One of California’s most influential labor organizations endorsed redrawing the state’s congressional maps to counter President Trump’s effort to push Republican states, notably Texas, to increase his party’s numbers in Congress in next year’s midterm election.
The California Federation of Labor Unions voted unanimously Tuesday to support putting a measure on the ballot in November. The proposal, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and many of the state’s Democratic leaders, would ask voters to temporarily change congressional district boundaries that were drawn by an independent redistricting commission four years ago, with some conditions.
Republicans could potentially lose up to a half dozen seats in California’s 52-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. After it returns for its summer recess on Aug. 18, the California Legislature is expected to vote to place the measure on the statewide ballot in a special election.
“President Trump has said that Republicans are ‘entitled’ to five more congressional votes in Texas. Well, they aren’t entitled to steal the 2026 election. California’s unions refuse to stand by as democracy is tested,” Lorena Gonzalez, president of the federation, said in a statement. “California Labor is unified in our resolve to fight back against President Trump’s anti-worker agenda.”
Redistricting — the esoteric redrawing of the nation’s 435 congressional districts — typically occurs once every decade after the U.S. census tallies the population across the nation. Population shifts can result in changes in a state’s allocation of congressional seats, such as when California lost a seat after the 2020 census the first time in the state’s history.
The political redistricting process had long been crafted by elected officials to give their political parties an edge or to protect incumbents — sometimes in brazen, bizarrely shaped districts. Californians voted in 2010 to create an independent commission to draw congressional maps based on communities of interest, logical geography and ensuring representation of minority communities.
The ballot measure being pushed by Newsom and others would allow state lawmakers to help determine district boundaries for the next three election cycles if Texas approves a pending measure to reconfigure districts to increase Republican-held congressional seats in that state. Line-drawing would return to the independent commission after the 2030 census.
The California Federation of Labor is committed to spending several million dollars supporting a mid-decade redistricting ballot measure, on top of what it already planned to spend on competitive congressional races next year, according to a person familiar with the plans who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the strategy.
A spokesperson for several organizations devoted to fighting any effort to change the state’s redistricting process said that Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire, and who bankrolled the ballot measure to create the independent commission, is committed to making sure it is not weakened.
“While Charles Munger has been out of politics since 2016, he has said he will vigorously defend the reforms he helped pass, including nonpartisan redistricting,” said Amy Thoma, spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition. “His previous success in passing ballot measures in California means he knows exactly what is needed to be successful. We will have the resources necessary to make our coalition heard.”
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that bars Planned Parenthood and other large nonprofit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for a host of unrelated healthcare services.
The measure has threatened clinics across the country that rely on federal funding to operate. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who is helping to lead the litigation, called it a “cruel, backdoor abortion ban” that violates the law in multiple ways.
The states’ challenge comes one day after Planned Parenthood won a major victory in its own lawsuit over the measure in Boston, where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect against Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.
Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions, but the new “defund provision” in the bill passed by congressional Republicans earlier this month goes further. It also bars nonprofit abortion providers that generated $800,000 or more in annual Medicaid revenue in 2023 from receiving any such funding for the next year — including for services unrelated to abortion, such as annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that the measure “stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion,” that Congress under the constitution is “free to decline to provide taxpayer funds to entities that provide abortions,” and that Planned Parenthood’s position should not hold sway over that of Congress.
In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, Bonta’s office echoed Planned Parenthood officials in asserting that the provision specifically and illegally targets Planned Parenthood and its affiliate clinics — calling it “a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color.”
Bonta’s office said the measure threatened $300 million in federal funding for clinics in California, where Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider, and “jeopardized the stability” of Planned Parenthood’s 114 clinics across the state, which serve about 700,000 patients annually — many of whom use Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.
During a virtual news conference Monday, Bonta noted that federal funds already don’t cover abortions. He said the new provision was “punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion” and “a direct attack on access to essential healthcare for millions who rely on Medicaid.”
“The Trump administration and Congress are actually gutting essential lifesaving care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, simply because Planned Parenthood has spoken out in support of reproductive rights,” Bonta said. “The hypocrisy is really hard to ignore. A party that claims to be defenders of free speech only seem to care about it when it aligns with their own agenda.”
Bonta added: “Rest assured, California will continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state, and will continue to defend healthcare as a human right.”
In their lawsuit, the states argue that the measure is unlawfully ambiguous and violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment, and that it will harm people’s health and increase the cost of Medicaid programs for states by more than $50 million over the next decade.
In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood also argued that the measure intentionally singled it and its affiliates out for punishment, in violation of their constitutional rights, including free speech.
In granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote Monday that she was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.”
Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that she also was not requiring the federal government “to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.”
Instead, Talwani wrote, her order blocks the Trump administration from “targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program,” as they were likely to prove that “such targeted exclusion violates the United States Constitution.”
In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was “legally passed by both chambers of the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Chief Executive,” and Talwani’s order granting the injunction was “not only absurd but illogical and incorrect.”
“It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the states’ lawsuit.
Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, joined Bonta during his news conference. She welcomed the states’ lawsuit, saying “an attack this severe requires a multi-pronged response with both short and long term strategies.”
Hicks said it’s particularly important that California is helping to fight back, given the huge stakes for the state.
“California is the most impacted state across the country because of the volume of patients that we have, but also because of the amount of Medicaid that our state takes,” she said. “It speaks to our values. And this defund provision is certainly [an] attack on values — most heavily on California.”
Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Bonta noted the lawsuit is the 36th his office has filed against the Trump administration in the last 27 weeks.
A group of business leaders submitted paperwork on Wednesday for a ballot measure that would repeal Los Angeles’ gross receipts tax, delivering some financial relief to local employers but also punching an $800-million hole in the city budget.
The proposed measure, called the “Los Angeles Cost of Living Relief Initiative,” would strip away a tax imposed on a vast array of businesses: entertainment companies, child care providers, law firms, accountants, healthcare businesses, nightclubs, delivery companies and many others, according to the group that submitted it.
Backers said that repealing a tax long reviled by the business community would help address the city’s economic woes, creating jobs, allowing businesses to stay in the city and making the economy “more affordable for all Angelenos.”
“This initiative is the result of the business community uniting to fight the anti-job climate at City Hall,” said Nella McOsker, president and CEO of the Central City Assn., a downtown-based business group.
McOsker, one of five business leaders who signed the ballot proposal, said city officials have “ignored the pleas of small- and medium-sized businesses for years.” As a result, scores of restaurants and other establishments, including the Mayan Theater, are closing, she said.
The filing of the ballot proposal immediately set off alarms at City Hall, where officials recently signed off on a plan to lay off hundreds of city workers in an attempt to balance this year’s budget. The city’s business tax generates more than $800 million annually for the general fund — the part of the budget that pays for police patrols, firefighters, paramedic response and other core services.
“Public safety is almost exclusively paid for by the general fund,” said City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, in an email to The Times. “This measure is an assault on public safety. Proponents of this measure will be directly responsible for cutting police or fire staffing in half if it passes.”
McOsker, asked about L.A.’s financial woes, said the city had a $1-billion shortfall this year and still succeeded in balancing the budget. She is the daughter of City Councilmember Tim McOsker, who sits on the five-member budget committee.
The proposed measure is backed by executives and board members with various groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce and VICA, the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn.
VICA president Stuart Waldman said the city’s economy has faltered amid a spate of increased taxes, higher city fees and new regulations. The most recent, he said, is the ordinance hiking the minimum wage for hotel employees and workers at Los Angeles International Airport to $30 per hour by 2028, which was approved by the City Council over objections from business leaders.
“We’re usually playing defense,” said Waldman, who also signed the ballot proposal. “We’ve decided the time has come to play offense.”
The business tax proposal is part of a larger ballot battle being waged this year between businesses and organized labor.
Last month, a group of airlines and hotel industry organizations turned in about 140,000 signatures for a proposed ballot measure aimed at overturning the newly approved hotel and LAX minimum wage. L.A. County election officials are currently verifying those signatures.
Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel employees, responded with its own package of countermeasures. One would require a citywide election on the construction or expansion of hotels, sports stadiums, concert halls and other venues. Another would hike the minimum wage for all workers in the city, raising it to the level of hotel and airport employees.
Two other measures from Unite Here take aim at companies that pay their CEOs more than a hundred times their median employee in L.A., either by forcing them to pay higher business taxes or by placing limitations on their use of city property.
The ongoing ballot battle is “escalating in ways that are reckless and disconnected from the real work of running a city,” said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who heads the council’s budget committee. Yaroslavsky, in a statement, said the fight is “unproductive and needs to stop.”
“We just closed a billion-dollar budget gap, and basic services are already severely strained,” she said. “You don’t fix that by removing one of our largest revenue sources with no plan to replace it. We have to fix what is broken and that requires working together to offer real solutions.”
Josué Marcus, spokesperson for the Los Angeles City Clerk, said proponents of the latest ballot measure would need to gather about 140,000 valid signatures for it to qualify. The next city election is in June 2026. McOsker, for her part, said she believes that state law sets a lower threshold — only 44,000 — for measures that result in the elimination of taxes.
Industry leaders have long decried L.A.’s business tax, which is levied not on profits but on the gross receipts that are brought in — even where an enterprise suffers financial losses.
Former Mayor Eric Garcetti argued for eliminating the tax more than a decade ago, saying it puts the city’s economy at a competitive disadvantage. Once in office, he only managed to scale it back, amid concerns that an outright repeal would trigger cuts to city services.
Organizers of the latest proposal said it would not rescind business taxes on the sale of cannabis or medical marijuana, which were separately approved by voters.
Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Rebecca Ellis, with an assist from Julia Wick and Noah Goldberg, giving you the latest on city and county government.
The ‘five little queens’ of L.A. County agree: accidentally wiping out a ballot measure is not a good look.
It’s a “bureaucratic disaster,” Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said this week of the revelation that voters had wiped out the promise of hundreds of millions toward services that keep people out of jail. That snafu happened when voters approved her completely unrelated ballot measure in November to change the county’s form of government.
It’s clear, the supervisors say, someone messed up badly. But who?
The bureaucratic whodunit has confounded county observers — even those who once were creatures of the county themselves.
“I just can’t figure it out,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former longtime county supervisor. “The charter amendment just disappeared. I just don’t know how that happened, mechanically.”
Newsletter
You’re reading the L.A. on the Record newsletter
Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
The mistake, it seems, began with the county’s executive office, which supports the five politicians with the less glamorous, administrative parts of the job — preparing meeting agendas and guiding the board through marathon Tuesday meetings.
One of the lesser-known job requirements: updating the county charter — think of it like the county’s constitution — when voters make changes at the ballot box. To do that, the executive office is supposed to submit the change to Municode, the online vendor hosting the county’s charter, when the measure passes.
That didn’t happen.
In 2020, voters approved Measure J, enshrining the promise of hundreds of millions toward services that keep people out of jail in the charter. Only the language was never actually added to the official charter document.
Executive Officer Edward Yen, who was sworn into the top job last year, told his bosses Tuesday that the office was cleaning up its act.
“This failure of this magnitude is the reason why we’re doing what we’re doing,” he said at the Tuesday board meeting, noting he’d found his office’s policies “limited and lacking” when he came on the job.
Celia Zavala, the former executive officer who retired in January 2024 after more than three decades with the county, couldn’t be reached for comment.
The executive office called its role “purely ministerial” when it came to charter amendments and said it was working closely with the lawyers to make sure future changes were “accurately and promptly reflected in the charter.”
It was sloppy governance, but — until recently — it didn’t really matter. Voters approved the measure, so it was, legally speaking, part of the county’s governing document, even if you couldn’t open up the charter and see it.
But when a majority of county supervisors decided they wanted to revamp the county government last year, the outdated document became a real problem.
County counsel had their marching orders: They were to create a ballot measure, known as Measure G, that would overhaul the county government, expanding the five-person board of elected supervisors to nine and bringing on a new elected executive, who would act almost as a mayor of the county.
That’s how it works, says Yaroslavsky. A supervisor has the vision. The lawyers create a ballot measure that makes it a reality.
“They put it into the secret language of legalese that none of us understand. And it wasn’t like we took a magnifying glass to it,” said Yaroslavsky, who sponsored a ballot measure in 2002 to raise money for the county’s trauma care network. “I don’t think I had any lawyers on my staff at the time — and certainly not legislative experts. So, I mean, you have to rely on your lawyers.”
To change the county government, county lawyers wrote a ballot measure that would repeal most of a section of the charter — called Article III — in 2028. That section details the powers of the board — and, most consequentially, includes the requirement from Measure J that the board funnel hundreds of millions toward anti-incarceration services.
County lawyers rewrote that chunk of the charter with the new changes the board wanted to make to the county’s form of government — but left out the anti-incarceration funding.
So when voters approved Measure G, they unwittingly repealed Measure J.
The county counsel, led by Dawyn Harrison, said in a statement last week that the fault lies with a “prior Executive Officer administration.” The charter wasn’t updated, so they were left in the dark about what they needed to include in the new version.
But some say the county lawyers — who drafted both ballot measures and therefore were presumably familiar with that part of charter— share some of the responsibility.
“It is an inexcusable administrative failing of the County’s Executive Office and Counsel,” Supervisor Holly Mitchell said last week.
“It’s just amazing that you wouldn’t recall that you had Measure J,” said John Fasana, the former Duarte City Council member who first spotted the mistake.
County counsel said in a statement that it was unrealistic. They were going off of what was posted on the online charter, which they said they’re expected to treat “as the governing law.”
“The idea that county attorneys should have ‘just known’ a provision was missing assumes we memorize every law ever passed,” county counsel said in a statement. “That’s not how the law works, and it couldn’t function if we did.”
Derek Hsieh, head of the sheriff‘s deputy union that opposed both ballot measures, says the buck stops at the top.
“The responsibility for this is with Los Angeles County supervisors. They are in charge, they take responsibility,” said Hsieh, underscoring one didn’t need to have had a law degree to figure this out.
“And by the way, John Fasana’s not a lawyer,” he said.
State of play
— MEASURE J(K): County supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to ask their lawyers to find a way to bring back Measure J. The county says it’s looking at multiple options to try to get the measure permanently back in the charter including a change in state law, a court judgment or a ballot measure for 2026.
— A HELPING HAND: County officials say a cash fund for families financially reeling from federal immigration raids will be stood up within a month. It’s not clear yet who will be eligible or how much a family could expect to collect.
— HOMELESSNESS HOPE: For the second straight year, the city and county saw declines in the number of homeless people. The number of people experiencing homelessness in the county dropped 4% in 2025, including a 10% decrease in people living on the street, according to the county’s annual point-in-time homeless count.
— TRUMP BASH: A day after the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of half the National Guard troops deployed in L.A., Gov. Gavin Newsom held a press conference in Downey to criticize the president for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to appear “tough” by punishing immigrants.
— PALISADES PERSPECTIVE: Mayor Karen Bass’ political image was badly bruised in the wake of the fires, but she has compensated amid a string of historically good headlines in recent days. However, six months after the fires, she still faces some harsh critics in the Palisades, where the devastation is still palpable.
— TRAGEDY WHILE TRAINING: Three deputies were killed on Friday in an explosion at the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department’s Biscailuz Training Center in East L.A. The agency has a history of dangerous incidents at its training facilities, with at least four fires at its mobile shooting ranges in the last 12 years.
— ICE IN JAIL: The sheriff’s department has resumed transferring jail inmates to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the first time in years. Eight inmates were released to ICE in May and a dozen more in June. Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Lunasaid he has “no choice” in the matter. He said the department must follow federal judicial warrants seeking the transfer of inmates in its county jails.
— COSTLY CROSSWALK: A jury decided this week that the city must pay nearly $50 million to a man who has been in a coma since he was hit by a sanitation truck while crossing a street in Encino. The verdict comes as the city continues to struggle with escalating legal liability payouts.
— MOUNTING LIABILITY: The county’s no stranger to big payouts either. The supervisors approved a $14-million settlement this week to Alexander Torres, who spent more than 20 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit.
QUICK HITS
On the docket for next week: The L.A. City Charter Reform Commission will be meeting today at 11 a.m. at Cal State Northridge.
Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s office conducted a citywide response effort this week, bringing more than 65 Angelenos inside from Echo Park, Hollywood, South L.A., Baldwin Hills, Canoga Park, Reseda, North Hills, Westlake and the Miracle Mile (Council Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13).
Stay in touch
That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
President Trump’s future presidential library has a growing list of corporate sponsors, and Democratic lawmakers are sounding alarms.
To settle Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a CBS “60 Minutes” broadcast, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to help finance the future library and cover the president’s legal fees.
Walt Disney Co. earlier pledged $15 million to Trump’s library to resolve a defamation lawsuit over inaccurate statements about Trump by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. And this spring, the nation of Qatar donated a $400-million Boeing 747-8 luxury jetliner for Trump’s use — a gift that ultimately will be registered to his library, whatever form it takes.
On Wednesday, a group of progressive lawmakers, led by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), introduced the Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act, a proposed measure that would require transparency and impose restrictions on donations to presidential libraries.
“This new bill will close the loopholes that allow presidential libraries to be used as a tool for corruption and bribery,” Warren told reporters on a Zoom call. “Slamming the door shut on apparent corruption at the highest levels of government is an important step forward and something everyone should get behind.”
For now, the lawmakers — including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) and Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) — lack support from Republicans in Congress.
Still, the measure is needed, the lawmakers said, because there are no rules that specifically target solicitation of gifts or payments by individuals and companies to try to curry favor with the president.
The bill would create a cap on contributions, prohibit donations from lobbyists and foreign governments and delay fundraising until a president leaves office, with a carve-out for nonprofits.
Violators would risk criminal or civil penalties, which could equal as much as the value of the gift.
“What is Qatar getting in exchange? … Nobody knows,” Warren said. “All of this shady stuff is happening because there are essentially no rules for presidential library donations.”
Under the legislation, quarterly disclosures would be required.
“People have a right to know who is, in effect, gaining favor with a president in office through donations to a library,” Blumenthal said. “These kinds of requirements ought to apply to both Republican[s] and Democrat[s], because the donation can be problematic no matter which party the president may belong to.”
In addition to the CBS “60 Minutes” and ABC settlements, Facebook parent company Meta donated $22 million to Trump’s library. The payment was part of Meta’s $25-million settlement to a lawsuit brought after Facebook banned Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, donated $10 million.
Contributions to Trump’s inaugural celebrations this year that went beyond money spent are expected to be steered to the library as well as money raised from people who want to dine with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Warren’s office said.
Warren and others previously raised the notion that Paramount’s settlement with Trump, in particular, could constitute a bribe. It has been widely believed that resolving the legal dispute with Trump was a prerequisite for getting the company’s pending $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media cleared by the Federal Communications Commission.
Los Angeles County leaders are scrambling to restore a sweeping racial justice initiative that voters accidentally repealed, a mistake that could threaten hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to reducing the number of people in jail.
County supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to ask their lawyers to find a way to bring back the ballot measure known as Measure J, which required the county to put a significant portion of its budget toward anti-incarceration services.
Voters learned last week that they had unwittingly repealed the landmark criminal justice reform, passed in 2020 in the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, when they voted for a completely unrelated measure to overhaul the county government last November.
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who spearheaded the county overhaul — known as Measure G — along with Supervisor Janice Hahn, called it a “colossal fiasco.”
“This situation that has unfolded is enraging and unacceptable at every level. What has transpired is sloppy,” Horvath said Tuesday. “It’s a bureaucratic disaster with real consequences.”
The county says it’s looking at multiple options to try to get Measure J permanently back in the charter — which dictates how the county is governed — including a change in state law, a court judgment or a ballot measure for 2026.
“We cannot and we won’t let this mistake invalidate the will of the voters,” Hahn said.
County lawyers say the mistake stems from a recently discovered “administrative error.”
Last November, voters approved Measure G, which expands the five-person Board of Supervisors to nine members and brings on an elected chief executive, among other overhauls.
What no one seemed to realize — including the county lawyers who write the ballot measures — is that one measure would wipe out the other.
Measure G rewrote a chunk of the charter with no mention of anti-incarceration funding, effectively wiping out the county’s promise to put hundreds of millions toward services that keep people out of jail and support them when they leave.
The repeal will take effect in 2028, giving the county three years to fix it.
“I do agree that there’s all kinds of reasons to be outraged, but the sky is not falling. Even if you think the sky is falling, it won’t fall until December 2028,” said Rob Quan, who leads a transparency-focused good-government advocacy group. “We’ve got multiple opportunities to fix this.”
The mistake was first spotted last month by former Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana, who sits on a task force in charge of implementing the county government overhaul. The county confirmed the mistake to The Times last week, a day after Fasana publicly raised the issue to his unsuspecting fellow task force members.
The measure’s critics say the mistake adds credence to their arguments that the county overhaul was put together too hastily.
“It seems to be that if one has to go back on the ballot, it ought to be [Measure] G,” said Fasana, noting it passed by a narrower margin.
Otherwise, he says, the county has set an unnerving precedent.
“It’s almost like setting a blueprint to steal an election,” said Fasana, who opposed both the anti-incarceration funding and the government overhaul measures. “You’ve got this way to basically nullify something that was passed by voters.”
Some worry that putting either measure back on the ballot runs the risk of voters rejecting it this time around.
Measure G faced significant opposition — including from two sitting supervisors — who argued an elected chief executive would be too powerful and the measure left too much of this new government ill-defined. It narrowly passed with just over 51% of the vote.
The anti-incarceration measure also faced heavy opposition in 2020, particularly from the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media. The measure passed with 57% of the vote.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled it unconstitutional after a group of labor unions — including the sheriff’s deputies union — argued it hampered politicians’ ability to manage taxpayer money as they see fit. An appellate court later reversed the decision.
Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money be spent on social services such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. That’s equivalent to roughly $288 million this fiscal year. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
Derek Hsieh, the head of the sheriff’s deputies union and a member of the governance reform task force, said the union had consulted with lawyers and believed the county would be successful if it tried to resolve the issue through a court judgment.
“A change in state law or running another ballot measure — it’s kind of like swimming upstream,” he said. “Those are the most expensive difficult things.”
Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA coalition, which pushed for the anti-incarceration measure, said if the group has to go back to the ballot, it will try to slash the language that it feels gives the county too much wiggle room on how funding is allocated. The coalition has clashed repeatedly with county leadership over just how much money is actually meant to be set aside under Measure J.
“If we do have to go to the ballot box, we’re going to be asking for more,” she said.
City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who helped get the anti-incarceration measure on the ballot, said she felt suspicious of the error by county lawyers, some of whom she believed were never fully on board with the measure in the first place.
“I just feel like they’re too good at their jobs for this error to occur,” said Hernandez, who said the news landed like a “slap in the face.”
County leaders have emphasized that the error was purely accidental and brushed aside concerns that the repeal would have any tangible difference on what gets funded.
When Measure J was temporarily overturned by the court, the board promised to carry on with both the “spirit and letter” of the measure, reserving a chunk of the budget for services that keep people out of jail and support those returning. That will still apply, they say, even if Measure J is not reinstated.
The motion passed Tuesday directs the county to work on an ordinance to ensure “the continued implementation of measure J” beyond 2028.
Saturday Morning star James Martin posted a picture of himself with one of his Belgian Malinois dogs while in London. He threatened to bring them with him because of London crime
18:08, 13 Jul 2025Updated 21:04, 13 Jul 2025
James Martin has hit out at crime in London(Image: Getty Images)
ITV chef James Martin appears to be so scared of crime of London he now takes a protection dog with him on trips to the capital. It comes after yobs smashed the rear windscreen of his car in broad daylight earlier this year, and he says other friends have been targeted there.
The Saturday Morning star posted a pic of him with one of his dogs, a Belgian Malinois, in a “working dog” harnass. He posted alongside the pic: “London.”
Earlier this year the 52-year-old pledged to go to London next time with one of his dogs. He said as well as his car being targeted he revealed “two of my friends’ cars got stolen, one other mate got mugged and nowI had this happen – all in broad daylight, all in central London,”
He added: “London is broken big time… next time I’m bringing the Malis,’, which refers to his two Belgian Malinois dogs. As well as his cookery show, he has presented James Martin’s Great British Adventure, Islands to Highlands and James Martin’s French Adventure. He has also published over 20 best-selling cook books.
James posted a picture of his dog in London (Image: James Martin Instagram)
However, he endured a bout with facial cancer in 2018. In November 2023, he announced he was taking a “little break from work” for several months of further treatment.
Speaking to audiences while on tour, he said: “For me personally, I’ve been through a lot of s**t with cancer but I’m getting sorted at the end of next month. I will be back fighting at the end of February but I’m going on a little bit of a break to get that sorted.
James Martin’s car was broken into (Image: Instagram/jamesmartinchef)
James had been one of the headline names expected at the festival, which is set to take place from July 18 to 20 at Aireville Park in Skipton. The popular event was launched in 2016 but didn’t run last year, so attendees have been looking forward to this summer’s comeback featuring music acts such as The Feeling and Go West.
Eight months later, county officials are just now realizing they unwittingly committed an administrative screw-up for the ages.
Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn co-authored Measure G, which changed the county charter to expand the five-person board and elect a new county executive, among other momentous shifts.
But nobody seemed to realize the new charter language would repeal Measure J, which voters approved in 2020 to dedicate hundreds of millions towards services that offer alternatives to incarceration.
“We can confirm that due to an inadvertent administrative error by a prior Executive Officer administration, Measure J was not placed in the County’s Charter after its passage in 2020,” said County Counsel in a statement. “As a result, when the voters passed Measure G, they repealed Measure J effective December 2028.”
The mistake appears to stem from a failure by the county’s executive office to update the county charter with Measure J after it passed in 2020. County lawyers then failed to include the Measure J language when they drafted the 2024 ballot measure.
So when voters approved Measure G, they accidentally repealed Measure J, according to the county.
The screw-up was first discovered by John Fasana, a former Duarte Councilmember who sits on the county’s governance reform task force, which is tasked with implementing the government overhaul. He said he first raised the issue with the county in early June.
“Someone goofed,” said Fasana, who was appointed to the taskforce by Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”
Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA Coalition, which pushed Measure J to the ballot in 2020, said she was disturbed to learn last week that the fruit of years of advocacy would soon be wiped away accidentally.
“It shouldn’t be undermined just because folks rushed policy making,” said Castillo. “We know more voters were for Measure J than Measure G. It’s disrespectful to the will of the people to find this could unintentionally happen.”
Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on social services, such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
Castillo said she was worried the repeal would result in a “deep economic fallout” for these programs with county money potentially diverted to costs required by Measure G, like the salaries of new politicians and their staff. Measure G bars the county from raising taxes meaning this money will have to come from elsewhere in the county budget.
Castillo said she first brought the issue to the attention to deputies for Hahn and Horvath last week.
“They are shocked as well,” said Castillo.
Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who led the charge on Measure G, said in a statement a proposal was coming to correct the “County bureaucracy’s error related to Measure J.”
“This measure was the result of a hard-fought, community-led effort that I wholeheartedly supported—and remain deeply committed to upholding,” said Horvath. “This situation makes clear why Measure G is so urgently needed. … When five people are in charge, no one is in charge, and this is a quintessential example of what that means.”
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who opposed the overhaul of the county charter, saw it a little differently.
“It also reinforces one of the key concerns I had about Measure G from the start. When major changes to the County Charter are pushed forward without sufficient time for analysis, public input, and transparency, mistakes become more likely. Oversights like this are exactly what can happen,” Barger said in a statement. “This error could–and should–have been caught before voters were asked to make a decision.”
Supervisor Hilda Solis said she was “surprised and concerned” to learn about the error but was confident the funding envisioned by Measure J would “continue unaffected.”
The Times reached out to the other two supervisors and has yet to receive their responses.
County attorneys said in a statement they were working with the executive office to “address this situation” and ensure the executive office “timely codified” charter amendments going forward. They emphasized that, despite the looming repeal of Measure J, the county will continue to align its budget with the goals of the measure.
Derek Hsieh, head of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and a member of the governance reform taskforce member, called the mistake a “cluster—.”
“I think the voters and county employees would like to know when the Board of Supervisors knew about this mistake and what they plan on doing to fix it,” said Hsieh, who was an outspoken opponent of both Measure G and Measure J.
The union, which represents sheriff‘s deputies, had spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media to fight Measure J. The union had also joined other county labor unions to challenge the measure in court.
“There’s absolutely no question both by the will of the voters and a decision by the California Supreme Court that Measure J is the law of the land,” said Hsieh.
The screw-up became public Wednesday night at the task force’s second-ever meeting. Fasana told his fellow members who had gatherered at Bob Hope Patriotic Hall downtown he had found “a major issue.”
The news created something of an uproar in meeting that was supposed to focus on more mundane bureaucratic matters. Some members said they wanted to wait to discuss it until everyone had been briefed on what exactly he was talking about.
Others said they didn’t understand how they could talk about anything else.
“To me all the work we’re trying to move forward with stops because there’s a problem —a significant, fundamental one,” said Derek Steele, who was appointed by Supervisor Holly Mitchell.
“We may actually need to take Measure G back to the people,” said Steele. “ We need to make sure we have a solve for this.”
Both Mitchell and Barger opposed Measure G, arguing it had been put together too hastily and gave too much power to an ill-defined county executive.
Sara Sadhwani, who was appointed to the task force by Horvath, said she found the accidental repeal of Measure J “incredibly concerning,” but found the way the news had been delivered to the task force “obstructive.”
“It raises so many questions for me and raises concerns about who is operating in good faith on this task forcem,” said Sadhwani. “If this was a good faith effort, wouldn’t we have agendized this issue, instead of dropping a bomb that people have no knowledge of.”
The taskforce has asked for a report from the county’s attorneys for their next meeting.
AUSTIN, Texas — A group of Dallas-area families and faith leaders have filed a lawsuit seeking to block a new Texas law that requires copies of the Ten Commandments be posted in every public school classroom.
The federal lawsuit, filed Tuesday, claims the measure is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
Texas is the latest and largest state to attempt a mandate that has run into legal challenges elsewhere. A federal appeals court on Friday blocked a similar law in Louisiana. Some families have sued over Arkansas’ law.
The plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit are a group of Christian and Nation of Islam faith leaders and families. It names the Texas Education Agency, state education Commissioner Mike Morath and three Dallas-area school districts as defendants.
“The government should govern; the Church should minister,” the lawsuit said. “Anything else is a threat to the soul of both our democracy and our faith.”
Ten Commandments laws are among efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools. Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed.
Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Ten Commandments measure into law on June 21. He also has enacted a measure requiring school districts to provide students and staff a daily voluntary period of prayer or time to read a religious text during school hours.
Opponents say the Ten Commandments and prayer measures infringe on others’ religious freedom and more lawsuits are expected. The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have said they will file lawsuits opposing the Ten Commandments measure.
Under the new law, public schools must post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch or larger poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship.
The lawsuit notes that Texas has nearly 6 million students in about 9,100 public schools, including thousands of students of faiths that have little or no connection to the Ten Commandments, or may have no faith at all.
The Texas Education Agency did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The law takes effect Sept. 1, but most public school districts start the upcoming school year in August.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California’s drive for electric vehicles.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry’s lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California’s strict emissions standards.
The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century.
California’s new emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry’s position.
The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state’s rule.
“The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,” Kavanaugh said.
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed.
Jackson questioned why the court would “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). … This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”
But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.
With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.
Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.
In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”
“Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,” he said.
In response to Friday’s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”
Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.
“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”
Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Elon Musk is criticizing the centerpiece of President Trump’s legislative agenda, a significant fracture in a partnership that was forged during last year’s campaign and was poised to reshape American politics and the federal government.
The billionaire entrepreneur, who supported Trump’s candidacy with at least $250 million and has worked for his administration as a senior advisor, said he was “disappointed” by what the president calls his “big, beautiful bill.”
The legislation includes a mix of tax cuts and enhanced immigration enforcement. While speaking to CBS, Musk described it as a “massive spending bill” that increases the federal deficit and “undermines the work” of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is not a government agency.
“I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,” Musk said. “But I don’t know if it could be both.”
His CBS interview came out Tuesday night. Trump, speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday, defended his agenda by talking about the delicate politics involved with negotiating the legislation.
“I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” he said.
Trump also suggested that more changes could be made.
“We’re going to see what happens,” he said. “It’s got a way to go.”
Musk’s comments come as he steps back from his government work, rededicating himself to his electric automaker Tesla and rocket manufacturer SpaceX. He’s also said he’ll reduce his political spending, because “I think I’ve done enough.”
At times, he’s seemed chastened by his experience working in government. Although he hoped that DOGE would generate $1 trillion in spending cuts, he’s fallen far short of that target.
“The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,” he told the Washington Post. “I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”
The White House is set to send proposed rescissions, a mechanism used to cancel previously authorized spending, to Capitol Hill to solidify some of DOGE’s cuts.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said the package will include $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion in foreign assistance.
Musk had previously been energized by the opportunity to reshape Washington. He wore campaign hats in the White House, held campaign rallies and talked about excessive spending as an existential crisis.
He often tended to be effusive in his praise of Trump.
“The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk said in February. “Frankly, I love him.”
Trump repaid the favor, describing Musk as “a truly great American.” When Tesla faced declining sales, he turned the White House driveway into a makeshift showroom to illustrate his support.
It’s unclear if Musk’s comments about the bill will affect the legislative debate. During the transition period, he helped whip up opposition to a spending measure as the country stood on the brink of a federal government shutdown.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has asked senators to make as few changes to the legislation as possible, saying that House Republicans reached a “very delicate balance” that could be upended with major changes. The narrowly divided House will have to vote again on final passage once the Senate alters the bill.
However, Musk’s criticism could embolden Republicans who want bigger spending cuts. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee reposted a Fox News story about Musk’s interview while adding his own take on the measure, saying there was “still time to fix it.”
“The Senate version will be more aggressive,” Lee said. “It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”
Only two Republicans — Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voted against the bill when the House took up the measure last week.
Davidson took note of Musk’s comments on social media.
“Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” he wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”
The Congressional Budget Office, in a preliminary estimate, said the tax provisions would increase federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over the decade, while the changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other services would reduce spending by slightly more than $1 trillion over the same period.
House Republican leaders say increased economic growth would allow the bill to be deficit neutral or reducing, but outside watchdogs are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill would add $3 trillion to the debt, including interest, over the next decade.
Megerian and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.
ITV star Lorraine Kelly is willing to pull out all the stops to save her daytime show amid severe cuts at the broadcaster
21:19, 25 May 2025Updated 21:19, 25 May 2025
Lorraine Kelly, 65, is fighting to save the long-term future of her show(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
Lorraine Kelly, 65, is fighting to save the long-term future of her show. Insiders say the TV presenter – whose programme faces major cuts in an ITV cost drive – will have to “pull out all the stops” for it to survive.
Lorraine will now air only 30 weeks a year instead of all year, with episodes cut to 30 minutes from an hour. A source said: “Lorraine was not happy about what is happening and also had concern for the production team which will be cut back too.
“But the truth is she has to roll her sleeves up and work harder on her own show than she has in recent years, otherwise the long-term future does not look good. She has been an icon of ITV but serious cuts need to be made and her show has been cut to just 30 minutes, which after ad breaks will be a very short chunk of time.
“She needs to show bosses it is worth keeping on air. You can expect her to be pulling hard to get big name celebrities on her show instead of GMB or This Morning.”
Lorraine Kelly, 65, is fighting to save the long-term future of her show(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)
Lorraine was told her show was being cut back in a tense private meeting with bosses – and will now need to work five days a week to have a chance of keeping it on air long term.
ITV staff working on daytime were told in a meeting on Tuesday that half of the 440 production staff will go. But boss Kevin Lygo arranged for Lorraine to be told separately in the days before. Lorraine has been a telly regular for 40 years, on GMTV and Good Morning Britain before her own show in 2010.
However, she has not been hosting Friday episodes, with Christine Lampard and Ranvir Singh filling in. Last week staff Lorraine returned after surgery to remove her ovaries, which she discussed on screen.
A source close to the show said: “February, March and April celebrated the highest viewing figures for three years. The show reaches 1.1 million every day and 2.7 million every week.”
The ITV cuts will also affect other daytime shows, with Loose Women rumoured to be losing up to 10 of its 26 panellists.
Good Morning Britain also faces cuts but one constant will be Susanna Reid. A source said: “She is someone ITV want to build the show around and is seen as an essential part of daytime. She is 100% safe from the cuts.”
Hundreds of staff are now in a consultation process at ITV. An ITV spokesman said: “At a time when our daytime teams are undergoing a period of change we will not comment on speculation around talent or staff contracts.
“Our intention is to keep our daytime shows as familiar to viewers as possible which includes seeing presenters they know and love.”
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas would require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a Republican proposal that cleared a major vote Saturday and would make the state the nation’s largest to impose such a mandate.
If passed as expected, the measure is likely to draw a legal challenge from critics who consider it a constitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
The Republican-controlled House gave its preliminary approval with a final vote expected in the next few days. That would send the bill to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has indicated he will sign it into law.
“The focus of this bill is to look at what is historically important to our nation educationally and judicially,” said Republican state Rep. Candy Noble, a co-sponsor of the bill.
Louisiana and Arkansas have similar laws, but Louisiana’s is on hold after a federal judge found it to be “unconstitutional on its face.”
Those measures are among efforts in many conservative-led states to insert religion into public schools. The vote in Texas came after the U.S. Supreme Court in effect put an end to a publicly funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma on Thursday with a 4-4 tie after a string of high court decisions in recent years that have allowed public funds to flow to religious entities.
Texas lawmakers also have sent to Abbott a measure that allows school districts to provide students and staff a daily voluntary period of prayer or time to read a religious text during school hours. Abbott is expected to sign it.
“We should be encouraging our students to read and study their Bible every day,” Republican state Rep. Brent Money said. “Our kids in our public schools need prayer, need Bible reading, more now than they ever have.”
Supporters of requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms say they are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed.
Critics, including some Christian and other faith leaders, say the Ten Commandments and prayer measures would infringe on the religious freedom of others.
The Ten Commandments bill would require public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship.
Democratic lawmakers made several failed attempts Saturday to amend the bill to require schools to display other religious texts or provide multiple translations of the commandments.
A letter signed this year by dozens of Christian and Jewish faith leaders opposing the bill noted that Texas has thousands of students of other faiths who might have no connection to the Ten Commandments. Texas has nearly 6 million students in about 9,100 public schools.
In 2005, Abbott as state attorney general successfully argued before the Supreme Court that Texas could keep a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of its Capitol.
Vertuno and Lathan write for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — President Trump, alongside his wife, Melania, on Monday signed the Take It Down Act, a measure the first lady helped usher through Congress to set stricter penalties for the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery online, or “revenge porn.”
In March, Melania Trump used her first public appearance since resuming the role of first lady to travel to Capitol Hill to lobby House members to pass the bill following its approval by the Senate.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier Monday that the first lady was “instrumental in getting this important legislation passed.”
The bill makes it a federal crime to “knowingly publish” or threaten to publish intimate images without a person’s consent, including AI-created “deepfakes.” Websites and social media companies will be required to remove such material within 48 hours after a victim requests it. The platforms must also take steps to delete duplicate content.
Many states have already banned the dissemination of sexually explicit deepfakes or revenge porn, but the Take It Down Act is a rare example of federal regulators imposing on internet companies.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, passing the House in April by a 409-2 vote and clearing the Senate by unanimous consent.
But the measure isn’t without critics. Free speech advocates and digital rights groups say the bill is too broad and could lead to censorship of legitimate images, including legal pornography and LGBTQ+ content. Others say it could allow the government to monitor private communications and undermine due process.
The first lady appeared at a Capitol Hill roundtable with lawmakers and young women who had explicit images of them put online, saying it was “heartbreaking” to see what teenagers and especially girls go through after this happens to them. She also included a victim among her guests for the president’s address to a joint session of Congress the day after that meeting.
After the House passed the bill, Melania Trump called the bipartisan vote a “powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy and safety of our children.”
Her advocacy for the bill is a continuation of the Be Best campaign she started in the president’s first term, focusing on children’s well-being, social media use and opioid abuse.
In his speech to Congress in March, the president said the publication of such imagery online is “just terrible” and that he looked forward to signing the bill into law.
“And I’m going to use that bill for myself, too, if you don’t mind,” he said. There’s nobody who “gets treated worse than I do online. Nobody.”
Washington, DC – A measure known as the “nonprofit killer” has been removed from an enormous tax bill being advanced in the United States Congress, according to the bill posted online by the House of Representatives.
The provision, which no longer appeared on the President Donald Trump-backed “One Big, Beautiful Bill” on Monday, would have given the executive branch the authority to strip the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that it deems supportive of “terrorism”.
Advocates have warned that the legislative effort – which failed to pass as a stand-alone bill last year – could be abused to crack down on groups that the administration does not agree with, particularly nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) that support Palestinian rights.
Israel has given little indication that it is relenting after more than 19 months into its war on Gaza. The past week has seen an intensification of violence across the besieged Palestinian territory, which has killed hundreds of people.
The reason for the disappearance of the NGO provision remains unclear, and experts warned it may yet reappear in the bill before the final vote in the House, expected later in the week.
The office of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.
With a razor-thin majority in the House, Republicans need every vote to pass the tax bill, which Trump has put at the top of his agenda in Congress.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the section may have been removed to avoid putting the must-pass bill at risk, especially because the House parliamentarian, a nonpartisan office that oversees procedures, may have rejected it for violating the rules.
“It’s possible that this is a hiccup that they didn’t want, given that it wasn’t even likely to go through,” Hamadanchy told Al Jazeera.
“I can’t tell you that is the reason for sure. What I can tell you is that we continue to be very vigilant in case it comes back, either later this week or in the future.”
For weeks, Trump has been calling on Congress to pass the bill, which extends his 2017 tax cuts, a key component of his economic plans.
But the proposal has faced some opposition from conservative budget hawks, who have argued it does not cut spending enough and would add to the nation’s $36.2 trillion debt. So Republicans can ill-afford unnecessary issues that could derail the passage of the legislation.
‘Chill free speech’
Rights groups have been rallying against the “nonprofit killer”, saying it violates free speech and the right to due process.
The proposal would have granted the secretary of state power to unilaterally declare an NGO “terrorist supporting” and make it ineligible for tax exemptions.
It also said the government would not have to reveal the reason behind the designation if “disclosure of such description would be inconsistent with national security or law enforcement interests”.
Under the current rules, organisations certified to be nonprofits by the government get breaks on their federal income taxes. The status also makes donations to such groups tax deductible for donors.
While the withdrawn measure would have allowed a targeted NGO to challenge the secretary of state’s decision in court, losing the tax exempt status, even if temporarily, could have proven costly for nonprofits, especially smaller organisations.
Hamadanchy said being accused of supporting terrorism could also have prompted banks to close down the accounts of the groups.
“And then you have legal costs fighting off the designation because even if you might win in court, it’s going to take time to get there, and it’s going to cause a lot of damage to your organisation through that process,” he said.
“And that’s sort of the point because they want to chill speech.”
Hamadanchy noted that existing laws already make material support for a designated “terrorist” group a criminal offence with severe penalties.
The legislative push coincided with the Trump administration’s crackdown on Palestinian rights supporters, especially on college campuses.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the student visas of several Palestine advocates – who have not been charged with a criminal offence – over allegations of “support for terrorism”.
Some advocacy groups have portrayed the “nonprofit killer” as part of a broader push to muzzle voices critical of Israel.
“This bill is designed to silence dissent, especially from Muslim, Palestinian and civil rights organizations that speak out against injustice and genocide,” the Council on American Islamic Relations said in a statement last week.
“It threatens every nonprofit that engages in advocacy, educates the public, or challenges government policy.”
The apparent setback for the nonprofit provision came nearly two weeks after House leaders cancelled a vote on a bill to restrict boycotts of Israel after a backlash from right-wing legislators who voiced opposition to the measure on free speech grounds.
Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, said it would be “interesting” to see how Republican leaders would deal with staunchly pro-Israel measures like the “nonprofit killer” going forward.
“They on the one hand likely see this as a fun opportunity to embarrass Democrats – whose opposition will be framed as anti-Israel or enabling terror and antisemitism – and on the other hand they have to worry about principled opposition from within their own ranks,” Friedman told Al Jazeera in a statement.
WASHINGTON — Republicans advanced their massive tax cut and border security package out of a key House committee during a rare Sunday night vote as conservatives who blocked the measure two days earlier reversed course after gaining commitments on the package’s spending cuts.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.”
Democrats on the panel pressed for more details about the changes that Republicans had agreed to in the private negotiations. But Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he could not do so.
“Deliberations continue at this very moment,” Arrington said. “They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.”
The first time Republicans tried advancing the bill out of the Budget Committee, hard-right Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against sending the measure to the full House. Five Republicans voted no, one on procedural grounds, the other four voicing concerns about the bill’s effect on federal budget deficits.
On Sunday evening, the four voicing concerns about the deficit voted present, and the measure passed by a vote of 17 to 16.
Johnson is looking to put the bill on the House floor before the end of the week.
“This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate that the American people gave us in the last election,” he said on “Fox News Sunday” in advance of the vote.
The Republicans who criticized the measure noted that the bill’s new spending and tax cuts are front-loaded in the bill, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded. For example, they are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for Medicaid recipients. Those requirements would not kick in until 2029 under the current bill.
“We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the committee. “Something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”
Johnson said the start date for the work requirements was designed to give states time to “retool their systems” and to “make sure that all the new laws and all the new safeguards that we’re placing can actually be enforced.”
Roy was joined in voting no by Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania switched his vote to no in a procedural step so it could be reconsidered later.
The vote against advancing the bill had come after President Trump urged Republicans in a social media post to unite behind it.
At its core, the sprawling package permanently extends the existing income tax cuts that were approved during Trump’s first term, in 2017, and adds temporary new ones that the president campaigned on in 2024, including no taxes on tips, overtime pay and auto loan interest payments. The measure also proposes big spending increases for border security and defense.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the measure, which Republicans have labeled “The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called it “one big, beautiful betrayal” in Friday’s hearing.
“This spending bill is terrible, and I think the American people know that,” Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union’’ on Sunday. “There is nothing wrong with us bringing the government in balance. But there is a problem when that balance comes on the back of working men and women. And that’s what is happening here.”
Johnson is not just having to address the concerns of those in his conference who raised concerns about the deficit. He’s also facing pressure from centrists who will be warily eyeing the proposed changes to Medicaid, food assistance programs and the rolling back of clean energy tax credits. Republican lawmakers from New York and elsewhere are also demanding a much large state and local tax deduction.
As it stands, the bill proposes tripling what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year.
Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the New York GOP lawmakers leading the effort to lift the cap, said they have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.
If the bill passes the House this week, it would move to the Senate, where Republicans are seeking additional changes that could make final passage in the House more difficult.
Johnson said: “The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they don’t make many modifications to it because that will ensure its passage quickly.”
Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.
