among Democrats, who are saying the same damn thing. That’s why this got so much traction … Since Vietnam, people don’t believe in government anymore. They don’t believe in their leaders. And every time we lie or misrepresent … [or] hide the truth from them, their support and their belief in our institutions” diminishes.

Harris would have plenty of time to push back on Villaraigosa’s depiction, should she choose to run. In the meantime, what’s notable is his eagerness to take on the former vice president, positioning himself as the most vocal and assertive of her potential gubernatorial rivals.

Others have taken a few pokes.

“No one should be waiting to lead,” former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter told The Times’ Seema Mehta after entering the contest in March.

Becerra echoed that sentiment when he announced his candidacy in April. “Watching what’s unfolding before our eyes made it clear this is not a time to sit on the sidelines,” Becerra said.

But that’s comparatively weak tea.

“If she wants to come in the race, she should come in now,” Villaraigosa taunted. “Let’s debate. What are the challenges facing our state? Where are the opportunities? Where do we meld them together? How do we make this a better state for our kids?”

During the 40-minute phone conversation, starting in his car and finishing after Villaraigosa arrived home in Los Angeles, he toggled between criticisms of Harris and statements of good will toward a one-time political ally.

The two have known each other, he said, since the mid-1990s, when Villaraigosa was a freshman assemblyman in Sacramento and Harris was dating then-Speaker Willie Brown. He supported her run for attorney general — “I did three press conferences” as L.A. mayor — and was quick to back her as soon as Biden stepped aside last summer and Harris became the Democratic nominee.

“I supported her,” he said. “I got behind her. Her husband” — former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff — “has thanked me a number of times when he’s seen me in person.”

The disagreement now, Villaraigosa said, is over the direction of a party he sees unmoored from its history as a champion of the middle and working classes and too beholden to interest groups that make up its patchwork coalition. Harris, he suggested, is the personification of that disconnect from Democratic tradition.

“At the end of the day, what I’m arguing for is, let’s get to the place where we’re focused on getting things done and focused on common sense,” Villaraigosa said, citing, among issues, his support for Proposition 36, the anti-crime measure that voters overwhelming approved last November. The vice president, he noted, refused to take a position.

But don’t, he said before hanging up, take his attacks on Harris the wrong way.

“This isn’t personal,” Villaraigosa insisted.

It’s just politics.

May 20 (UPI) — The U.S. House Rules Committee, after 22 hours of proceedings, late Wednesday advanced President Donald Trump‘s legislative agenda that experts say would add $3 trillion to the federal deficit and negatively affect the poorest of Americans.

Debate on the full House floor began early Thursday.

The House Rules Committee adopted the bill in an 8-4 vote along party lines. They first met shortly after 1 a.m. Wednesday to consider the 1,116-page budget that is roughly $7 trillion

The Finance Committee late Sunday approved the legislation 17-16 along party lines with four Republicans who rejected the bill the first time on Friday voting present: Ralph Norman of Oklagoa, Chip Roy of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia and Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma.

“What the hell are you guys so scared of, that you guys are holding this hearing at 1 in the morning?” Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said. “If Republicans are so proud of what is in this bill, then why are you trying to ram it through in the dead of the night?”

The full House must also vote to adopt the rule first before taking up the underlying bill. Republicans hope to move the House bill, with no support from Democrats, to the Senate by Memorial Day on Monday.

With the GOP holding a slim majority of 220-212, House Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose more than three GOP votes. Party hardliners and moderates from vulnerable districts have failed to agree on key issues that include Medicaid, federal clean energy programs and tax breaks to states.

Three House seats were held by Democrats who died, including Gerry Connolly of Virginia on Wednesday.

At least five House GOP members considered vulnerable in the 2026 midterm elections — including Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. — have vowed to vote against the bill unless it ups the proposed state and local tax deduction from the current proposed $30,000.

The bill contains a massive overhaul of the tax code and deep spending cuts.

An amendment included speeding up work requirements for Medicaid to the end of 2026 rather than 2029.

It also tightens the definition of a “qualified alien” eligible for the program.

There is a new incentive for states that hadn’t expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. It allows those states to pay 110% of Medicare rates for state directed payments as a way to finance Medicaid.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

Also, the bill formalizes the so-called SALT cap, which would allow people to deduct state and local income taxes up to $40,000 for certain income groups. GOP leaders initially wanted cap of $30,000 but key New York, New Jersey and California Republicans vulnerable in the 2026 election, had refused to support it.

Republicans opted to phase out Biden energy tax credits sooner than planned. New projects must break ground within 60 days or be “in service” by the end of 2028 to qualify for the credits.

Earlier, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas,, a holdout, told CNN’s Manu Raju he was “still looking to review more provisions and have more conversations.”

“Yeah, I’m going to vote for it,” Rep. Andy Biggs ,of Arizona, told CNN.

Medicaid changes and a $4 trillion debt limit increase, among other provisions.

The bill includes a $4 trillion debt limit.

Budget plan’s analysis

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released data Tuesday that the House Republican’s budget proposal and its tax provisions would cut federal revenue by around 10% of America’s current national debt over the next decade.

The GOP bill proposal could cost American taxpayers $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a report this month by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which looked at the effect of tax policies versus spending cuts.

“This bill does not add to the deficit,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed Monday during a press briefing.

On Friday, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. debt citing the GOP proposal that Moody’s says will tack on $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

As proposed, the bill would extend Trump’s tax cuts largely to the wealthiest Americans and cut personal income tax rates. It also establishes fresh tax reductions on tips, Social Security, overtime payments and loan interest on automobiles produced in the United States.

An analysis Monday by the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton school projects that under the Republican plan, the lowest-income American citizens would end up paying more.

Leavitt said the Trump administration’s Council of Economic Advisers claim that there’s $1.6 trillion worth of savings in the GOP bill.

“That’s the largest saving for any legislation that has ever passed Capitol Hill in our nation’s history,” Leavitt continued.

On Tuesday, the president was on Capitol Hill to meet with Johnson and lawmakers in order to push his legislative agenda.

“While I respect President Trump and understand the importance of passing this legislation, I will not do so at the expense of my district,” Lawler posted on X Tuesday afternoon.

Lawler noted that his district was one of only three kept by a Republican that then-Vice President Kamala Harris had won in November’s presidential election in a heavily-taxed Congressional district.

“For over two years, I have been abundantly clear to everyone from the President to House Leadership about the importance of lifting the cap on SALT,” he said about state and local tax deduction caps.

May 19 (UPI) — Former President Joe Biden sent out a thank you Monday to those who have shown concern since it was announced that he has been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

“Cancer touches us all,” Biden posted to his social media outlets Monday, “Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.”

A Biden spokesperson confirmed Sunday that he has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that was discovered Friday after he had experienced urination issues. It was also found that the disease has metastasized to his bones and was considered to have a Gleason score of nine, which is seen as a “high-grade” level of cancer that can spread quickly.

However, the cancer appears to be a hormone-sensitive type, which allows for efficient management.

Several current and former holders of public office have since sent well wishes to Biden, from both sides of the American political landscape.

“Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis,” wrote President Donald Trump to Truth Social Sunday. “We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.”

“Michelle and I are thinking of the entire Biden family,” posted former President Barack Obama to his social media Sunday. “Nobody has done more to find breakthrough treatments for cancer in all its forms than Joe, and I am certain he will fight this challenge with his trademark resolve and grace. We pray for a fast and full recovery.”

Then-Vice President Biden was the lead advocate of the “Cancer Moonshot” cancer cure initiative launched by the White House during the Obama administration and then re-launched it in 2022 as President.

“Doug and I are saddened to learn of President Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis,” wrote former Vice President Kamala Harris Sunday. “We are keeping him, Dr. Biden, and their entire family in our hearts and prayers during this time. Joe is a fighter, and I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership.”

“We are hopeful for a full and speedy recovery.”

Cancer has directly impacted the Biden family before, as the former President’s son Beau Biden died at age 46 in 2015 from an aggressive form of brain cancer.

For some folks, this summer will be a time of relaxation: picnics, barbecues, vacation. For others, a mad scramble between work and swim meets, baseball tournaments or shopping before shelves go bare and the Trump tariffs price everything beyond reach.

For Kamala Harris, it’s a time for deciding.

The former vice president is expected to spend a chunk of her summer weighing various options — whether to retire from politics after more than 20 years seeking elected office, whether to mount a 2026 bid for California governor or whether to make a third attempt at the White House in 2028.

According to several who’ve spoken with Harris, she is genuinely undecided, torn between concern and affection for her home state and an undimmed desire to be president.

Of the three options, the most pressing is whether to enter the race to replace her fellow Democrat, the term-limited Gavin Newsom, as governor.

The contest is already well underway — 10 serious (broadly speaking) candidates have so far announced their candidacies. While Harris’ near-universal name recognition and nationwide fundraising base allow her to wait longer than others, a serious gubernatorial bid will take more than a few months to mount.

That forces a decision and a public announcement sooner rather than later.

If she does run, one thing Harris must avoid at all costs is anything that bespeaks arrogance, entitlement or anything less than a 100% commitment to serving as governor. It’s not hard to imagine one of her first utterances as a candidate would be pledging to serve a full four-year term and vowing not to use the office as an interim step toward another presidential bid.

Failing that, voters have every reason to send Harris packing. California doesn’t need another governor with a wandering political eye.

Another imperative Harris faces is offering a compelling reason why she wants to be governor. Seeking the office for the same reason climbers tackle Mt. Everest — because it’s there — won’t do.

History offers a lesson.

In November 1979, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy was preparing to launch an upstart bid for president against the unpopular incumbent, Jimmy Carter. He gave a television interview that was so legendarily awful it’s become an object lesson in how not to start a campaign.

Asked why he wanted to be president, Kennedy paused at length, appearing stricken. He then unspooled a long-winded, curlicued, two-minute response that mentioned natural resources, technology, innovation, productivity, inflation, energy, joblessness and the economy, among other things. His answer was lucid as a fog bank and inspiring as a stalk of celery.

“Kennedy was on a rocket ship,” said Dan Schnur, a veteran communications strategist and political science professor, who uses the Kennedy interview as part of his curriculum at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley. Carter was in dreadful shape, Kennedy was political royalty and the enthusiasm for his candidacy at the Democratic grassroots “looked like it was going to sweep him to the nomination.

“And then he did that one interview,” Schnur recollected, “and he couldn’t answer the most basic question.”

Though Kennedy ended up giving Carter a stiff challenge, he never fully recovered from leaving that terrible impression.

Harris should take heed.

A recent poll by the L.A. Times and UC Berkeley gave her a 50% approval rating among California voters, which is not exactly a number to beat the band. Still, she would enter the governor’s race as a heavy favorite to at least make the runoff under the state’s top-two election system. If a Republican nabbed the second spot, Harris would be strongly positioned to win in November, given California’s strong Democratic leaning.

But, again, neither is a reason for Harris to be governor.

Some of those close to the former vice president wonder how much she really wants, or would enjoy, the job.

In 2015, when the governorship and a U.S. Senate seat both came open, Harris — the state’s attorney general at the time — opted to seek the latter. Her reasons were both personal, involving family considerations, and professional, given the platform and opportunities afforded a member of the Senate.

In short, Harris has never burned with a passion to be California governor.

That makes it all the more important for her to explain — clearly and convincingly — why she’d want to be elected.

“She’s got to give some affirmative reason why she’s running and why it would be good for the voters of California,” Schnur said. “And it’s not just a matter of constructing several words into a sentence.

“It’s not hard for someone as smart as Kamala Harris and her team to concoct a lab-tested phrase that tests well,” he went on. “The challenge isn’t typing out a sentence. It’s developing a core purpose that can then be explained in a sentence.”

Harris has all summer to look inward and figure that out. If she can’t, California voters should choose someone else for their next governor.

May 14 (UPI) — Democrat John Ewing Jr. defeated incumbent Republican Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert to become Omaha’s first Black mayor.

Ewing, a former Omaha deputy police chief and current Douglas County, Neb., treasurer, defeated Stothert by an unofficial margin of 48,693 to 37,758, as reported by the Douglas County Election Commission. The commission will canvass and make the election official on May 29.

Ewing will also be the first Democrat to serve as Omaha mayor since 2013. Stothert had won three consecutive terms before this loss. Stothert had been the first woman elected city mayor.

Democrats also won four of the seven City Council seats.

The mayor’s office is nonpartisan, but the candidates’ parties came into play as an ad from Stothert stated that “Ewing stands with radicals who want to allow boys in girls’ sports.” KETV-TV reported that Ewing said in response that “Nobody’s ever brought that question up. So I believe it’s a made-up issue by Jean Stothert and the Republican Party.”

Ewing ran an ad that connected Stothert to President Donald Trump, to which she told KETV that “Donald Trump does not call me and ask for advice.”

Omaha and its suburbs make up Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, and it carries a presidential electoral vote, which can be won by a party different than who may carry the state-wide election and its four electoral votes.

The state generally leans Republican, but Democrats have won the 2nd Congressional District with some regularity, as Kamala Harris did in 2024, Joe Biden in 2020 and Barack Obama in 2008. On the other hand, Republican Donald Trump won in 2016 and GOP member Mitt Romney took the vote in 2012.