It feels like something big is brewing in the Pepe world right now. Donald Trump just posted a Pepe meme on his social media site, Truth Social. Could it be that the US president is planning a market-moving Pepe buy?
Pepe’s recent growth has also seen interest in the MIND of Pepe presale grow significantly. This AI meme coin has raised over $11 million and will list on exchanges imminently, with just 24 hours to go in the presale.
Donald Trump used the Pepe meme in his 2016 presidential campaign, then it became a hate symbol. That’s the background that mainstream media is using to frame Trump’s recent post.
They’re pointing to certain “alt-right” groups adopting the Pepe meme, only later acknowledging that it depends on the context. For crypto users, and likely for Trump, Pepe is a symbol of community, resistance, and laughter, not hate.
Trump posted on Truth Social a picture of him walking in the street with Pepe the Frog watching from on a sidewalk a few metres behind. It was captioned “HE’S ON A MISSION FROM GOD,” a reference to a famous line from 1980s movie The Blues Brothers.
While media outlets attempted to portray the post negatively, the fact that the US president is posting about Pepe at all is a huge win for the meme coin community.
Moreover, the media headlines often mention the post’s positive impact on Pepe coin’s price. This increases the project’s visibility and could attract more investors, regardless of the seemingly biased headlines.
Trump posted the meme at a time when the crypto market was taking a breather, so Pepe’s gains were marginal. But a few weeks earlier, it might have sent the price skyrocketing.
However, the stunt signals that Trump may, once again, begin using Pepe in his public communication efforts, and that’d be a big tailwind for $PEPE to rally.
An even better outcome would be that Trump buys Pepe. It wouldn’t be out of character. It’s no secret that Trump launched his own meme coin OFFICIAL TRUMP this year, but most people are unaware that Trump-backed World Liberty Financial just bought a meme coin called BUILDon this week. Could Pepe be next on the project’s shopping list?
Either way, Pepe’s future looks bright. But how far can it go in the months ahead?
Analyst Says Pepe Poised to Hit $0.00005 by September
Besides project-specific factors, the broader crypto market’s current outlook paints an exciting picture for Pepe.
Analysts anticipate Ethereum will begin outperforming Bitcoin in the weeks ahead, which could help the entire altcoin market to also outperform. Macroeconomic factors, such as falling inflation in the US and a rising global M2 supply, coupled with increased crypto interest from nation-states ranging from the US to Kazakhstan, also indicate a promising market outlook.
With that, we expect Pepe to maintain its current higher-time-frame uptrend in the coming months. As to how far it could go, analyst Pinnacle Crypto suggests it could hit $0.000017 in the coming days.
PEPE has broken out of a descending triangle after consistently holding a strong ascending support trendline. Price is now retesting the breakout zone, which could lead to a potential bullish continuation. Support 50 EMA and 200 EMA
Looking further ahead, Professor Moriarty predicts that Pepe could veer to new highs by September, peaking at $0.00005. This would result in a market cap of just over $20 billion.
Elon Musk pushed Dogecoin to an $80 billion market cap in 2021, so there’s every chance the US president takes Pepe to $20 billion this cycle.
$PEPE has been quietly building momentum on the weekly chart
After months of respecting a steady uptrend, price recently launched off that support and is now sitting right above a key zone it struggled with before
— Professor Moriarty (@Moriarty_web3) May 21, 2025
But as Pepe shows potential, smart investors are seeking related tokens which could ride the bullish wave but provide more gains. One of the most popular alternatives currently available is MIND of Pepe, an AI agent that’s undergoing a blistering hot presale.
MIND of Pepe Tipped For 10x Gain as Presale Enters Final Day
MIND of Pepe is one one of the most successful crypto presales on the market and has raised a whopping $11.3 million so far. However the presale is going to end in just one day. This marks the final opportunity for investors to buy MIND of Pepe at a fixed and discounted price before its exchange debut.
MIND of Pepe is a Pepe-themed AI agent that will scan the market to identify trading opportunities. It has a public X account where it offers market commentary, hot takes, and even replies to followers.
But the real innovation is only available for $MIND holders. The project boasts a data insights terminal that shares trading signals, in-depth technical analysis, risk-to-reward ratio analysis, and curated X posts.
It can also launch its own crypto projects, and $MIND holders will get insider access before the agent promotes them on social media.
MIND of Pepe is more than a meme coin; it’s a powerful AI tool designed to make its community money.
With that, it’s unsurprising that analysts expect big gains. For example, Umar Khan from 99Bitcoins recently said the project holds 100x potential.
With a strong use case, hard-wired token utility, and analyst support, MIND of Pepe appears firmly positioned to capitalize on the growth of Pepe coin.
But as mentioned, the presale will end in one day. For investors seeking to buy $MIND at its fixed presale rate of $0.0037515, this is the last opportunity.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.
Keyshawn Johnson is suing a sports agent for almost $1 million.
Johnson says he recruited several players, who are now in the NFL, to be represented by Christopher Ellison. The former NFL and USC star’s claim is based on an alleged oral agreement the men made a decade ago to pay Johnson for his efforts. Most of the $1 million represents back payments that Johnson feels he is owed.
A lawsuit filed May 23 in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges that Johnson and Ellison had agreed that Johnson “was to identify players, make the initial contact with them, and recruit them to be represented by” Ellison.
“In return for this player identification, recruitment and eventual entry into the highest level of the game of football, Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff a specific percentage of the player’s signed contract with the NFL,” the lawsuit states. “Each year, Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff one-third of the (3%) three percent commission Defendant made on each of the players’ salary.”
According to the lawsuit, Johnson successfully recruited four players — San Francisco 49ers defensive back Deommodore Lenoir, Chicago Bears defensive back Jaylon Johnson, Atlanta Falcons defensive back Mike Hughes and Green Bay Packers receiver Romeo Doubs — for Ellison but “has not received his earned percentage of Defendant’s full commission.”
Ellison did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment. TMZ reports that the attorney and UCLA adjunct professor “denies all of the claims Johnson made in the suit.”
The lawsuit details each player’s contract and states that Johnson should have been paid “no less than $962,335 from his work on securing these player agreements.” But, according to the filing, no payment has been received.
“For several months, Defendant claimed he had not received any payments for the NFL’s recruitment of the players he represents,” the lawsuit states. “It is our reasonable belief that this is false.”
Since then, the filing alleges, Ellison “has become unresponsive to Plaintiff’s demands for payment.”
Johnson is seeking the full amount he states he is owed — as well as other damages, costs and fees — for causes of action that include breach of contract, unfair business practices and intentional misrepresentation.
A two-time All-American at USC, Johnson was named the MVP of the 1995 Cotton Bowl Classic and the player of the game in the 1996 Rose Bowl. During his 11-year NFL career, Johnson made three Pro Bowls and won Super Bowl XXXVII with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Since retirement, he has become a sports media personality and, according to his lawsuit, “currently works to coach and develop prospective NFL players.”
U.S. gymnastics legend Mary Lou Retton faces a DUI charge after being arrested earlier this month in Marion County, W.Va.
According to Magistrate Court of Marion County records, Retton was arrested May 17 and charged with a misdemeanor count of driving under influence of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs. She was released after posting a personal recognizance bond of $1,500, the court records show.
Retton’s attorney declined to comment on the matter when reached by The Times.
Born in Fairmont, W.Va., Retton, 57, rose to household-name status during the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles, when she became the first U.S. gymnast to win Olympic gold in the all-around competition, edging Romania’s Simona Pauca by five-tenths of a point.
Retton sealed the gold medal by earning perfect scores on her final two exercises, floor and vault, much to the delight of the crowd at Pauley Pavilion and millions of TV viewers around the country. During those Games, she won five medals, also including silvers for team all-around and vault, and bronzes for floor and uneven bars.
On Oct. 10, 2023, Retton’s daughter, McKenna Kelley, revealed that her mother had “a very rare form of pneumonia” and was “fighting for her life” in intensive care without being covered by medical insurance.
“She is not able to breathe on her own,” Kelley wrote in the description of a fundraiser that has raised nearly $500,000 to help cover Retton’s medical costs.
On Oct. 23, 2023, Kelley wrote in a now-deleted Instagram post that Retton was “HOME & in recovery mode.”
Retton said she was “not great yet” when she spoke about her ordeal and ongoing recovery with NBC News’ Hoda Kotb in January 2024.
“I don’t know how long I’ll indefinitely need the oxygen,” Retton said while gesturing toward her nasal tube, “but you have no idea how blessed and how grateful I was for this holiday season.”
Retton also addressed why she didn’t have health insurance at the time of her medical emergency.
“When COVID hit after my divorce, and all my preexisting — I mean, I’ve had over 30 operations, orthopedic stuff — I couldn’t afford it,” she said.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking federal agencies to cancel contracts with Harvard University worth about $100 million, a senior administration official said Tuesday, intensifying the president’s clash with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university.
The government already has canceled more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants for the Ivy League school, which has pushed back on the administration’s demands for changes to several of its policies.
A draft letter from the General Services Administration directs agencies to review contracts with the university and seek alternate vendors. The administration plans to send a version of the letter Tuesday, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.
The New York Times first reported on the letter.
President Trump has railed against Harvard, calling it a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. The school filed a lawsuit April 21 over the administration’s calls for changes to the university’s leadership, governance and admissions policies. Since then, the administration has slashed the school’s federal funding, moved to cut off enrollment of international students and threatened its tax-exempt status.
Contracts include scientific research, executive training
The administration has identified about 30 contracts across nine agencies to be reviewed for cancellation, according to another administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly and provided details on the condition of anonymity.
The contracts total roughly $100 million. They include executive training for Department of Homeland Security officials, research on health outcomes related to energy drinks and a contract for graduate student research services.
Agencies with contracts that are deemed critical are being directed not to halt them immediately, but to devise a plan to transition to a different vendor other than Harvard.
The letter applies only to federal contracts with Harvard and not its remaining research grants.
Trump threatens to give Harvard’s funding to trade schools
Trump laid into Harvard on social media over the weekend, threatening to cut an additional $3 billion in federal grants and give it to trade schools across the United States. He did not explain which grants he was referring to or how they could be reallocated.
The president also accused Harvard of refusing to release the names of its foreign students. In a new line of attack, he argued that students’ home countries pay nothing toward their education and that some of the countries are “not at all friendly to the United States.” International students are not eligible for federal financial aid, but Harvard offers its own aid to foreign and domestic students alike.
“We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” Trump said on social media.
It wasn’t clear exactly what he was demanding. The federal government already has access to visa information and other records on foreign students at Harvard and other universities.
The Department of Homeland Security has demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of files related to its foreign students, including disciplinary records and records related to “dangerous or violent activity.”
Harvard says it complied, but the agency said its response fell short and moved to revoke the university’s ability to enroll foreign students. A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked the move after Harvard sued.
Other nations respond
Japan’s government said Tuesday that it’s looking for ways to help Harvard’s foreign students. Education Minister Toshiko Abe told reporters she planned to ask Japanese universities to compile measures to support international students.
The University of Tokyo, Japan’s top school, is considering temporarily accepting some Harvard students hit by the Trump sanctions.
Superville and Binkley write for the Associated Press.
May 25 (UPI) — A Texas woman has sued the state’s lottery commission for not awarding her $83.5 million three months after she had the winning ticket in a February Lotto Texas drawing, according to court documents.
“Every Texan knows what that should mean when it comes to the lottery – if you win, you should get paid,” the lawsuit said. “It should take a lawsuit to get paid when you win the lottery. But that’s exactly what has happened here.”
The woman, identified as Jane Doe in court documents, said she bought her ticket using an app called “Jackpocket” through Winners Corners, an Austin-based third party lottery retailer, on February 17, and presented it to the commission on March 18.
A week later, the Texas Lottery Commission said it would be banning the purchase of lottery tickets through unregulated ticket courier services, such as Winners Corners.
The court documents in Doe’s lawsuit said the commission did not tell her at any time that her ticket was not valid, documents show. Texas Gov. Greg Abbot said the state may also be investigating Doe’s ticket.
“Texans must be able to trust in our state’s lottery system and know that the lottery is conducted with integrity and lawfully,” Abbot said in a February statement.
The lawsuit says the state should not be allowed to change rules retroactively, and allege the commission is attempting to sidestep paying Doe.
“We all know the Commission is not allowed to change the rules after the drawing,” the lawsuit, first discovered by CNN, said. “But the Commission has apparently tried to do so and relied – at least in part on this ex post facto announcement to continue to refuse to pay Plaintiff her lottery winnings simply because she utilized a lottery ticket courier service to buy the winning ticket,” the lawsuit said.
Texas Lottery Executive Director Ryan Mindell stepped down in April while the commission was facing a series of investigations.
Only three states, New York, New Jersey and Arkansas, regulate lottery courier services.
AMAZON is now weeks away from shutting down an app that’s been used by hundreds of millions of people.
There are major downsides for affected users – and you might even be owed a big refund.
3
The Amazon Appstore is being killed off on AndroidCredit: Amazon
Millions of people using the Amazon Appstore will be cut off in mid-August.
The closure affects anyone using the app on Android phones.
Amazon’s Appstore is a rival to the default Google Play Store, letting you download apps and games. It launched on Android all the way back in March 2011.
But on August 20, the Amazon Appstore will close – and any apps downloaded from it will no longer receive updates.
That means support will end for all apps you’ve downloaded via the Amazon Appstore.
They may become buggy or stop work entirely, and won’t be able to receive any important security fixes either.
In an FAQ, Amazon warned that these apps “will not be guaranteed to operate on Android devices”.
Amazon has already begun killing the Appstore off by blocking developers from uploading new apps to it.
Amazon Prime cancels TEN TV shows this year – including A-list actor’s horror drama and beloved cult classic’s reboot
“In our ongoing effort to streamline and improve our services and programs, we are making some changes to Amazon Appstore for Android devices and Amazon Coins program,” Amazon explained.
“We will be discontinuing support of Amazon Appstore for Android devices on August 20, 2025. As of February 20, 2025, developers will no longer have the option to submit new apps targeting Android devices.
“However, developers will have the option to submit updates to their existing live apps on Amazon Appstore for Android devices until August 20, 2025.”
Amazon added: “All existing apps on Amazon Appstore for Android devices will continue to be available to customers until August 20, 2025. Developers can continue to submit app updates until August 20, 2025.”
3
The change only affects Android phones – and not Fire TV devicesCredit: Google
It’s worth noting that the Amazon Appstore is only shutting down on Android phones.
The Amazon Appstore was never available on iOS for iPhone, so it can’t disappear because it was never there.
A popular Center Parcs resort is undergoing a huge £67 million expansion, which will see 200 new lodges added to the site. However, guests have been warned the upgrade may cause some disruption
Center Parcs proposed the expansion back in 2021(Image: Center Parcs)
Center Parcs has warned customers over potential disruption, as it ploughs ahead with a huge expansion. Whether you’re a sucker for the Subtropical Swimming Paradise and wave machine, or love to stroll through the forest after splurging out at the Pancake House – a trip to Centre Parcs is like no other.
The holiday complex, which first came to the UK back in 1987, aims to bring ‘people and nature together’. Its site, which tend to be set amongst vast stretches of woodlands, feature all your typical holiday camp facilities – such as an indoor swimming pools, water slides, arcades, restaurants, shops and a spa. But, guests can also work up a sweat thanks to the numerous activities on offer – spanning from badminton and tennis to archery and yoga.
Originating in the Netherlands, Center Parcs now has 28 resorts across Europe, including six in the UK. Over in Ireland, the resort’s Longford Forest is a popular choice – and is currently undergoing a huge €80 million (around £76 million) refurb.
200 new lodges are being built in the resort(Image: Center Parcs)
The huge investment, which was first announced back in 2021, include the addition of 200 new lodges, including four of the brand’s iconic treehouses. These premium accommodation types sleep up to eight people, and come with a games den, outdoor hot tub, private parking and dedicated ‘Treehouse Host’.
Alongside new lodges, Center Parcs also has plans to extend its existing leisure facilities, restaurants, cafés, as well as the Subtropical Swimming Paradise and Aqua Sana Spa. In a 2021 press release, Center Parcs said the investment would create 250 permanent jobs, as well as a further 300 jobs during construction.
The investment will bring in 250 permanent jobs(Image: Center Parcs)
“As part of our ongoing development, we are currently constructing new lodges and facilities at Center Parcs Longford Forest,” the resort states on its website. “During your stay, you may notice increased construction traffic around the village and hear some noise from the works taking place.”
Center Parcs confirmed that the works will not impact the village facilities, which will remain open as normal. “We will work hard to keep disruption to a minimum,” it added. “Thank you for bearing with us during this time.”
Guests may notice increased traffic around the village(Image: Center Parcs)
Want the latest travel news and cheapest holiday deals sent straight to your inbox? Sign up to our Travel Newsletter
If you’re wanting to visit a Center Parcs lodge a bit closer to home, you can choose from Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire; Woburn Forest, Bedfordshire; Elveden Forest, Suffolk; Whinfell Forest, Cumbria, or Longleat Forest, Wiltshire. May half-term breaks start from £799.
Prices include entry to the Subtropical Swimming Paradise, but do not include activities such as tennis, badminton, bowling, or access to the spa. You can book these ahead of your visit on the Center Parcs app.
*Prices based on Center Parcs listings at the time of writing.
Do you have a story to share? Email us at [email protected] for a chance to be featured.
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Democratic senators sparred Tuesday over the Trump administration’s foreign policies, including on Ukraine and Russia, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as the slashing of the U.S. foreign assistance budget and refugee admissions.
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, his first since being confirmed on the first day of President Trump’s inauguration, former Florida Sen. Rubio defended the administration’s decisions to his onetime colleagues.
He said “America is back” and claimed four months of foreign policy achievements, even as many of them remain frustratingly inconclusive. Among them are the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran, efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine into peace talks, and efforts to end the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.
He praised agreements with El Salvador and other Latin American countries to accept migrant deportees, saying “secure borders, safe communities and zero tolerance for criminal cartels are once again the guiding principles of our foreign policy.” He also rejected assertions that massive cuts to his department’s budget would hurt America’s standing abroad. Instead, he said the cuts would actually improve American status and the United States’ reputation internationally.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee’s chair, opened the hearing with praise for Trump’s changes and spending cuts and welcomed what he called the administration’s promising nuclear talks with Iran. Risch also noted what he jokingly called “modest disagreement” with Democratic lawmakers, who used Tuesday’s hearing to confront Rubio about Trump administration moves that they say are weakening the United States’ influence globally.
Yet Democrats on the Senate committee, including ranking member Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, took sharp issue with Rubio’s presentation.
Shaheen argued that the Trump administration has “eviscerated six decades of foreign policy investments” and given China openings around the world.
“I urge you to stand up to the extremists of the administration,” Shaheen said. Other Democrats excoriated the administration for its suspension of the refugee admissions program, particularly while allowing white Afrikaners from South Africa to enter the country.
In two particularly contentious exchanges, Kaine and Van Hollen demanded answers on the decision to suspend overall refugee admissions but to exempt Afrikaners based on what they called “specious” claims that they have been subjected to massive discrimination by the South African government. Rubio gave no ground.
“The United States has a right to pick and choose who we allow into the United States,” he said. “If there is a subset of people that are easier to vet, who we have a better understanding of who they are and what they’re going to do when they come here, they’re going to receive preference.”
He added: “There are a lot of sad stories around the world, millions and millions of people around the world. It’s heartbreaking, but we cannot assume millions and millions of people around the world. No country can.”
On the Middle East, Rubio said the administration has continued to push ahead with attempts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza and to promote stability in Syria.
He stressed the importance of U.S. engagement with Syria, saying that otherwise, he fears the interim government there could be weeks or months away from a “potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.”
Rubio’s comments addressed Trump’s pledge to lift sanctions on Syria’s new transitional government, which is led by a former militant chief who led the overthrow of the country’s longtime oppressive leader, Bashar Assad, late last year.
Lee and Knickmeyer write for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to pay just under $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit that Ashli Babbitt’s family filed over her shooting by an officer during the U.S. Capitol riot, according to a person with knowledge of the settlement. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss with the Associated Press terms of a settlement that have not been made public.
The settlement would resolve the $30-million federal lawsuit that Babbitt’s estate filed last year in Washington, D.C. On Jan. 6, 2021, a Capitol police officer shot Babbitt as she tried to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby.
The officer who shot her was cleared of wrongdoing by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which concluded that he acted in self-defense and in the defense of members of Congress. The Capitol Police also cleared the officer.
Settlement terms haven’t been disclosed in public court filings. On May 2, lawyers for Babbitt’s estate and the Justice Department told a federal judge that they had reached a settlement in principle but were still working out the details before a final agreement could be signed.
Justice Department spokespeople and two attorneys for the Babbitt family didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, was unarmed when she was shot by the officer. The lawsuit alleges that the plainclothes officer failed to de-escalate the situation and did not give her any warnings or commands before opening fire.
The suit also accused the Capitol Police of negligence, claiming the department should have known that the officer was “prone to behave in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner.”
“Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone,” the lawsuit said.
The officer said in a televised interview that he fired as a “last resort.” He said he didn’t know if the person jumping through the window was armed when he pulled the trigger.
Thousands of people stormed the Capitol after President Trump spoke to a crowd of supporters at his Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House. More than 100 police officers were injured in the attack.
In January, on his first day back in the White House, Trump pardoned, commuted the prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of the more than 1,500 people charged with crimes in the riot.
Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.
Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed slashing funding by 67% for a pioneering deal with Google to support struggling California newsrooms, citing financial pressures that have promoted wider budget cuts.
California newsrooms had expected to receive $30 million from the state as part of a deal brokered last year in which Google and the state would jointly contribute money over five years to support local newsrooms through a News Transformation Fund. The state Department of Finance confirmed Wednesday that California instead will pay out $10 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year.
“The sole reason for the reduction is more limited/fewer resources than projected in the January budget,” Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said.
Newsom announced Wednesday that the state is facing an additional $12-billion budget shortfall next year. The revised $321.9-billion plan will also include a reduction in healthcare for low-income undocumented immigrants and a decrease in overtime hours for select government employees.
The deal was born of negotiations that began with a proposed funding bill written by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), which is known as the California Journalism Preservation Act. It would have required Google to pay into a fund annually that would have distributed millions to California news outlets based on the number of journalists they employ. The California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member, backed the larger effort.
It was designed to aid newspapers that have seen their finances collapse in recent years, leaving fewer journalists to cover institutions and communities.
The proposal was modeled after a Canadian bill that has Google paying about $74 million per year. Google fought the bill, arguing its passage would force the company to remove California news from its platform, thus restricting access for Californians.
Instead, the state and Google agreed in August to provide nearly $250 million to newsrooms over five years, starting in 2025, with funding slated for two projects.
The second initiative was a $68-million pledge for Google to fund artificial intelligence in the form of a National AI Accelerator. The AI funding element of the deal drew sharp rebukes from Democratic lawmakers and journalists.
California had pledged $30 million in 2025 and $10 million for each of the next four years. Google agreed to an initial payment of $15 million in 2025 and $55 million in total into the journalism fund. Google also agreed to boost its own journalism programs with a separate $50-million grant.
SACRAMENTO — One of the many traits that set California apart from other states is the way undocumented immigrants are woven into our communities.
Their economic impact is obvious, and the Golden State would be hard-pressed to keep our status as a world-competing financial power without their labor.
But most Californians know, and are OK with the reality, that at least some of our neighbors, our kids’ classmates, our co-workers, are without legal documents, or in blended-status families.
Gov. Gavin Newsom took a stand Wednesday for those undocumented Californians that seems to have gone largely unnoticed, but which probably will be a big fight in Congress and courts. In his bad news-filled budget presentation, Newsom committed to keeping state-funded health insurance for undocumented residents (with cuts, deep ones, which I’ll get to). Although some are disappointed by his rollbacks, many of which will hit citizens and noncitizens alike, standing by California’s expansion to cover all low income people is a statement of values.
“We’ve provided more support than any state in American history, and we’ll continue to provide more support than any state in American history,” he said.
Sticking with that promise is going to be tough, and likely costly.
This decision comes as Congress considers a Trump-led budget bill that would severely penalize states (there are 14 of them) that continue to provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants. California, of course, has the largest number of such folks on its Medi-Cal plan and would be the hardest hit if that penalty does indeed become the new law — to the tune of $27 billion over six years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
To put that in perspective, the governor is now estimating a nearly $12-billion budget shortfall this year. That federal cut would add at least $3 billion a year to our costs once it hits.
That federal cut, Newsom said, was “not anticipated in this budget,” which means we are ignoring it for the time being.
Federal programs aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people.
But Congress is threatening an approximately 10% cut in reimbursements to states that insure undocumented people via the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act. That expansion allows millions of Americans to have access to healthcare.
Those expansion funds are working in ways that many don’t know about. For example, as Newsom pointed out, behavioral health teams doing outreach to homeless people are funded by Medicaid dollars.
In all, about one-third of Californians rely on Medi-Cal, including millions of children, so this threat to cut federal funds is not an empty one, especially in a lean year.
Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy advisor for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which advocates for universal healthcare, said that the bill being debated by Congress is so full of cuts to healthcare that arguing against the provision penalizing coverage for undocumented people may not be a priority for most Democrats — making it more likely that the cut will get through.
“I don’t know if this is going to be a do-or-die issue,” she said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised 2025-26 state budget during a news conference Wednesday in Sacramento.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
And indeed, the pressure by Republicans to kill off coverage entirely for undocumented folks was quick.
“Gov. Newsom has only partially repealed his disastrous policy,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) said in a statement. “ It needs to be reversed entirely, or Californians will continue to spend billions on coverage for illegal immigrants and our state will lose an even larger amount in federal Medicaid funding.”
Newsom has given economic reasons for sticking with the state’s coverage for all low-income residents, regardless of status. When people don’t have access to routine care, they end up in emergency rooms and that is extremely expensive. And also, Medicaid has to cover that emergency care, so taxpayers often end up spending more in the long run by skimping on upfront care.
“It’s definitely important to the people that get the coverage because they don’t really have an alternative,” Hempstead said.
But that care has been vastly more expensive than California expected, also to the tune of billions of dollars in unexpected costs, in part because so many people have signed up.
To the dismay of many, Newsom’s budget reflects both recent economic woes — a $16-billion revenue hit caused by what he’s dubbing the “Trump slump” — as well as the state vastly understimating the cost of covering those undocumented folks.
That shortfall may force cuts in the coverage that undocumented people qualify for if the Legislature goes along with Newsom’s plan, or even parts of it.
Most notably, it would cap enrollment for undocumented adults age 19 and over in 2026, effectively closing the program to new participants. That’s a huge hurt. His plan also calls for adding a $100 per month premium, and other cuts such as ending coverage for the extremely popular and expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs for all participants.
“I don’t want to be in this position, but we are in this position,” Newsom said.
Amanda McAllister-Wallner, executive director of Health Access California, called those cuts “reckless and unconscionable” in a statement.
“This is a betrayal of the governor’s commitment to California immigrants, and an abandonment of his legacy, which brought California so close to universal healthcare,” she said.
I strongly believe in universal single-payer healthcare (basically opening up Medicare to everyone), so I don’t disagree with McAllister-Wallner’s point. In better days, I would hope to see enrollment reopen and benefits restored.
But also, we’re broke. This is going to be a year of painful choices for all involved.
Which makes Newsom’s, and California’s, commitment to keep insurance for undocumented people notable. The state could back down under this real federal pressure, could try to find a way to claw back the benefits we have already given.
But there’s a moral component to providing healthcare to our undocumented residents, who are such a valuable and vital part of our state.
Although the fiscal realities are ugly, it’s worth remembering that in providing the coverage, California is sticking with some of its most vulnerable residents, at a time when it would be easier to cut and run.
The city of Anaheim is likely to wait until after the baseball season to address the future of Angel Stadium.
With the city expecting to complete a long-awaited assessment of the condition of the stadium this summer, deputy city manager Ted White told the City Council on Tuesday that the prudent course of action would be for his staff to get a “full understanding” of the stadium review before asking the council how to proceed.
“We want to have that opportunity to evaluate it and prepare a presentation for you,” said White, who projected making that presentation sometime that fall.
Angel Stadium, the fourth-oldest stadium in the major leagues, opened in 1966. The assessment is expected to detail the repairs and maintenance needed to keep the stadium safe and sound for decades to come, at a cost both the city and team estimate would be hundreds of millions of dollars.
The information could guide the city and team in determining what needs to be done to the stadium and who should pay for it, whether the Angels play out their existing stadium lease or negotiate a new deal, one that likely would include development on the sea of parking lots surrounding the ballpark. The Angels have committed to play in Angel Stadium through 2032 and have options through 2038.
On April 4, the day of the Angels’ home opener, Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken sent an open letter to Angels owner Arte Moreno, inviting him to share in “an open and honest conversation about the future of baseball in Anaheim.”
Aitken listed eight starting points for negotiations, including her desire for the name “Anaheim” to reclaim its prominence with the team. Moreno and Aitken exchanged greetings at the home opener, but the Angels have not committed to any negotiations.
President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.
Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.
But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.
Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.
Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.
The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.
Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.
Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.
Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”
Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”
Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.
Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.
Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.
During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.
Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)
In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.
Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.
Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.
“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”
When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.
“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”
Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.
“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.
Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”
Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.
“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”
Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.
“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”
Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.
“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”
