lawmaker

Published on
24/07/2026 – 9:14 GMT+2

German Socialist MEP Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, told Euronews that the EU should brace for further action from the US following the €890 million fine imposed on Google by the European Commission on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Tensions escalated across the Atlantic after US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the fine was “unreasonable” and created “uncertainty” for US-EU trade.

Brussels imposed the fine on the tech giant under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is designed to curb Big Tech’s dominance in the EU’s digital markets and has been a repeated target of US criticism since Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

“We have the tariff for the deal of Scotland and we have some regulation where everybody, not only US companies but also Europeans or whatever companies, has to respect it,” Lange said.

He added that both the DMA and the Digital Services Act (DSA) remain in Washington’s crosshairs and warned that the EU should prepare for retaliation.

“To be honest, I expect that some action will come,” he said.

Imposing tariffs over forced labour is ‘crazy’

The EU and the US have been bound since July 2025 by a trade deal struck in Scotland that imposes 15% US duties on EU goods while removing EU tariffs on US products.

Brussels, which hopes the deal will shield European businesses from Washington’s erratic decisions and tariff threats, had expected the US to announce a new tariff regime to replace the current one expiring on Friday and was prepared to accept it as long as it did not exceed the 15% cap.

Washington unveiled the new regime on Thursday, targeting trading partners around the world, including the EU, over forced labour.

According to Lange, the fact that the US targeted the EU over forced labour is “crazy”.

“We have a wonderful legislation, even stronger than the United States has,” he said.

However, he believes the new tariffs could eventually be challenged before US courts and hopes trade policy will return to the hands of Congress.

“I guess the courts in the United States will judge about that,” Lange said, adding: “I hope that after the midterms in November, the Congress will take over a little bit more like it is written down in the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Paragraph 8, that trade policy is in the hands of the Congress.”

“I hope this will give us also additional stability.”

July 22 (UPI) — The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to pass a bill that adds new limits on congressional stock trading, though it does not quite enact a complete ban.

House Republicans also attached a section requiring people to provide photo identification in order to vote, a provision from the controversial SAVE America Act, The Hill reported.

Lawmakers voted 232-198 to pass the bill, which would still need to pass the Senate. Thirteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it.

The bill would restrict active members of Congress, their spouses and any dependent children from buying new stocks of any publicly traded company. It would allow them to keep stocks they already own. Lawmakers would also have to file a public notice with the House clerk at least seven days before they sell a stock.

Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wisc., chairman of the House Administration Committee, led the bill and said it is “critical to restoring public trust in this institution.”

“I believe it is time we just stop allowing members to buy new stock,” he said. “Doing so removes the appearance of impropriety altogether.”

Many Democrats said the bill doesn’t go far enough — it doesn’t apply to the executive branch — and opposed the addition of changes to voting measures.

“House Republicans are pushing (a) voter suppression bill that will upend mail-in voting and throw the elections into chaos, and are trying to trick members into supporting it by linking it to a partial stock trading ban that falls short of the full congressional stock trading ban the American people want,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., told CNN.

Magaziner previously co-led a stalled bipartisan bill to ban stock trading.

If lawmakers violate the new rules, they would have to pay a fee of $2,000 or 10% of the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, and forfeit any profit.

More than 16 congressional Democrats accused the Federal Communications Commission this week of running a license-review process “tainted by animus and ideology,” demanding the agency back off its early scrutiny of Disney stations, including Los Angeles’ KABC-TV and San Francisco’s KGO-TV — while alleging the FCC has politicized its power.

The lawmakers signed letters to FCC Secretary Marlene H. Dortch to register their dismay and question the legitimacy of the FCC’s review protocol.

The letter campaign is a response to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s decision in April to order an early review of Disney’s licenses for the eight ABC television stations that it owns. The review is entering its home stretch; public comments are due to the FCC by July 29.

Calling a station’s licenses for an early review is rare, and it’s been four decades since the FCC revoked a TV station license.

Carr’s move requiring Disney to submit to an early review came after President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump expressed outrage over a joke by ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel that referenced the first lady.

“This early renewal process is merely a smokescreen to pursue President Trump’s vindictive agenda to silence minority voices and punish companies that decline to do his bidding,” according to the letter signed by Reps. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco), Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) and others.

The FCC maintains the ABC station review sprung from concerns about Disney’s internal diversity, equity and inclusion programs, but the lawmakers said there was no evidence that Disney’s personnel policies violate any laws.

Instead, they said, Trump has made it clear that he sees TV license renewals as a means to squeeze media outlets whose coverage he dislikes.

The FCC separately has taken aim at ABC’s daytime discussion show, “The View,” which delves deeply into politics.

Disney has pushed back against the early evaluation of its TV station licenses, which were originally up for review between 2028 and 2031. The Burbank giant filed its renewal applications “under protest.”

“The Commission had not demanded early renewal in over five decades,” Disney’s WABC-TV station, based in New York, wrote in a May filing with the commission. “And it has never before demanded simultaneous license renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a network as it has here. The order has no legitimate purpose.”

California congressional Democrats have strongly condemned Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s decision to mandate early, unprecedented license renewals for eight Disney-owned ABC stations, including KABC-TV in Los Angeles.

(Google street view)

The FCC maintains that Disney is the one politicizing the station review.

“Contrary to Disney’s claim that the FCC called in their broadcast licenses for early renewal for no reason, the record shows something very different,” Carr said in a May statement. “Broadcast licensees have a unique obligation to operate in the public interest. The FCC will follow the facts and law wherever they may lead.”

In the tussle over whether “The View” qualifies for an exemption to the so-called equal time rules for politicians, an FCC spokesperson said in a statement: “ABC should focus on complying with its public interest obligations, rather than misleading the public about them.”

The lawmakers, in the two letters, did not wade into the controversy over “The View.”

Instead, they stressed the importance of the two stations — KABC and KGO — to their local communities.

“KABC is an important local television station that millions of our constituents rely on for daily news, traffic, emergency weather alerts, and programming that serves our local community,” according to the letter spearheaded by Friedman, whose district includes Disney’s headquarters.

“Any refusal to renew this license would be strongly against the public interest,” the group wrote.

Congresswoman Laura Friedman is leading a letter campaign by Democrats in Congress to defend Disney’s KABC-TV.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

A second letter highlighted the importance of Disney’s San Francisco station, which serves nine counties in that region.

“For over 75 years, KGO has been operating in the public interest in our region, offering reliable journalism, indispensable emergency information, and steadfast community engagement that our constituents and viewers rely on,” according to the letter headed by Mullin.

The station also serves as a broadcast partner to the San Francisco Chinese New Year Parade, the city’s Pride parade, the Oakland Black Joy parade and the Bay to Breakers race. It also raises awareness for organizations including Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired and Bay Area Autism Collective, the lawmakers said.

“KGO’s operations reflects the television station’s deep investment and commitment to viewers in the Bay Area,” the lawmakers wrote. “KGO is a community partner. … We urge the FCC to reconsider its unlawful censorship campaign against ABC and all other political opponents of President Trump.”

A group claiming to represent California fire survivors began sending mailers and paying for social media ads this spring, calling on lawmakers to take action to reduce the rising cost of wildfires.

“Contact your legislator and tell them we need to fix our wildfire problem to make California more affordable,” said a mailer sent this month by the group called Wildfire Victims First.

“Stand with wildfire victims,” the group’s website states, urging people to join its cause.

The group was created with money from California’s three biggest for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — which government investigators found ignited at least six of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires.

The corporate campaign has angered wildfire survivors, including some of the thousands of families in Altadena who lost their homes in last year’s Eaton fire. The blaze, which killed 19 people, remains under investigation. Edison has said its century-old transmission line is the likely cause.

The utility-funded group is lobbying in Sacramento for proposals in a study that Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered to guide lawmakers in writing wildfire-related bills. The study largely ignored utilities’ responsibility for igniting fires.

Among its dozens of proposals is limiting amounts victims can get for pain and suffering, capping fees for attorneys representing survivors and requiring property insurers to bear more of the cost of utility-sparked fires.

”Each proposal would shift more of the cost of catastrophic fires away from the corporations responsible and onto survivors, policyholders, taxpayers, and the public,” wrote Joy Chen of Every Fire Survivor’s Network in a letter to Newsom this week.

Chen wrote that the industry-funded Wildfire Victims First campaign “created the appearance that wildfire survivors supported” the findings of the study. “We do not.”

The 15-page letter was signed by other organizations including Public Citizen, Consumer Watchdog and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The coalition is urging Newsom and lawmakers to do more to hold utilities accountable for the fires they ignite, so they don’t happen again.

“The Eaton fire devastated Altadena, home to one of California’s most historic Black communities,” said Brandon Lamar, president of NAACP Pasadena, who signed the letter. “Now as survivors fight to rebuild, they should not be asked to bear the cost of protecting the corporations whose failures devastated their community.”

Edison told its shareholders in its annual report that it believes it acted as a “reasonable” utility operator before the fire. If state regulators agree it acted reasonably, Edison will be reimbursed for payments it makes to victims by a $21-billion wildfire fund, which Newsom created through legislation in 2019.

And if Eaton fire damages exceed the $21-billion fund, Edison’s customers will pay the rest through their electric rates under fine print embedded in last year’s Senate Bill 254 — amendments that Newsom and lawmakers added so late that the legislative session had to be extended.

State Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, a Democrat who represents Altadena, said she opposed any bill that would limit payments to victims for pain and suffering.

“I can’t think of a more offensive thing to propose when I have friends who lost family members in the fire,” she said.

Anthony Martinez, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor and lawmakers were talking about new legislation because the study “concluded that the current system is unsustainable and not working for fire survivors, utility customers or insurance policyholders.”

“It’s essential that we work to address the complex and interconnected challenges Californians face from the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfire,” Martinez said.

He didn’t disclose what specific measures the governor supports.

Nathan Click, who directs the corporate Wildfire Victims First campaign, said that the group launched after the study found that “payouts to financial middlemen — like trial attorneys, hedge funds and insurance companies — are often paid out before wildfire victims receive a single dollar.”

“Shockingly, trial attorneys can take up to 40% of wildfire victims’ settlement awards,” he said.

Click said the group was advocating for legislation that reduces wildfire risk, expands access to affordable property insurance and ensures quick compensation to victims.

The utility-paid campaign has been joined by electrical worker unions, a powerful force in Sacramento, as well as the California Building Industry Assn. and dozens of other groups.

The Eaton fire was the second most destructive wildfire in state history.

Pedro Pizarro, Edison International’s chief executive, said last year that a leading theory of the fire’s cause was that an idle transmission line in Eaton Canyon was briefly reenergized through a process called induction, sparking the fire. Induction happens when the magnetic field of a nearby live wire causes power to jump to inactive equipment.

Edison kept the idle transmission line in place despite not using it for 50 years. The state’s utilities had known about the risks of leaving unused equipment in place. In 2019, the Kincade fire in Sonoma County, which destroyed hundreds of homes, was ignited by an idle transmission line owned by PG&E.

Despite the billions of dollars in damages caused by the Eaton fire, Edison’s profits soared last year by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion.

The company also paid its top executives more. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation, up 20% from 2024.

“If the financial rewards for repeated catastrophic failure are record profits, record executive compensation, and record shareholder dividends,” Chen wrote in the letter to Newsom, “then catastrophic failure is exactly what this system will keep producing.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged Congress on Tuesday to approve roughly $70 billion in emergency defense funding to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid its escalating war against Iran, warning that without it the Pentagon could face “critical shortfalls” disrupting its readiness.

The request comes as the United States and Iran have traded strikes for 10 consecutive days in a renewed conflict, deepening concerns in Washington over an expanding war that could inflame the global economy and trap the president in a quagmire.

The collapse of a ceasefire agreement and the sudden resumption of war have raised alarms within the Pentagon over its ability to protect U.S. forces and assets in the Middle East over a prolonged conflict, with defensive munitions in dangerously short supply, two Defense Department officials told The Times.

Yet the administration is facing bipartisan skepticism from lawmakers over the continuation of a war unpopular with a vast majority of Americans, over which they have had little oversight, and that in recent days has led to deaths of U.S. soldiers.

Those tensions became clear as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to make their case for the tens of billions of dollars and offer their first in-depth public remarks about the war since May.

Hegseth told senators the United States is at a “moment where we cannot afford inaction,” while Caine argued the funding request is coming to Congress “while time is still on our side.”

“It is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we are out of time,” Caine said.

Hegseth said the war is now expected to cost Americans $37.5 billion, up from a $29-billion estimate from early May. The war, initially projected by President Trump to last four to five weeks, is now entering its fifth month.

With no end in sight, senators from both parties signaled frustrations with the administration’s plans.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats will not support more funding for the war.

“This administration’s refusal to explain what it is doing, or how this war is protecting Americans, its refusal to seek authorization from Congress, and its expectations that Americans will just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful,” she said.

Republican lawmakers also confronted Hegseth and Caine on several fronts.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told the Pentagon leaders that lawmakers “need some proper answers and some straight talk” about the administration’s plans to ensure Iran does not choke traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Asked whether Iran would impose tolls on merchant vessels passing through the vital waterway, Caine said it was a “hypothetical” scenario — a response Kennedy rejected.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also put pressure on Hegseth, as she asked him whether the administration was still taking the position that it needed no authorization from Congress to continue hostilities against Iran.

“Senator, I know there’s a long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly at the department share the position with the White House that we have all the necessary authorities at this moment,” Hegseth said.

Murkowski’s remarks come just weeks after Republicans joined Democrats in both the House and Senate in voting to reassert Congress’ constitutional role over the war, underscoring the simmering tensions over Trump’s decision to sideline Congress in the matter.

Hours before the hearing, Trump downplayed concerns over the war’s effect on the midterm elections and further threats in the war, as Houthis, the Iran-backed militia in Yemen, declared a maritime blockade Monday on Saudi Arabia.

“So far, it hasn’t happened. It might happen but we take care of things, if something like that happens,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump maintained that Iranian leaders are “desperately” trying to reach a deal to end the war but said he has no interest in meeting with them until he is convinced the talks will be “meaningful.”

“If we left right now, it would take Iran 20 to 25 years to rebuild. We are not finished at all,” Trump said. “We are not leaving right now.”

A protester interrupts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as he testifies at Tuesday’s hearing.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Asked if he thought Iran was trying to have an effect on the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said, “probably.”

“It won’t have any impact on me,” he said. “The election, I can’t think about that having to do with this.”

An agreement reached in June between the United States and Iran proposed an end to a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and to U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports in exchange for Tehran allowing unfettered commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But the agreement fell apart, with Iran firing on commercial vessels and pursuing a toll system for transit that had not existed before the war started.

The deal was supposed to set up a structure for more detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, a prime target of the U.S. campaign launched in February in partnership with Israel.

Much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was degraded in a U.S. strike conducted last year that targeted three major facilities. But the fissile material required to build nuclear weapons remains in the country, under the watch of U.S. satellite surveillance. Iran has vowed to continue pursuing civilian nuclear work.

“How about these people? They’re in this because of nuclear weapons, and they’re trying to possibly reconstitute a site? We’ll hit that site. Any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear — we’ll be hitting it very, very powerfully,” Trump said.

As the war expands, there’s been heightened concern about the infrastructure that civilians in neighboring countries rely on for water and power.

Iranian officials said U.S. strikes hit the Bunji desalination plant on Iran’s southeastern coast, leaving 20 villages — where some 10,000 people reside — without water, according to reports from Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim.

Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti government said its power plants and desalination plants were struck by Iran on Monday — the fourth consecutive day of attacks on a key source of drinking water for the small desert nation.

The attacks spurred the Kuwaiti government over the weekend to launch an ad campaign calling on residents to reduce their water and power usage, especially during peak hours between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.

A concerted campaign targeting desalination plants would be devastating both for Iran and the Persian Gulf nations it has peppered with drones and missiles since the start of the war.

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are among the world’s eight most water-stressed countries. Israel ranks 9th, while Iran is 14th, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Water Resources Institute.

All of them suffer from “absolute water scarcity,” according to metrics used by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture organization.

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

July 17 (Asia Today) — A senior U.S. lawmaker proposed building as much as 80% of some American naval vessels in South Korea while reserving sensitive technology and final assembly for the United States.

Rep. Ami Bera of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee overseeing East Asia and the Pacific, said Thursday that relying exclusively on domestic shipyards was unrealistic because the United States lacks sufficient workers and production capacity.

Bera spoke at a South Korea-U.S. shipbuilding and maritime innovation forum hosted by the Korea Foundation and the RAND research organization in Arlington, Va.

“To say we are going to build everything in the United States is wrong,” Bera said, urging Washington to make greater use of allied manufacturing capacity.

He suggested that South Korean shipyards could produce hulls and other components accounting for 75% to 80% of a vessel, while highly sensitive systems could be manufactured and installed in the United States.

Bera also proposed a distributed construction model under which components would be produced at different locations before being brought to the United States for final assembly.

“If we do not have the workers or construction capacity in the United States, we have to build where ships can be built,” he said.

Bera said combining the capabilities of the United States and its allies would strengthen deterrence and help prevent a military conflict with China.

Technology controls and visas remain obstacles

Bera said President Donald Trump had discussed nuclear-powered submarine construction with South Korea.

Such cooperation would require the two countries to address technology sharing and export control restrictions, he said.

Bera cited the security partnership among the United States, Britain and Australia as a possible model for resolving issues related to joint naval construction.

The partnership, commonly known as AUKUS, includes plans for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines with American and British assistance.

Bera also called on the United States to facilitate the entry of South Korean engineers and technicians needed to support investments by Korean shipbuilding companies.

He described the detention of more than 300 South Korean workers in Georgia in September as an “embarrassing fiasco” and said the visa problem must be resolved.

The United States has encouraged South Korean companies to invest in American manufacturing while immigration restrictions have complicated the deployment of specialized Korean personnel to construction sites and shipyards.

Expert says U.S. rebuilding could take decades

Shin Jong-gye, a professor emeritus of naval architecture and ocean engineering at Seoul National University, said China’s overall shipbuilding capacity by gross tonnage was more than 230 times that of the United States.

He said China had more than 50 dry docks large enough to accommodate aircraft carriers.

Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia is the only U.S. shipyard capable of designing and building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

Shin said the United States must expand both its physical shipyard capacity and its ability to build vessels quickly and efficiently.

South Korea, Japan and China benefit from building commercial and naval vessels within the same industrial ecosystems, allowing them to share technology, workers and supply chains, he said.

The United States lacks a comparable commercial shipbuilding base and therefore cannot obtain the same economies of scale, Shin said.

South Korea, Japan and China together account for more than 95% of global commercial shipbuilding.

Shin said rebuilding an industry requires accumulated experience, technology and repeated construction cycles.

He estimated that rebuilding the U.S. shipbuilding sector independently could take 20 to 30 years, while cooperation with South Korea could significantly shorten the process.

Shin proposed initially building complete ships in South Korea while developing supply chains in the United States. American production could then be expanded gradually.

He said protecting South Korean intellectual property, providing appropriate compensation and resolving visa restrictions for Korean specialists would be essential.

Hanwha, HD Hyundai respond to Navy request

Michael Coulter, president and chief executive officer of Hanwha Defense USA, said protectionism was one of the largest obstacles to industrial cooperation.

He said South Korea and the United States often viewed each other primarily as export markets rather than partners sharing a common industrial base.

Coulter said the U.S. Navy had issued a request for information after consulting the South Korean government and Korean shipbuilders.

The request examined the possible use of a vessel construction manager who would help finalize a ship’s design before construction begins.

South Korean shipyards generally complete designs before starting construction, while U.S. Navy projects often undergo design changes after work has begun, increasing costs and delaying delivery, Coulter said.

The U.S. government has asked Hanwha about options ranging from building combat vessels and supplying motors to constructing hulls in South Korea before installing American technology, he said.

Coulter said, however, that the administration and Congress had not reached a unified position.

He called on the two countries to integrate portions of their industrial bases rather than treat each investment or contract as a conventional export transaction.

Hong Suk-hwan, president and chief executive officer of HD Hyundai USA, proposed a two-track strategy involving investment in U.S. shipyards and partnerships with existing American companies.

Hong said HD Hyundai had built about 5,000 vessels during the past 50 years and could apply its skilled workforce, manufacturing experience and supply network to the United States.

He also proposed a “bridge strategy” in which American workers would train at South Korean shipyards for about three years while ships were being constructed there.

The trained workers could then return to the United States as supervisors and production managers at American shipyards.

U.S. law limits overseas warship construction

Brittany Clayton, a senior operations researcher at RAND, said complicated U.S. defense procurement procedures, unpredictable orders and design changes during construction remained major barriers to cooperation.

The Navy, Defense Department and Congress all play roles in funding and policy decisions, making rapid action difficult, she said.

Clayton said companies needed consistent and predictable demand from the U.S. government before making long-term investments.

She also cited proposed legislation restricting the overseas construction of American combat vessels.

Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, whose district includes the Bath Iron Works shipyard, introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2027 defense authorization bill that would restrict foreign construction of combat ships.

Clayton said distributed construction could provide an alternative, with components built at multiple locations before being integrated and tested in the United States.

She also suggested beginning cooperation with strategic sealift vessels, which contain fewer sensitive military technologies than combat ships.

The Senate Armed Services Committee included language in its fiscal 2027 defense authorization legislation that would permit the acquisition of up to two noncombat vessels from allied shipyards, including bulk fuel carriers and strategic sealift ships.

Trump said Wednesday that his administration was examining shipbuilders in South Korea and other countries and could purchase some vessels built outside the United States.

Kristin Gunness of San Diego State University said the university had signed an agreement with Samsung Heavy Industries to establish a marine engineering and shipbuilding center.

She said the university was also developing exchange programs with Seoul National University and other South Korean institutions.

Shin proposed short-term educational programs involving retired South Korean professors and American universities to train ship designers and production managers.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260717010006342

WASHINGTON — Kathryn Ruemmler, the former top lawyer at Goldman Sachs who was White House counsel to President Obama, said Wednesday in testimony to Congress that it “was a mistake to deal with” Jeffrey Epstein but insisted she never witnessed criminal activities.

“I can see now that he used me and other respectable people to legitimize his standing,” Ruemmler told members of the House Oversight Committee, according to a copy of her opening remarks.

Ruemmler is the latest prominent figure called before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate the network of powerful people connected with Epstein. The bipartisan inquiry has already included testimony from more than a dozen high-profile witnesses, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former President Bill Clinton, as lawmakers examine how Epstein’s wealth and influence may have helped shield him from scrutiny.

Ruemmler served as White House counsel under Obama from 2011 to 2014 and was briefly considered for attorney general. She served as Goldman Sachs’ general counsel for the past six years before announcing in February that she would step down amid backlash over her correspondence with Epstein.

Although she said she would step down on June 30, she remains employed by Goldman Sachs.

Entering Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters that Ruemmler will provide unique insight as one of the few people who was “very close in the last phase of Jeffrey Epstein’s life.”

“I think some of the emails that are in the files are very concerning about how she communicated with Jeffrey Epstein,” he added.

The two were close years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction on sex crimes

While Ruemmler has tried to downplay their relationship in more recent statements, thousands of documents released by the Justice Department showed that Ruemmler and Epstein had an extensive relationship. The files included personal emails, social plans and gifts that extended beyond formal legal work. Documents showed she had called Epstein “Uncle Jeffrey” in emails and said she adored him.

Ruemmler said in her opening remarks that she first met Epstein in 2014 regarding potentially working with him and Gates “to set up a large donor advised fund.” Soon after, according to Ruemmler, she learned about Epstein’s 2008 conviction on sex crimes, when he became a registered sex offender.

She said Epstein expressed remorse about it, and that he did not know the women were underaged. She said she “relied on the resolution reached by federal and state prosecutors and validated by a judge as being a proportionate and final resolution of his criminal conduct.”

House Oversight Chair James Comer told reporters Wednesday that the “most concerning” part of Ruemmler’s communications with Epstein is how she “tried to rehabilitate his image after he was convicted of solicitation of a minor.”

Ruemmler’s interview is part of a broader investigation

Comer said Wednesday that Ruemmler is the 18th person to testify as part of their broader investigation.

Billionaire investor Leon Black was subpoenaed last month after lawmakers said he refused to answer some questions about his yearslong relationship with Epstein.

Comer said Wednesday that Black will appear for a formal deposition on Sept. 3 but that he expects to have Black’s nondisclosure agreements by “the end of the week.”

The committee has also expressed interest in questioning acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose nomination to permanently lead the Justice Department is pending before the Senate. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi identified Blanche as the department’s point person on the release of the Epstein documents, a process that has drawn bipartisan scrutiny.

“Hopefully Blanche will come in as soon as his confirmation is over,” Comer said.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

The largest single piece of federal housing legislation to come out of Congress in at least a generation is is now law.

It happened in the middle of night early Saturday, without fanfare — or even President Trump’s signature — and it might be a while before many Californians notice its effects.

That’s because the bill, though politically monumental — both chambers approved it overwhelmingly — doesn’t do one big thing. Instead, it does a lot of little things. Individually, none of the bill’s 56 regulatory tweaks, pilot programs and low-cost loans and grants are likely to move the needle on the nation’s housing affordability woes, nor on California’s specifically.

Supporters hope that collectively, they just might.

Even the law’s path to enactment had an under-the-radar quality to it. The White House abruptly canceled a planned signing ceremony late last month, with Trump vowing not to sign the bill until Congress first passed his restrictive national voter ID proposal. That bill has stalled out in the Senate.

Still, Trump did not veto the housing package, so it automatically became law Saturday just after midnight, as per the Constitution.

For all that, supporters say this is still a big deal: a major, bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at boosting housing construction from a hyperpartisan legislative body that doesn’t typically touch the topic.

“We don’t often gather to celebrate federal housing legislation,” Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, said at a news conference Thursday. “I think the last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you were not even alive. … It is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

That’s thanks in part to a growing caucus of lawmakers aligned with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement that helped push the bill into law. Many hail from California, a state that has had more experience than most contending with wildly unaffordable housing. But the cause of making housing more affordable, and attributing high housing costs to a lack of sufficient supply, has become a national and bipartisan concern. Case in point: The bill originated as a joint proposal by Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), an ardent conservative, and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), among the most liberal members of the Senate.

While the constituent parts of the bill are relatively narrow and none is specifically focused on California, experts highlight a few provisions that could leave a notable imprint on the state.

Build now (or else)

For high-cost cities that don’t build much housing, as in much of urban California, the federal bill includes a novel carrot and stick.

This portion of the bill would change the Community Development Block Grant, one of the largest sources of federal funding for affordable housing and local economic development. Pricey cities — defined through a variety of data benchmarks like median prices and vacancy rates — with a track record of under-building that continue to see below-average housing construction will have their grant funds cut by 10%. The savings will go to their municipal counterparts that build at a faster clip.

That’s likely to have “real implications for cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that have traditionally lagged behind” in adding housing supply, said David Garcia, the deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

The city of Los Angeles received $48.4 million in its last award from the block grant program in 2024, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data. San Francisco received $18.9 million.

Those numbers aren’t enough to make or break the budget of either city.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, in an email. “Which taken across the country could still have a good impact! Little nudges add up.”

More dramatic than the number of dollars involved may be the precedent the policy sets. Even in California, where the state government has aggressively incentivized cities to plan for more housing development and penalized those that don’t, lawmakers have never punished municipalities for failing to actually grow — an outcome that may not always be under a city government’s control.

Such an idea would have been “inconceivable in previous congresses,” Garcia said.

Despite that, the provision hasn’t engendered much public opposition from local government groups yet. In an online summary, Michael Wallace, a lobbyist with the National League of Cities, applauded the overall housing bill as an example of the federal government “choosing partnership with local governments over preemptions.” He singled out other provisions of the bill that provide expanded flexibility for Community Development Block Grant spending, new incentive programs for adding supply, and new supports for local urban planning.

Chassis change

Manufactured housing units are often colloquially referred to as mobile homes, but they don’t tend to move around much. Built on assembly lines and shipped to where they’re needed, these naturally affordable houses — the likes of which lawmakers across California and the United States claim we need in droves — are often placed upon permanent foundations where a fewer than 1 in 10 ever move again.

Even so, the federal building code applied to manufactured housing includes a costly, vestigial reference to its mobile origins: a permanent chassis.

A giant steel frame with removable axles and wheels, the chassis ostensibly exists to make it easier to pick up and move a manufactured house by truck. In practice, it serves as a 10- to 12-inch-thick floor beneath the floor. Because it cannot be removed upon delivery, it just serves as “dead space and wasted money,” said Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute, the industry’s trade group. Aside from adding thousands of dollars in added costs per unit, it also makes it harder for manufactured units to be stacked into double story homes or multifamily apartment buildings.

The federal housing bill removes the permanent chassis requirement, something that manufacturers and some housing policy experts have been pushing for since the mid-1980s.

“That relatively minor change will expand access to one of the most affordable forms of home ownership available,” Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego) said at the Thursday news conference.
Maxcy said he doesn’t expect the end of the chassis requirement to trigger an overnight building boom in the manufactured home industry. But especially in California, where, due to the high price of land, new single-family homes are more likely to be built stacked on small lots, the regulatory change “provides more opportunities and helps us reduce the price.”

Recovering after disaster

In the months after a natural disaster, long after emergency federal dollars have come and gone, Congress has provided communities with long-term rebuilding grants through the Community Development Block Grant—Disaster Recovery program. Over the last three decades, the program has spent more than $100 billion on the long-term work of recovery, like home construction, infrastructure repair and rental and relocation assistance. That money tends to be reserved for low-income people and communities “who are not going to bounce back without the funds,” said Marion McFadden, who used to run the program under the Biden administration and now works at the disaster preparation and recovery consulting company IEM.

Unfortunately for California, the program only kind of exists. Since the mid-1990s, it’s been stood up and funded on an ad hoc basis, one appropriation bill at a time. That presents a challenge for communities planning in the middle of post-disaster planning. It also means the rules that govern the program — when the money goes out, to whom, under what conditions and for what purposes — are redrafted with each political administration. That’s had the effect of slowing things down considerably. No program funding has gone to Los Angeles in the wake of the 2025 fire storms, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congress has yet to appropriate any.

The new housing bill would officially write the program into law for at least three years.

“It creates the ability for HUD to have money on hand before a disaster and then make a decision within 15 days about whether they’re going to provide funding,” McFadden said.

What the housing bill doesn’t do: provide fresh funding. Disaster-prone communities will need to wait for Congress to take that up later.

A ‘bottleneck’ removed

For the last two decades, public housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have been turning to the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program to help repair and upgrade their aging stock of increasingly dilapidated public housing. The program works by switching up funding sources in a way that gives locals more flexibility to borrow money and attract private investment dollars.

Until the new law took effect this weekend, the federal government was only authorized to permit 455,000 of these conversions. The law raises the cap by an additional 100,000.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years and that bottleneck just got removed,” said Russell with the San Diego Housing Federation.
Not all affordable housing advocates are cheering the development. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has consistently opposed expansion of the program on the grounds that the change in funding source could weaken existing tenant protections. It’s unclear whether and to what extent that might be true. A study from last year found no evidence that conversions under the program lead to more evictions.

Wall Street out of suburbia

If you’ve heard only one thing about this housing bill, it’s that it bans “large institutional investors” from buying up more single family homes.

Caveats apply in the final version of the law. The bill defines “large” as any of a number of business structures with control over more than 350 single-family homes. It doesn’t apply retrospectively, so current investors with portfolios brimming with houses need not divest. Exemptions exist for new construction, renovations and senior housing. In California specifically, where corporations and other major investors do not play a significant role in the housing market, the effect is likely to be muted.

The measure “takes a hyper-salient issue for lots of people across the country and does a pretty modest intervention to address it,” said Chad Maisel, a fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress and a former housing policy advisor to President Biden.

Even so, the provision has plenty of bipartisan appeal. Earlier this year, Trump called for an even stricter crackdown on so-called corporate landlords. Gov. Gavin Newsom followed suit the same week.

The anti-investor language was considerably watered down from earlier this year, when a related provision threatened to undermine “build-to-rent” projects: well-financed subdevelopments of single-family homes reserved for renters. That prompted a revolt by many developers and YIMBY activists who had otherwise enthusiastically supported the bill, who argued that such communities are one of the fastest growing sources of the U.S. housing stock and provide some of the few opportunities for renters to live in suburban-style, family-sized housing.

After the build-to-rent provision was left on the cutting room floor of Congress, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Fremont Democrat who is now running for Congress, introduced a bill that picked it back up again. SB 880 would have banned the bundled sale of multiple single-family homes, striking at the heart of the build-to-rent business model. That bill died in the Assembly Judiciary committee in late June.

Christopher writes for CalMatters.

LONDON — Reform UK leader Nigel Farage announced Tuesday that he will quit his seat in Parliament and seek reelection in an effort to clear his name over financial allegations linked to millions of dollars’ worth of donations.

The unexpected resignation is an effort by the anti-immigration politician to preempt a standards investigation that could have seen him ejected as a lawmaker, and to present himself as the victim of a witch hunt by the news media and his political foes.

“I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken the law in any way at all. I have not misused public money,” Farage, a prominent ally of President Trump, said in a statement broadcast by his party. Media outlets were not allowed to attend the broadcast and he did not take questions.

Farage faces a parliamentary standards investigation about undeclared and potentially rule-breaking donations, including a $6.7-million gift he received from a Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire. A finding of wrongdoing could lead to Farage being suspended or expelled from Parliament. But he has made the first move by triggering an election for his seaside seat of Clacton in eastern England.

“The people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,” Farage said. “This will be a people versus the establishment by-election.”

And, he said: “I will fight to win.”

Farage won Clacton comfortably in the 2024 election, taking 46.2% of the vote, and stands a good chance of winning reelection. Reform UK said it was willing to pay for the special election, which may deflect claims it is wasting taxpayers’ money.

Farage’s opponents were unimpressed. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the announcement “a desperate stunt” from a man “up to his neck in sleaze.” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch claimed Farage was having a “hissy fit” and triggering an “ego by-election.”

Farage may run almost unopposed. The opposition Liberal Democrats called on other parties to not enter the contest in order to starve Farage’s “vanity project” of oxygen. The Labor Party said it would not stand a candidate, as did the Conservatives, who also confirmed they would not run.

The gambit may only postpone Farage’s problems. Even if he wins, the standards inquiry is likely to resume.

Farage tipped by some as a future prime minister

Scrutiny of Farage’s finances has spurred speculation about the future of a politician some considered the favorite to be prime minister after the next national election.

One of the most high-profile and controversial figures in British politics, Farage has had an outsized effect as a champion of leaving the European Union and foe of large-scale immigration. He was key in securing victory for the “leave” side in the 2016 EU membership referendum.

His rise has echoes of Trump’s nationalist, anti-immigration playbook. Farage has capitalized on — critics say stoked — concerns about migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, which he has called an invasion, and alleges that white people face discrimination from police.

He also rails against “the establishment” and the media, which he claimed are using “foul means” to stop him.

A skilled communicator whose supporters see a beer-drinking plain-speaker, and whose critics see a populist rabble-rouser, Farage has had a checkered political career and was elected to Parliament in 2024 only after seven failed attempts. He also has a history of walking away from parties he led, stepping down from both the UK Independence Party and its successor, the Brexit Party, in the last decade.

Reform UK has only eight of the 650 seats in the House of Commons but consistently leads opinion polls over the governing Labor Party and the main opposition Conservatives.

Farage’s party was the big winner in local and regional elections in May that led to the ouster of Starmer at the hands of his own Labor Party.

But Reform UK has lost three consecutive special elections that it hoped to win, a possible sign its support may be sagging. The most recent loss was to Labor’s Andy Burnham, who is likely to succeed Starmer as prime minister within weeks.

Donors include a crypto billionaire and a fraudster

Parliamentary standards commissioner Daniel Greenberg is investigating the 5-million-pound donation to Farage from Christopher Harborne, a British businessman based in Thailand. Farage says the money was a personal gift that he used to fund security and came before he was elected to the House of Commons.

U.K. rules state that newly elected lawmakers must declare gifts worth more than $400 they received in the previous 12 months, except where the gift “could not be reasonably thought by others” to relate to their political activities.

Farage is also facing questions about claims, reported by the Sunday Times, over his financial relationship with George Cottrell, an aristocratic crypto-gambling entrepreneur, convicted fraudster and on-off aide to the Reform UK leader.

Cottrell was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in 2016, while traveling with Farage, over allegations he offered to launder money for undercover agents posing as drug traffickers. Indicted on 21 counts relating to money laundering, fraud, blackmail and extortion, he agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of wire fraud, admitting attempting to defraud criminals on the dark web by masquerading as a money launderer. He served eight months in prison.

Cottrell, 32, remains close to Farage, and the Sunday Times said he gave the politician funding for staffing and security before Britain’s 2024 general election, as well as the use of a London townhouse near Buckingham Palace.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.

California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions in the Nov. 3 election, measures placed on the ballot mostly by either powerful interest groups or lawmakers that will affect the lives of millions of Californians.

While a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters will also have a chance to weigh in on a number of consequential issues, from healthcare to voter identification requirements and more.

Californians are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and often face a list of propositions. But even by the standards of the state’s direct democracy process, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have already collected more than $100 million in contributions, and are expected to use their money to inundate the television airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with glossy campaign mailers over the coming months.

Here are the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

Spurred by the state’s affordable housing shortage, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

Advocates say the funds would help build more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable homes that are unable to move forward because of a financing gap and help preserve thousands of other existing units.

Proposition 1 includes specific funding for high-need groups, including $1.25 billion for a veterans’ home loan program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless people, $350 million for student housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.

“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people — we meet them head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement about the measure. “We are giving voters the power to help shape the future of housing in our state. This bond is about building communities, expanding access and affordability in California, where every family has a fair shot at a place to call home.”

Some Republicans took issue with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader appeal while doing little to actually help homeless veterans.

“It’s a sad thing to say that you have to use the veterans as bait to get the people of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I just think that’s shameful,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Army veteran. “Call it what it is. It’s a homeless bond, and it does include some veterans’ benefits, but it is not a veterans bond.”

Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

This measure would give California lawmakers more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s, and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

The measure could incentivize lawmakers to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that otherwise would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Proposition 3: Fund schools and healthcare

If passed, this proposition would make permanent an existing tax on high-income Californians.

The existing tax, passed by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016, is set to expire in 2031. It applies to people who earn more than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household. It adds between 1% to 3% to these high earners’ personal income tax rates.

According to the initiative text, the funds are largely earmarked for local school districts and community colleges, with some portion of the money going to California’s rainy day reserves — which the state uses to prevent cuts to healthcare and other services when revenues decline. The measure says revenues cannot be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, depending on how the stock market is performing, with the amount expected to grow over time.

Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns

This measure would allow the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing to candidates running for elected office. Candidates receiving the funding must abide by expenditure limits and adhere to the criteria set by statute, ordinance or charter to demonstrate broad support, such as demonstrate a large number of small dollar contributions.

None of the public campaign financing can come from funds designated for education, transportation or public safety. The financing cannot discriminate based on party or whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The public funds cannot be used for legal costs, fines or to pay back personal loans to a campaign.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and governor.

Proposition 5: Recall elections

This measure would change the way recall elections are conducted in California. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, during a recall election, voters would decide solely whether a politician should be removed from their elected position. If the recall is successful, that office would remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with existing law — either by a separate election or by appointment.

Under current law, voters make two separate decisions during a recall election: Whether to remove the subject of the recall from office and, if they are booted, which candidate running to replace them should fill the position. The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they receive far less than 50% of the vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would also allow the recalled politician to run in the next election to fill the vacancy, though they cannot be appointed to their former post. Under the current system, office holders targeted in a recall are barred from being a candidate to replace themselves in that same election.

The proposal comes in the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which in part tested voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from office in 2018 after he voted to increase gas taxes for road repairs, legislation pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman won back his seat in 2020.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature.

Proposition 37: Homeownership loan program

Proposition 37 would create a down payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a new home.

The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, would allow middle-class California residents — defined as anyone who makes less than 200% of an area’s median income — borrow most of their down payment for a new home that they plan to live in. It is designed to boost construction of single-family homes.

A down payment is traditionally about 20% of the purchase price of a home. If passed, the measure would create a state-administered loan program that offers qualified homebuyers a second mortgage of up to 17% of a home’s sale price.

The proposition would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to administer the program.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not anticipate the measure to result in direct state or local costs because the costs are meant to be covered by homeowners’ mortgage payments.

Proposition 38: Immunology research bond

Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to support research in the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which study the human immune system and how it can be used to prevent, treat and cure diseases.

If approved, half of the funding would go toward the creation of a new immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would fund research grants for other California-based universities and nonprofit medical research institutions to study potential treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

The measure has a built-in discount program for Californians — it requires that any technology or drugs developed from bond-funded research be sold to California patients for a price at least 20% below the national average.

Backers of the proposal include the Alzheimer’s Assn., National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other healthcare groups. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate research that could save lives and save patients “billions of dollars in health care costs by preventing and curing a range of debilitating diseases and illnesses,” according to the initiative text.

Proposition 39: Voter identification

Proposition 39 would require Californians to show government-issued identification every time they vote at the polls.

Currently, Californians must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity, such as their birth date, driver’s license or Social Security number, when registering to vote, but they don’t have to present identification when they cast their ballot.

Under this measure, voters would also need to present government-issued ID each time they vote in-person at the polls or, if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from government-issued identification” that matches the one they provided when they registered to vote. California would be required to provide free voter ID cards on request, and state and county election officials would be required to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens by using government data.

The voter ID measure has support from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as necessary to prevent voter fraud and restore trust. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and severe limits on voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already secure — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting cases are rare — and that it would make voting harder for many eligible voters, including people who have changed names, move frequently or face housing instability.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would make election administration more expensive, costing state and local governments anywhere from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, plus tens of millions in upfront implementation costs.

Proposition 40: Billionaire tax

This proposition, supported by a healthcare worker union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion.

According to a state-prepared summary of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues would be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund food assistance or education-related programs. California’s richest residents would be able to spread the payments over five years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would generate “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years, but would lead to an annual decrease in state income tax revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”

Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it would lead wealthy residents to leave the state and lead to future budget problems. Other opponents include Planned Parenthood, the California School Boards Assn. and a nonprofit called Building a Better California that is backed by tech execs and venture capitalists.

Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.

Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state special taxes

This is one of two ballot measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a new tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect undercut or curtail that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would also prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s current voter-approved spending limit. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax measure would be voided.

The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a financial and performance audit of proposed ballot initiatives and of the programs they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that would receive funding from the special tax in the proposed initiative to assess the efficiency of the program and recommend who ought to reduce its annual costs by 10%. If the measure passes, the costs of the audits would be paid via the revenues generated by the special tax.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 42: Ban on new state personal property taxes

This is one of two ballot measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect void that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax ballot measure would be voided.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for special taxes

The measure would prohibit local governments from imposing new special taxes unless the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction also applies to citizen initiatives, which currently only need a simple majority vote to be approved.

It would also limit cities’ ability to impose taxes on property sales. In charter cities, the measure would prevent voters from approving any real estate transfer taxes beyond the state’s existing rate of 0.11% of a property’s sale price. It would also cancel some existing property-related taxes.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. supports Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterized the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax increases and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax increases.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law — but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.

Proposition 44: Regulate health clinic spending

If passed, Proposition 44 would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose” rather than management and overhead. Community clinics that fail to comply would be penalized, with fines placed in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce programs.

Advocates say clinics spend too much on executive pay and other administrative costs and not enough on patient care. The measure, which would dictate how clinics spend money, is designed to fix that. The measure is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, an influential healthcare workers union, which argues it will help hold clinics accountable.

In May, the California Primary Care Assn., which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, sued to block the ballot measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Assn., also opposes the measure, arguing it would ban clinics from keeping funding in reserves and hamper their ability to upgrade equipment or expand to new locations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure would cost the government up to the low tens of millions annually, and that much of the cost would be paid for through penalties and fees charged to affected clinics. The office says the measure has “uncertain” impacts and could lead to clinic closures.

Proposition 45: CEQA reform

This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and speed up the process for projects deemed “essential,” including certain housing, water, health, public safety, energy and transportation projects.

Jails, detention facilities and oil or natural gas production facilities would not be considered “essential” projects, according to the measure text.

If passed, the measure would set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review, allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts — currently, public agencies are required to consider a range of feasible alternatives to reduce environmental impacts — and establish deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits.

CEQA lawsuits have often been used to block construction of housing in the state. For instance, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impact from partying students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s construction of student dorms on People’s Park.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state and local government implementation will cost in the tens of millions of dollars for the first several years. It notes the legislation would probably result in net savings in the long term due to reduced administrative and legal workload.

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Progressive Democratic politicians who refuse to take donations from pro-Israel groups have won several party primary elections across the United States.

Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern tells host Steve Clemons that the left is rising because Americans “want more from Democrats”.

“Right now, we’re doing a lot of bad things all around the world, and people need to protest,” McGovern says. On US policy ranging from Cuba to Israel, he argues that Congress has become “just a rubber stamp on whatever this president wants to do”.

“We need to fight for the soul of this country,” McGovern adds.

Last week, the U.S. Forest Service and Department of the Interior expanded the situations in which their firefighters are allowed to wear N95 masks.

Starting in September, the federal government began allowing firefighters to wear the masks, but not when they were working on the fire line, only at times such as in camp and sitting in vehicles. Now they’ll be allowed to wear them during some work battling wildfires, including patrolling for areas where the blaze has jumped past fire lines and putting out smoldering remains after a fire is contained.

Masks are still prohibited during firefighters’ most grueling tasks — digging lines to stop fires and directly attacking flames. And the masks they’re using, N95s, do not protect against all of the toxic substances in wildfire smoke.

Nonetheless, health experts applauded the move as a step in the right direction.

Here’s why it took so long to get here:

Research has linked wildfire smoke to a range of long-term health issues, including respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases and cancers.

“The fire service knows that,” said Rachael Jones, professor and chair of environmental health sciences at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health. “They all have stories” of lung damage or cancer, either their own or their coworkers’.

But this wasn’t always common knowledge.

“The verbiage was that wildland smoke was benign,” one firefighter told Jones’ colleagues for a recent study on firefighters’ thoughts on mask use. “It was like sitting around a campfire.”

Even as scientists and fire officials came to terms with the very real long-term health risks, some firefighters still had concerns that masks could muffle communication, make it hard to breathe and interfere with other equipment. That slowed adoption.

Missing crucial orders because a voice is muffled, or struggling to pull out an emergency fire shelter because a mask is in the way, could be the difference between life and death.

“These are not trivial things when the fact is that they reflect life safety outcome,” Jones said.

Deciding on the right type of mask or respirator has slowed adoption too. There are no commercially available respirators that protect against all of the dangerous pollutants in wildfire smoke.

Scientists have not even fully determined which pollutants pose the greatest risks to firefighters, further complicating a choice.

N95s filter for solid particles in the air but not dangerous gases. Heavy smoke or sweat can cause them to clog.

Half-face respirators — often gray rubber with pink canisters — offer different filters for different gases, but none can filter all of the concerning gases in wildfire smoke. The masks and backup canisters are also much bulkier to carry around than N95s.

Respirators that can filter out all of the “literally hundreds” of concerning compounds in smoke “just simply don’t exist,” said Matt Rahn, research director for the Wildfire Conservancy, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting firefighters.

The result: “In our pursuit for perfection in finding the best respiratory devices for firefighters, we’ve basically fallen into a decision paralysis of doing nothing,” Rahn said. “It’s been that way for years.”

The federal government acknowledges the limitations of N95s in its educational material for firefighters. In a statement to The Times, the Forest Service said it will begin studying different respirators in a small pilot program to “determine if their use will be suitable for the wildland fire environment.”

The Forest Service said that N95s are already “readily available” to its firefighters and that it has more than 30,000 of them.

More recent wildfire news

Many in the western United States will have to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday with fewer fireworks due to heightened wildfire risk. Utah’s governor restricted fireworks statewide through July 5 as multiple wildfires raged in the state and the National Weather Service issued a rare “Particularly Dangerous Situation” warning, Kathy McCormack reports for the Associated Press. California officials, meanwhile, warned of zero tolerance for illegal fireworks, with some local governments recently increasing fines, Kassia Bonesteel reports for CBS News.

Three federal wildland firefighters were killed and two were injured by the fast-moving Knowles fire in Colorado on Saturday. As a ground crew began some of the first attacks on the fire, an order came over the radio to “get out of there now,” CNN reported. Within minutes, the crew was forced to deploy their emergency shelters, a desperate last line of defense when escape is impossible. Firefighters lined the streets of Grand Junction, Colo., on Sunday in a procession for their fallen colleagues.

Much of the western U.S. is facing above normal fire potential after one of the hottest and driest winters in recent years. Coastal Southern California, conversely, is facing average wildfire potential, fire weather analysts say, thanks to monsoon breezes bringing damp air from the tropics.

A few last things in climate news

A pair of hazardous chemical crises in Greater Los Angeles — at an aerospace facility in Garden Grove and a warehouse in Boyle Heights — have left Californians questioning why environmental and public health agencies such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health failed to address known risks, a team from CalMatters and the LA Local reports.

The Boyle Heights warehouse fire coincided with a spike in emergency room visits for smoke inhalation and throat pain, my colleague Hayley Smith found. Meanwhile, the water used to fight the toxic blaze ended up in the Los Angeles River, The Times’ Mack Baysinger reports. Local organizers collected water samples for testing as L.A. County public works deployed floating barriers to contain the runoff.

The headwaters of the Colorado River, a vital source of water for 35 million people and 5 million acres of farmland, is drier than anyone can remember, my colleague Ian James reports. As seven U.S. states and Mexico remain gridlocked in complex debates over use of the river, it’s a stark reminder that the climate of the 21st century will leave less for everyone.

Europe is facing its second major heat wave of the year, with France recording its hottest day ever, Lauren Dalban reports for Inside Climate News. As residents struggled to handle the extreme heat, worsened by climate change, so did climate infrastructure championed to combat it. Trains were halted as the heat risked buckling tracks and nuclear reactors were slowed or powered off as the cooling water they discharged became too hot, the New York Times’ Chico Harlan reported.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed his final state budget as governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that seeks to uplift the poorest Californians through a tax system reliant on the stock market gains of the wealthy.

In a video message, Newsom extolled free school meals, universal transitional kindergarten, 130,000 subsidized childcare slots and other accomplishments in his tenure at the state Capitol, a period in state history marked by a dramatic expansion of state government and over $100 billion in increased spending.

“Over the past eight years, we built great things for the people of California — some of the boldest actions any government in this country has taken in a generation,” Newsom said. “And we did this without breaking the bank. We did this by design.”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Economists have warned that the revenue bump is potentially temporary and analysts say the growth in state spending could leave California in a challenging position if the economy declines.

Assemblymember David Tangipa (R-Fresno) agreed with Democrats that the budget is “compassionate.”

“My fear is that it’s not too much of a competent budget, and the budget continues a pattern that Californians know all too well: Spend now, justify it later, and hope somebody else pays the bill,” he said during a floor debate Monday.

Here’s what you need to know about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1.

Who decides the state budget?

The simplest answer is: Democrats. California voters have elected Democrats to represent 30 of the 40 seats in the Senate and 60 seats of the 80 seats in the Assembly. The budget was passed through a majority vote in each house of the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat.

A more complex answer is that the budget is a product of dozens of legislative hearings, millions of dollars spent on lobbying by outside interests, talks among lawmakers and the governor and ultimately subject to the same political dynamics that rule the Democratic party.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), in consultation with the chairs of the budget committees, represent their Democratic caucuses and reach a final agreement on the details of the spending plan with Newsom. In reality, staff members for the three parties handle most, if not all, of the back of forth negotiations to get there.

Union leaders seeking better pay, working conditions, benefits for workers and opportunities to expand their ranks are often brought in to consult or hammer out thorny deals as business groups try to fight off more regulations, taxes and costs, and support policies that increase their financial performance.

Democrats are spending more than ever before. How is that possible?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, recently examined the increase in state spending since 2019-20, Newsom’s first full year in office.

Between the budget approved that year and the spending proposal Newsom unveiled in January, spending from the state’s main operating fund had grown by over $100 billion, or 70%. That was largely by a 60% increase in revenue during that time. California typically operates with a spending deficit because Democrats spend more money than the state brings in.

The LAO found that the increase in spending stemmed from the growing cost of sustaining programs and services that were already in place when Newsom took office. About 30% of the remaining spending growth was categorized as new, either by newly created programs or the expansion of existing services.

Among the report’s conclusions: California could not afford the programs that predated Newsom and the ones he and the Legislature adopted.

To balance the budget over the last few years, Newsom and lawmakers have dipped into the state’s reserves at a time when California is experiencing strong revenue growth, which the LAO has cautioned against. Democrats have also increased taxes on businesses, paid for programs out of other funds and suspended reserve deposits among other solutions.

This year, the state budget places $6.4 billion in higher than expected revenue into a temporary holding account to knock down a deficit and balance the budget through 2027-28.

Democrats are pursuing a change to the state constitution on the November ballot that would allow them to set aside more money in years of good revenue growth to prevent cuts in future downturns.

Where is the money going?

Education and Medi-Cal are the two largest costs for the state.

Medi-Cal is the state’s version of subsidized health insurance for low-income Californians and provides medical, dental and vision care for an estimated 14.5 million people, or about one-third of the state population.

The federal government pays for more than half of the cost of the program. California is expected to spend about $50 billion from the general fund next year out of a total estimated at more than $220 billion in costs shared between the state and federal government, according to the LAO. State taxes and fees on providers also help fund Medi-Cal.

Overall, Medi-Cal costs more than any other state program and takes up about 40% of total spending, including federal funds the state receives, according to the LAO.

Spending on Medi-Cal has more than doubled over the last 10 years, which the LAO attributes to an increase in costs per enrollee, more enrollees and a greater share of seniors seeking care, among other factors.

Under Newsom, California has expanded Medi-Cal, including offering coverage to include all immigrants regardless of their immigration status, which the governor said has dropped the state’s uninsured rate down to 5.9%

The cost of Medi-Cal has grown beyond what Democrats expected and resulted in Newsom suggesting spending cuts.

The final budget agreement rejects a call by Newsom to lower the asset limit to $2,000 now and instead lowers it to $21,000 in 2027-28 to be eligible for Medi-Cal. The Legislature also delayed the governor’s proposal to reduce dental coverage and shift asylum seekers and other immigrants to restricted scope Medi-Cal, according to Jason Sisney, the lead budget advisor for the Assembly who posts about the budget on Substack.

The budget includes Newsom’s proposal to shift enrollees with unsatisfactory immigration status, a term that includes undocumented immigrants and others, from managed care to fee-for-service to save costs.

Under Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, California has a minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges and dedicates roughly 40% of general fund revenue to education.

Sisney said the budget increases the Local Control Funding Formula by $2.2 billion and provides historic general fund per pupil spending of $21,148. Support for special education also grew by $1.8 billion.

The California Community Schools Partnership Program received a $1-billion boost and Democrats directed $2.8 million in additional funding to the program that provides free meals for school children.

The budget also establishes 22,770 new slots for free or reduced childcare, which Newsom had proposed decreasing.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom reached an agreement Friday with legislative leaders on a $351.7-billion state budget in his final year as governor, a spending plan that uses a tax windfall to avoid major cuts and lessen California’s chronic deficit in the years ahead.

The deal provides nearly $2 billion in state revenue next year through tax hikes on corporations, new levies on software sales and a revamped tax on managed healthcare organizations. Lawmakers and the governor continue major investments in education, healthcare and agreed to increase spending on subsidized childcare and affordable housing.

“We want to leave the next governor not only a balanced budget, but a budget that is substantially structurally sound, and we’re going to accomplish that,” Newsom said in an interview Friday. “We were very cautious in terms of new spending,”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Early forecasts last June projected a $12.6-billion deficit in 2026-27, according to the California Department of Finance. Updated predictions now suggest the state will end the year with a surplus of $4.5 billion.

Democrats, following Newsom’s lead, are tucking away $6.4 billion for future years, which allows the governor to knock down a deficit previously projected through 2027-28 and assuage criticism about his spending habits.

But economists say the fix and revenue increase is likely only temporary.

Spending in California has generally exceeded revenue growth during Newsom’s tenure in the governor’s office, creating a chronic shortfall. Despite the extra funding, the budget continues a trend of relying on reserves, shifting funds, borrowing and suspending debt payments to balance state spending.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, has warned of a roughly $10-billion gap between the amount of money the state brings in and spends, which could grow dramatically worse if the stock market turns downward. The LAO has said the existence of any operating deficit during a revenue boom is a red flag and that the state is “ill-prepared” for even a modest decline.

Christopher Thornberg, an economist and founder of the consulting firm Beacon Economics, said it’s business as usual in Sacramento.

“They love increasing spending. But it seems politically impossible to go the other way,” Thornberg said. “We’ve seen this play out over and over again.”

Lawmakers and the governor offered a different take and asserted that their decision to put the $6.4 billion into a short-term reserve, called the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account, and ask voters to allow them to store more money in the rainy day fund are examples of prudent budgeting.

“You see us save more and you see try to address the immediate needs of our community, but also the structural budget that potentially awaits us,” said Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) in an interview. “We are forecasting a moment where we will need to address these issues and we want to start now to think about the future as well.”

Under a progressive tax structure, the state budget is dependent on income taxes paid by the ultra-rich on earnings largely from capital gains. The set up leaves California vulnerable to the unpredictable nature of the stock market, dramatic swings in revenue and, in recent years, reliant on poor projections.

Negotiations at the state Capitol included an agreement on a constitutional amendment that seeks to offset the revenue highs and lows.

If approved by voters on the statewide ballot in November, the amendment would raise a cap on mandatory deposits into the rainy day fund from 10% to 20% of general fund revenue. The measure would also allow lawmakers to exempt money they put into the rainy day fund and the temporary holding account from state spending limits.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

With few exceptions, the limit applies to most appropriations of tax revenue, including when lawmakers put money away in the rainy day fund and other reserves.

Newsom said the change will leave the state in a much better position to weather the volatility. Though calls for tax reform remain in California, the governor said being able to place more money into the reserves could ultimately solve the state’s budget challenges.

“The one thing missing is the one thing that I think we finally landed, which is the change in the reserves,” Newsom said. “It changes the political dynamic, where now you’re not exchanging general fund priorities.”

Republicans criticized the proposed constitutional amendment, which passed in a budget trailer bill this week, for failing to require that excess revenue pays down the state’s $22 billion in unemployment insurance debt.

State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) called it a missed opportunity.

“It does not require debt payment to go to the UI debt,” Strickland said. “It facilitates more spending, exempting reserve deposits from the state spending limit.”

As part of the negotiations, lawmakers agreed to delay some healthcare cuts that would have required monthly premiums for immigrants and eliminated dental care. The deal adopts a Medi-Cal asset test of $21,000 on July 1, 2027, instead of a $2,000.

The budget agreement includes a provision requiring California’s next governor to develop options to reduce taxpayer subsidies for corporations whose employees receive state-sponsored healthcare through Medi-Cal instead of the company’s health plan. The plan is aimed at raising revenue to offset federal cuts that are expected to leave millions of Californians without access to healthcare.

The California Department of Finance said state reserves are expected to total $28.8 billion under the 2026-27 budget.

As the destructive Bobcat fire sent plumes of smoke billowing from the Angeles National Forest in 2020, Ryan Huling recalled that at the time news reports claimed the blaze caused “no injuries” and that no homes had been destroyed.

That irked the Sierra Madre writer, who watched from his cabin as flames incinerated the home of bears, coyotes, pumas and squirrels. He believes countless critters were killed or maimed by flames, and points to accounts of mountain lions emerging with singed paws and bears scrambling into communities.

“Anonymity has done them no favors, in the sense that people don’t know where they live, they don’t know what landmarks are important to them, they don’t know what areas carry special significance to bears and other animals,” Huling said.

Yet through his research he discovered that rapidly advancing technology — including artificial intelligence, GPS tracking and crowdsourcing — is revealing more about animal “societies” than ever before. The revelation launched him on a worldwide tour of non-human communities, culminating in his debut book, “The Hidden Nations of Animals.”

The cover of Ryan Huling’s first book, published in June.

(Penguin Random House)

Published this month, the book’s first chapter takes readers to North America’s “beaver belt,” roughly 1,100 miles in northern Canada that are jam-packed with beaver dams. According to Huling, the sheer density of those dams only became apparent thanks to technology that allows researchers to analyze high-resolution satellite imagery and identify them from space. One analysis found 2,700 dams surrounding a town of only about 1,000 people.

Another stop took him to Zambia, where African mole-rats dig complex tunnel systems that include designated nurseries, pantries and bathrooms. Just before Huling arrived, a researcher had used radio trackers to determine that the subterranean animals operate on a biological clock that has them alternate between a few hours of activity and a few hours of napping — not a bad work schedule!

Some of Huling’s other adventures include exploring a tornado of Mexican free-tailed bats outside of San Antonio and red-crowned cranes that have found refuge in the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

But uncovering these hidden worlds isn’t just left to the experts anymore. While the expense or difficulty of tracking wild animals has resulted in knowledge voids in the past, crowdsourcing is helping to fill in the gaps.

Today, any smartphone-toting nature lover can snap a photo of a great horned owl or a ground squirrel and upload it to a citizen science app such as iNaturalist. Some platforms are specialized, for example Merlin for birds and Happywhale for marine mammals. All that data is a rich playground for scientists. According to an article published last year in BioScience, iNaturalist data in peer-reviewed research grew tenfold in the previous five years.

Now, AI is making it so humans don’t have to necessarily look at the raw material. Instead, AI can mine images, videos or sound clips for the appearance of an animal of interest — or even catalogue individual critters. Happywhale has an AI feature that identifies particular humpbacks by unique patterns and shapes on their tails.

Technology is advancing so fast that Huling said it was hard to stay current. In his prologue, he mentions a researcher showing him a prototype of a teeny solar-powered radio tag for monarch butterflies. By the time the book hit the shelves, the concept was already live — harnessed, in one instance, to study how the brilliant orange insects use overwintering groves along the California coast. Just this week on Instagram, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife highlighted a study in which rare bumblebees are tagged with minute QR codes that can be read by remote cameras.

After about a half-year of travel, Huling returned home with a heightened awareness of what he calls “inconspicuous abundance” — that the world is teeming with more life than meets the eye. He puts this new lens to the test by venturing to the storm-battered shores of San Miguel Island off the coast of Santa Barbara. Considered “uninhabited” in the traditional sense, he finds that the rarely visited corner of Channel Islands National Park is a haven for lumpy seals, glimmering fish and squawking seabirds. Sharks lurk beneath the waves.

“For them, as now for me, this distinctive island remains anything but deserted,” he writes.

On San Miguel Island, Huling saw and heard hundreds of sunbathing seals and sea lions.

(Oliver Uberti / Penguin Random House)

In other animal news

• Earlier this month, in Big Bear Lake, a memorial service was held for Sandy Steers, the late conservationist who was best known for turning two bald eagles into an international phenomenon by livestreaming their nest. It was a touching gathering, where Steers’ friends and colleagues got personal about a woman who they said was willing to go to the mat for her beloved raptors.

An illustration for “Hidden Nations” depicts author Huling at home, surrounded by the natural environment — including a black bear.

(Oliver Uberti / Penguin Random House)

• For decades, Steers battled a planned development near the nest of famed eagle couple Jackie and Shadow, and helped to negotiate an agreement in which a land trust could buy the site for $10 million. The nonprofit she led is now racing to raise the money by July 31 so it can be bought and conserved.
• In the desperately needed good-news department, endangered steelhead trout that scientists feared had perished in last year’s Palisades fire unexpectedly survived — and even had babies. It’s a big deal: they represent the last known population of steelhead in the Santa Monica Mountains.
• A civil grand jury has found that the L.A. Zoo needs new leadership, citing deterioration of its facilities and rapidly declining membership. In less than a year, membership dropped 23% and exhibits for lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations.
• Last summer, researchers made an astonishing discovery off the Sonoma County coast — 18 sunflower sea stars, a species decimated by disease and all but gone from California waters. SF Gate writes that the finding was only just announced, with scientists now racing to learn all they can about the survivors. As previously reported, the stars with up to 24 arms could hold the key to restoring the state’s ravaged kelp forests.

And news about the environment

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildlife and outdoors news, follow Lila Seidman at @lila_seidman on X and @lilaseidman.bsky.social on Bluesky.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the U.S. war against Iran, adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by President Trump.

Meanwhile, the Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50-48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. Although the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate over the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has yet to make a formal request to Congress for more money for the war. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, including Monday evening. A top deputy Defense secretary told senators about the Iran funding request last week, according to two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the developments.

The push for billions of dollars in Iran war funding comes at a fraught political moment. Lawmakers are not only skeptical of the deal Trump struck with Iran to bring an end to the war, but also wary of next steps. The White House has requested a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon — a nearly 50% increase over the current fiscal year’s funding levels.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he’s expecting a supplemental spending request from the administration for the war, and when it arrives, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune (R-S.D.).

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke to several senators about the proposal in calls last week and he notified congressional committees that the $80-billion request had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, the funding package will almost certainly run into trouble from lawmakers who refuse to support Trump’s decision to go to war and are reluctant to give the Pentagon more money at a time of high costs of living for Americans at home.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington told Hegseth in a hearing last month.

In addition to the Iran funding, Republicans hope to secure about $1.1 trillion through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. Then, they hope to secure an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The amount being sought by the Pentagon is far higher than the $29-billion estimate of war costs that Hegseth gave Congress during his testimony last month. The bulk of that amount was related to replacing munitions and repairing equipment but also included operational costs to keep forces deployed. That estimate did not include the cost to repair or rebuild U.S. military sites damaged in the region.

It’s also far lower than the initial $200 billion the Pentagon floated as the costs at the start of the war. An early estimate put the cost of the first week of the war at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he expects the actual price tag could be much higher than the $80 billion being proposed.

Schatz said he hasn’t done any counting of Democrats about whether there is support for an Iran-focused bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

But Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.”

Banks said, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said funding for an Iran supplemental can’t be done in isolation. It has to be done after lawmakers from both parties have agreed to a total spending amount for both defense and non-defense programs, “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

And Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to broaden the package to include funds for disaster aid for California, Hawaii and other states hard hit by fires and weather problems, as well as agricultural aid for farmers.

“I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he strode around the Capitol.

But on the issue of the cost of the war, Hegseth responded rhetorically during a Senate hearing last month, asking, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He acknowledged the president’s decision to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Ben Finley contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders of the California Legislature plan to approve a proposed constitutional amendment this week that would ask voters to give them more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The proposal seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

“Putting money aside to protect ourselves from future uncertainties isn’t just good government; it’s common sense,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is strong and resilient, but we’re not immune to economic headwinds. At a time when our essential services are under pressure, we have a responsibility to safeguard the programs and investments that Californians rely on.”

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 20, which Democrats are calling the “Save for California’s Future Act,” could receive push back from taxpayer advocates.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes into consideration annual tax proceeds and changes to the population and cost of living. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

With few exceptions, the limit applies to most appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the rainy day fund and other reserves. California voters have also capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund to 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.

Since taking office, Newsom has argued that it doesn’t make sense for savings to count as spending under state law.

State budget revenue is subject to dramatic swings from year to year based on stock market activity. The law, Newsom has said, prevents the state from saving more money in good years to stave off cuts to programs in bad years.

The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short term reserve, called the “Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account,” from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.

“Californians live by a simple, bipartisan truth: set money aside when times are good so you’re ready when they’re not,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said in a statement. “The Save For California’s Future Act is what responsible leadership looks like — and future taxpayers will thank us for it.”

The measure could incentivize Democrats to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

The measure is slated for a vote Thursday. If approved by two-thirds of lawmakers, voters will consider the proposal on the November ballot.

WASHINGTON — The question hangs in the halls at the Capitol: Was it worth it?

Congress, which never authorized the war against Iran yet never fully objected to it, now must grapple with the consequences of President Trump’s nearly four-month conflict: the lives lost, the billions spent and the national security fallout that has reordered the political dynamics in the Middle East.

Ask senators what they think about the deal Trump struck to end the war, and they do not search too far for words.

“Pathetic. Failure. Inevitable conclusion of a combination of never making the case to the American people, flawed strategic vision, lack of grasp of the regional dynamics,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“How many ways, can I say, bad, bad, bad?”

Many Republicans too have been critical. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said it’s hard to see what leverage the U.S. gained to force Iran to a better negotiation.

“You want to be able to give the benefit of the doubt,” she said. But, she said, “I think we’re in a place where there is a deal that has been signed, but it doesn’t appear to me that it puts us in that much of a different position than prior to the beginning of the war.”

Others in the GOP remain supportive of Trump’s efforts. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a past chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that because of the president’s actions, “We are safer today.”

“You can criticize — oh, he didn’t totally win,” Johnson said. “Well, that was always going to be very difficult.”

As Trump moves on to the next phase, it is left to the Congress to pick up the pieces: explaining the war to voters back home, restocking the military arsenal that has run low from bombing runs and trying to ensure the fragile ceasefire holds as the United States seeks to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and work toward an uneasy peace.

More money for the Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the rounds on Capitol Hill last week as lawmakers consider Pentagon funding as part of the Republican majority’s next big budget package.

The White House has asked for a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Defense Department this year, on top of the extra money the GOP delivered as part of the Trump’s tax cuts package last year.

Republicans are considering a sizable, $350-billion-plus increase in Defense spending on par with the White House’s budget request that the GOP could pass on its own, through the reconciliation process that allows Senate majority rule over potential objections from Democrats.

Senators, meanwhile, are seeking to set some guardrails on Hegseth with a provision to block a portion of his travel fund until the Pentagon delivers various reports. One such report is on an investigation into the strike on an elementary school in Iran that killed more than 165 people on the first day of the war, most of them children.

Officials have acknowledged that they believe the U.S. was responsible for the strike and say it was based on faulty intelligence.

What’s next in Iran?

Lawmakers are still processing what just happened after Trump swiftly signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and opened a window of 60-day talks toward ending Tehran’s nuclear program, which got underway Sunday in Switzerland.

“I understand the president’s trying to find a peaceful solution to this,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. “I commend him for that. But we’ve got a lot of questions.”

Senators are particularly concerned about the tentative deal’s provision for a potential $300-billion fund for the “reconstruction and economic development” of Iran.

To many skeptical Republicans, that money sounds similar to the “planeloads of cash” narrative they used against the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which offered a slim fraction of that amount, some $1.7 billion overall. To this day, Trump tells an exaggerated story of how that payment to Iran, for U.S. military equipment it never received, was made.

“The only concerns I have are the money and the conditions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

“If we send a trainload, a shipload, it’s gonna age as well as that,” he said, referring to the Obama-era issue.

What was gained and lost

Over and again Congress tried and failed to exert its authority under the war powers act to halt the U.S. military action in Iran.

The House ultimately passed a war powers resolution that sought to force an end to the war after a small number of Republicans joined the Democratic measure last month. The Senate has voted nine times, including last week, but failed to reach the majority needed.

At the same time, Congress did not affirmatively authorize the war with a use-of-force resolution, as has been done in certain other conflicts, including the Iraq war.

“I’m glad that the conflict has finally ended and hope the ceasefire holds,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

But she said the country must be clear-eyed about what has come about. Not one of the president’s objectives has been achieved, she said, and Iran won significant concessions.

“The American people are paying the price with higher costs in every aspect of life and tens of billions in tax dollars spent,” she said.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

President Trump recently took action that could pave the way for opening many more federal lands to recreational off-road enthusiasts. When I heard about it, I immediately thought of the battle over off-highway vehicle access in California’s Mojave Desert.

Earlier this year, a judge ordered the Bureau of Land Management to close roughly 2,000 miles of off highway vehicle trails in the western Mojave to reduce ongoing harm to the endangered desert tortoise, a keystone species of the local ecosystem whose numbers are in steep decline.

That court decision capped off a decadeslong legal fight led by environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Desert Tortoise Council.

Under the ruling, which the BLM has appealed, the agency has roughly three years to redraw the network of Mojave off-road trails.

In the latest action, Trump has rescinded a pair of 1970s executive orders that directed federal land managers to minimize damage to wildlife and natural resources, as well as conflicts between off-roading and other types of recreational land use, when choosing where to locate OHV trails.

He described them as “excessive regulation” that used “ill-defined criteria” to minimize vehicle impacts. “These vague, subjective criteria often result in barriers to energy and timber production and utility maintenance, permit delays, and de facto bans on hiking and other forms of recreation that require accessing remote areas, all while doing little to benefit multiple use of Federal lands,” he wrote.

I called up Lisa Belenky, who’s representing the Center for Biological Diversity in the Mojave proceedings, to ask whether Trump’s order changed anything about the case, or the rules the BLM must follow as it revises the trail network.

The short answer, she said, is no.

Each federal land management agency has its own regulations with criteria for managing off-road vehicle use — for instance, the BLM uses travel management plans to determine where vehicles are allowed on specific pieces of land. Trump’s order rolled back the executive directives that guided those regulations, but the regulations themselves remain in place.

Still, Trump’s order directs federal agencies to reexamine their regulations.

In some cases, such a reexamination appears to be already underway, said Paul Sanford, director of policy analysis at The Wilderness Society. The administration last year signaled its intent to repeal the rule that governs motorized access to Forest Service lands, he noted, the Travel Management Rule.

“The rescission of the executive orders makes that easier,” he said.

The Forest Service said in a statement that the rule is expected to be addressed later this year.

“It’s absolutely irresponsible and stupid,” said Jim Baca of Trump’s order. The former BLM director said it was already hard enough to regulate OHV use when he led the agency from 1993 to 1994. “It was difficult to do anything, especially if oil and gas people, mining people and others wanted to get into an area,” he said. To Ryan “Cal” Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the order reflects “the prioritization of one set of user groups over all others.”

Increasing vehicle access in remote areas can cause erosion, stress animals and transport weeds into the backcountry, where they can outcompete native plants, and there’s a strong correlation between roads and human-caused fires, he said. Plus, there’s no indication that any increase would mean funding for more personnel to handle enforcement and lessen negative consequences, he said.

To the contrary, between the end of 2024 and the end of last year, the BLM lost nearly 20% of its staff, and the Forest Service and National Park Service each lost roughly 16%, according to an analysis of Office of Personnel Management data by Hawk Eye Strategies and Prospect Partners. Together, those three agencies responsible for managing more than half a billion acres of public land — about 23% of the United States — count fewer employees than the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, per the figures provided by the consulting firms.

The staffing cuts and regulatory rollbacks — which also include the recent rescission of the public lands rule that put conservation on equal footing with other uses of BLM land — are part of a strategy to “suffocate” federal land management agencies, said Jora Fogg, public lands policy associate director at the Conservation Lands Foundation.

“There’s an effort to undo regulations and protections on public lands because there is a push for this energy dominance and extractive uses,” she said.

I’ve met plenty of OHV enthusiasts who care deeply for public lands. I’ve also encountered degradation and damage.

Earlier this year, tortoise biologist Ed LaRue told me he could show me a corner of the desert that had been scarred by off-roaders departing from designated routes. In the tawny hills of the Ord Rodman Natural Area, a smattering of legal trails had widened into a thick braid so intertwined that it was difficult to tell which were authorized. And while the area was once among the most densely populated tortoise spots in the western Mojave, on that warm February afternoon, LaRue could find no evidence of them.

Reached by phone last week, he said he found some comfort in the fact that certain restrictions on off-roading still remain in place, and that the public will be given the opportunity to weigh in should agencies seek changes.

Still, he said, it’s not clear whether anyone will listen.

More recent land news

Republicans have introduced an amendment to a federal wildfire bill that would repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule protecting certain national forest lands from logging and roadbuilding, reports Brooke Larsen of the Salt Lake Tribune. That comes nearly a year into the Trump administration’s effort to rescind the rule via the rulemaking process, which has faced public opposition.

The Forest Service has cited cost savings as the impetus for a reorganization that will shutter dozens of research facilities. But much of the agency’s research is already inexpensive, and closing these local facilities could make it less so while encouraging workers to leave, according to Chiara Eisner of NPR.

Why is Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins dead set on saving a failing Northern California dam? Grist’s Jake Bittle and Ayurella Horn-Muller report this tale, which also includes a ranch-animal veterinarian and his daughter, a Riverside County water district and an X post from county Sheriff Chad Bianco.

New proposed grazing rules appear to prohibit Indigenously managed bison from grazing on federal public lands. That has tribes urgently seeking government-to-government talks with Interior Department officials in a bid to win an exemption, according to Blaine Harden of Inside Climate News.

A few last things in climate news

As a historic El Niño supercharges the Pacific Ocean, a crumbling Pacifica pier has become a climate battleground over what to save — and who pays, my colleague Susan Rust reports.

The Times’ Grace Toohey visited Santa Rosa Island to learn how a recent wildfire has affected a piece of North America’s so-called Galapagos. Here’s what she saw.

Clean water advocacy groups say recent changes to California’s “cap-and-invest” climate program could mean less help for hundreds of thousands of people who live with contaminated water, our water reporter Ian James writes.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — Dozens of House Democrats are asking the new director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to roll back a policy that they say hinders their ability to speak with detainees during oversight visits.

The new policy requires that lawmakers identify detainees by name at least two business days before a visit and provide a signed consent form from each detainee. It’s the latest point of conflict in an ongoing battle over when and how lawmakers can inspect immigration facilities.

In a letter Thursday to acting ICE Director David Venturella, Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano) and 77 other members of Congress, including two dozen from California, argued that they need to conduct constant oversight of immigration facilities because of historic levels of reports regarding the mistreatment of detainees, deaths in custody and substandard facility conditions.

“This Administration has enabled a revolving door of arbitrary policies, directives, and guidance on member access to facilities or on communication with detainees designed to hinder any productive oversight,” they wrote.

The letter was written in response to the new policy, which was outlined in a memo last month.

In the letter, Levin and the other members wrote that detainees have a hard time accessing the visitation form because it is at times unavailable at a detention center’s law library. They said it limits their ability to speak broadly with detainees, particularly those from vulnerable populations, such as the elderly.

Detainees previously used a sign-up sheet to meet with members of Congress or just started talking to detainees they encountered during facility tours.

In the memo outlining ICE’s new policy, then-acting director Todd Lyons said the increased visits by members of Congress have become a burden and a time suck. Homeland Security didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment, but previously said that the policy doesn’t prevent lawmakers from speaking with detainees.

Levin said the increase in visits was necessary because the agency slashed staffing of its oversight offices. The letter notes that for next fiscal year, the president requested additional cuts to the Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

“These actions, coupled with the constant changes to policies surrounding member access to facilities, reveal a clear attack on the levers that ensure government transparency at every level,” the members wrote.

Democratic House members sued the Trump administration last July after they were repeatedly denied access to immigrant detention facilities in California and across the country.

Homeland Security officials previously implemented a policy requiring lawmakers to give seven days’ notice before a visit, but that policy was temporarily blocked in federal court.

This week, lawyers said a Belizean man who helped organize hunger strikes at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center was moved to facilities out of state and scheduled to be deported after he spoke to three members of Congress about conditions at the detention center in San Bernardino County.

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Friday called former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s interview with the House Oversight Committee about her handling of the Epstein files a “sham” and a “coverup,” and said she refused to answer numerous questions about President Trump in the closed-door session with lawmakers.

“It’s a sham in there. They’re not answering any questions,” Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) told reporters during a break from the interview.

Bondi was joined in her interview by attorneys from the Department of Justice, including Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who intervened to prevent answers to some questions about Trump, Democrats said.

“The DOJ is in there right now stopping questions about President Trump and about what happened in the release of these files,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

He said Bondi, who was not under oath, declined to answer five questions he posed about the president.

The committee said it will release a transcript of the interview, which was not recorded on video.

The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to appear for a deposition when she was still in office, but she didn’t initially comply, agreeing to the voluntary interview only after Democrats filed a resolution last month seeking to hold her in contempt.

Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney and longtime Republican activist who has been floated as a potential future attorney general, wouldn’t say whether she expressly prevented Bondi from answering questions about Bondi’s interactions with the president.

“There were ground rules laid with the committee before we walked in there and we simply wanted to stick to those,” Dhillon said.

Garcia said that Bondi blamed Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, then her deputy, for problems with the release of the files.

Bondi, who didn’t meet with reporters after her interview, disputed Garcia’s characterization.

“NOT TRUE. I praised Acting AG Blanche’s management of this Herculean task. I said his ethics are beyond reproach and that he is an incredible Attorney General,” Bondi wrote on X.

The department was criticized for not releasing the files as quickly as required under a law passed last year mandating release of all records from the department’s investigations into sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal custody in 2019.

The department also came under fire for failing to redact the names of some of Epstein’s victims, while redacting the names of some of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, as well as for its removal of some of the files it initially posted.

A group of Epstein victims who spoke with reporters in front of the closed doors of the Bondi interview criticized the department’s rollout of the files and the department’s lack of communication with victims.

“Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche have derailed the lives of so many survivors,” said Dani Bensky, who said she was abused by Epstein when she was a 17-year-old high school student in New York City.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M) said that in the interview, Bondi acknowledged she had never met with any of Epstein’s victims.

In Bondi’s opening statement, reviewed by The Times, she acknowledged issues with the rollout of the files, but defended the administration’s handling of the release.

“There were redaction errors,” Bondi’s opening statement said. “But since day one of this process, this Department has been committed to accountability and transparency.”

Bondi was fired by Trump on April 2 and faced questions throughout her tenure about the department’s investigations into Epstein.

In February 2025, she claimed on Fox News that she had a copy of Epstein’s supposed client list, showing the names of the financier’s high-powered friends that he had directed girls to have sex with.

But in July 2025, as Trump faced questions about his relationship with Epstein, whom he knew socially, the Justice Department closed its investigation into Epstein’s alleged crimes and said no such client list existed.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act soon after, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Despite initially opposing it, Trump signed it into law on Nov. 19, 2025.

When asked about what Trump might have known about Epstein’s crimes, Bondi said she did not know, according to Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.)

“I’m not certain of the extent of his knowledge,” Bondi said, according to Walkinshaw.

Bondi responded to Walkinshaw’s claims, writing on X: “MISREPRESENTATION by Walkinshaw. What the world knows to be true is President Trump banned Epstein from Mar a Lago decades ago bc Epstein was a despicable creep!!”

Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Democrats would seek to speak with Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel next about the handling of the Epstein files and the department’s investigations into Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) was the only Republican member of Congress to attend the interview and Democrats called out their Republican colleagues for not joining.

“I have an election in four days, a very important one,” said Min, the Democrat from Irvine. “But I’m here, rather than in my district, because this is important.”