nominee

SACRAMENTO — California’s next governor, Xavier Becerra, is a “small ball” player, to borrow a baseball term. He probably won’t be swinging for the fences like Govs. Gavin Newsom and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But he also won’t be striking out a lot trying to hit home runs, like Newsom and Schwarzenegger.

Democrat Newsom has rapped some doubles, most notably streamlining the long-abused California Environmental Quality Act that has slowed housing development for decades and increased the cost of homeownership.

Republican Schwarzenegger slammed a home run when he signed Democratic legislation (AB 32) kicking off California’s nation-leading fight against climate change.

But stars Newsom and Schwarzenegger frequently fanned at the plate while overreaching.

Gov. Jerry Brown? He had the “good eye,” another baseball term referring to a batter adept at spotting a good pitch to swing at and knowing when to lay off. Brown was very choosy and strategic — a solid player in his second tenure as governor.

We don’t know for sure what type of governor Becerra, 68, will be. More like the low-profile but feisty Pete Wilson? Or the dull, but dedicated and determined George Deukmejian? Certainly not an all-star complete player like Gov. Ronald Reagan.

We can only surmise based on Becerra’s long record of public service — legislator, congressman, state attorney general and U.S. Health secretary in the Biden administration.

That, and how he’s approaching his election campaign — basically the same way he has performed throughout his career: slow, steady, cautious. A gradual, careful climb to the top in California.

A workhorse, not a show horse, using a tired cliche that’s applicable to Becerra.

Framed by the background of struggling, working class Mexican immigrant parents — roots the candidate never forgets and frequently mentions.

We do know one thing for sure: He’ll be elected governor in November — California’s first elected Latino governor in history.

We’ll go through the motions of watching two candidates “compete.” But there’s no way that a moderate, essentially clean Democrat can lose in California to a Republican former Fox News host whose only previous political gig was as strategist for a British prime minister and — most damning — who is endorsed by the detested, despicable President Trump.

GOP candidate Steve Hilton contends that Trump’s unpopularity in California “doesn’t matter because we’re not talking about national policies here. This is about what we can do in our state to make life better for Californians.”

One thing we can do is continue to fight back against Trump. Becerra vehemently pledges to do that and points to his successful record as attorney general blocking the president’s policies in court.

Trump’s national policies don’t matter in California? Wrong. He shrinks federal healthcare funds, attempts to drill for oil off the pristine coast, invades our cities with the National Guard and poisons protection for salmon and other endangered species.

Californians will be voting against Trump up and down the ballot in November.

Back to Becerra.

Small ball is basically about playing methodically, scoring one run at a time rather than relying on home runs and extra-base hits, moving runners with walks, bunts, stolen bases and bloop singles. Patience and careful incrementalism. That’s Becerra.

“I would prefer not to run on inflated promises that then I can’t deliver on,” Becerra told Politico reporter Melanie Mason last week at a public forum in Sacramento. “I’m not going to promise you 3 million [new housing] units because that’s where I can’t go. That’s an inflated promise. But I will tell you we will build. There will be more Californians who own a home.”

Newsom promised to build 3.5 million new housing units when he ran for election in 2018 — and dramatically struck out.

Becerra told reporters that “realistically” he could double the roughly 100,000 new units annually being built today. A bloop single.

The Democrat made a small ball proposal last week. He pledged two free hours of electricity daily for low-income households. Details will be negotiated with the state Public Utilities Commission and presumably private utilities like Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric.

Becerra envisions, for example, that a family of four earning less than $82,500 annually would get two hours of free electricity mid-day when regional demand is low and solar is generating lots of unused energy.

So, if it’s unused electricity why not make it free for practically everyone regardless of their income? Maybe that could be considered. Probably not.

One thing we can look forward to: A full-time governor who won’t be dividing his time running for president. He’ll be solely focused on the job of governing.

He’ll also fully understand and respect the process of legislating — as a former member of the U.S. House Democratic leadership — and presumably feel comfortable dealing with legislative honchos.

Becerra already has one devoted fan in the Legislature: Powerful Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister).

“This is a person who is always just incredibly focused, someone who is very engaged,” Rivas told Politico’s Jeremy White last week.

“One quality about Xavier is he doesn’t wake up every morning thinking how he can make headlines or be on the front page of our newspapers.

“He’s someone [who] doesn’t ever have to speak the loudest but you can’t mistake that for being passive. … He’s intensely competitive. He’s extremely persistent. … He’s going to have an ambitious plan and an agenda.”

OK, we’re all ears. We’d like to hear about it before election day. But don’t count on it. Small ballers tend to be agonizingly cautious, even when they end up winning.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Californians split on proposed tax on billionaires, sour on voter ID requirement, poll shows
What the … : California’s bid to outlaw ‘glow-in-the-dark rabbits’ and ‘unicorn horses’ fails
The L.A. Times Special: What’s at stake — legally and politically — in Paramount merger

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

President Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care is not improper and cannot be the basis for quashing a subpoena issued by the Justice Department against a provider of medical treatment for transgender youth, a divided federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The Justice Department announced last year that it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care as part of an effort to investigate healthcare fraud. Federal judges have quashed many of the subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the efficacy and long-term risks of the treatments are “uncertain,” and the president has the power to align the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities with his broader policy goals.

“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” wrote Judge Carlos Bea.

Bea, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined in the opinion by Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee. They reversed a ruling that quashed the subpoena against telemedicine provider QueerDoc, sending the case back to the district court to consider other arguments.

The subpoena seeks QueerDoc’s personnel files, billing documents, communications with drug manufacturers and records of patients who were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy, among other information, according to the 9th Circuit decision.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adrien Leavitt, who represented Washington state-based QueerDoc, said the ACLU would continue fighting the subpoena in district court. QueerDoc has also argued the subpoena is overbroad and burdensome. The Justice Department has said it has reason to believe the company may be misleading people about puberty blockers and hormones.

“We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said in a statement.

He said the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit was the first appeals court to weigh in on the subpoenas.

Trump has signed one executive order defining sex as only male or female — and as unchangeable — and another that seeks to end federal funding of the care for patients under 19. The latter order also directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law by “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”

Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person’s gender identity, including when it’s different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It encompasses counseling, medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes as well as surgeries to transform chests and genitals, though those are rare for minors.

Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.

The 9th Circuit majority called discussion around gender-affirming care “an unsettled scientific debate” and said the Trump administration could also justify its opposition to the treatment on ethical or philosophical grounds.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — It’s hard being a global titan these days, when despite beaucoup bucks spent bending government to your will, any little ant of a state attorney general can crawl up your pant leg and bite.

Just ask David Ellison.

After, well, the world seemingly fell in line with his long-planned $110-billion merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery in recent weeks, a dozen state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, have stymied the deal with a so-far-successful lawsuit that has put the whole thing on ice.

That has Paramount, and presumably Ellison, big mad-sad. So much so that a company lawyer this week suggested Paramount could move out of California if Bonta doesn’t back down.

For those of us in the cheap seats, the whole plot of the Paramount merger has become so convoluted and nebulous it‘s hard to follow exactly what’s going on, and what it all means.

So let’s pull back, and take a big-picture look at what’s happening and what’s at stake — legally and politically.

Legally pretty good

First, the recap: Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery have been trying to merge since 2024. European regulators, along with those in other countries, cleared the deal, with some conditions in place.

U.S. regulators also backed the deal (which was not surprising considering Paramount went out of its way to court Trump, maybe even settling a multimillion-dollar suit and canning Stephen Colbert as part of that), making it seem like it was all but done.

Then, recently, 12 state attorneys general led by Bonta sued to stop the merger on antitrust grounds and won a temporary restraining order.

So why did the states sue?

Trump’s idea of regulation seems to be to OK anything he likes, or that personally benefits him. Therefore, “the states have come in and played a really important role, since the DOJ has basically walked away from a lot of interest enforcement,” said George Hay, a professor of law and economics at Cornell University. “The states take this really seriously.”

While there have been lots of angles on this merger in the media (including concerns over foreign investments), the antitrust lawsuit is really fairly narrow — the main argument is that the merger will “kill off theaters,” Hay said, and hurt consumers and creators.

Bonta has pointed out that after the merger, the new Paramount would control about 27% of films released into theaters in the U.S., along with basic cable distribution.

David Ellison, chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance, speaks at a New York event in April.

(Noam Galai / Getty Images for Paramount)

On those narrow grounds, “the states have done a good job putting together a credible case, a case that a court’s likely to regard as being plausible,” said William Kovacic, a professor of law at George Washington University.

While the lawsuit is only in preliminary stages, Harry First, a professor of law emeritus at New York University and an expert in antitrust matters, said it has a “decent chance of succeeding.”

That has to worry Paramount, because a long, drawn-out court case is bad for business.

“If you go through appeals, it means that your transaction hangs suspended in the air for a couple of years,” Kovacic said. “It creates all sorts of uncertainty about the future direction of the business.”

The issues that don’t matter, but actually do

Paramount also has PR headaches involved with this deal, though they largely lie outside the scope of the legal action.

Whether or not CNN would retain its editorial independence has been a huge topic of debate. Ellison’s dad, billionaire Larry Ellison, is a huge F.O.T. (friend of Trump) with a hard-right tilt.

The younger Ellison has already been accused of destroying the integrity of “60 Minutes.” Many fear (or hope, depending on their politics) that he will do the same to CNN. But that’s not really an antitrust issue, although Ellison has tried to claim this is political persecution by liberal states.

There’s also been talk from labor unions and some politicians that the merger will hurt workers, which seems like a reasonable fear. In general, First points out, less competition leads to more power for the remaining owners to set the terms of employment.

Again, that’s not what the lawsuit is actually focused on.

Politics front and center

But both of those issues have become popular talking points, more prevalent than the actual issues in the lawsuit.

That reality is creating a political headache for some big political heads, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and governor-in-waiting Xavier Becerra, who are increasingly receiving pressure from Paramount to make this all go away.

That thumbscrew campaign lost all subtlety this week at a Politico event in Sacramento, where Paramount’s chief legal officer Makan Delrahim said the company would consider leaving the state.

“If I was governor, I wouldn’t want to lose Hollywood from the state. I wouldn’t want to lose a major company like Paramount to another state,” Delrahim said.

Both Newsom and Becerra in recent days have indicated they would prefer some sort of settlement, avoiding a long legal battle that could kill the deal entirely.

NYU’s First sees that as “the weakness of Democrats who say they don’t like concentration and they don’t like concentration in the media and they don’t like companies getting bigger and bigger, and then they fold when the companies have political power.”

Let’s look at that power more closely, though, because if you recall, there are 11 other attorneys general in this suit, including from powerful states such as New York and Colorado.

That means “California doesn’t necessarily dictate what will happen to the case,” Hay said. “It may well be Ellison will twist Newsom’s arm to get Newsom to twist the attorney general’s arm to call off the case or take a very favorable settlement, but it doesn’t kick the other states out.”

While Bonta, at the same Politico event, said he’s had private conversations with Newsom on the issue, he also doesn’t seem interested in folding.

“In a span of weeks, Paramount agreed to halt the merger until a court decision or until June 2027, asked for a November trial, and is now back with another attempt to blackmail the state into letting an illegal deal through. Paramount has lost the plot as it continues to lose in court. It didn’t work the first time — on the eve of our July lawsuit — and it won’t work this time,” Bonta said in a recent social media post.

Don’t forget, Bonta has his own aspirations for governor, and Hay points out that AGs often see antitrust cases as “a political stepping stone” because they are popular with voters.

So what’s next?

As the lawsuit is currently written, First and other legal experts agreed this would be a hard case to settle because it doesn’t leave a lot of room for dealmaking.

That, of course, doesn’t mean a deal couldn’t be done.

But it’s unlikely Ellison will force California to crumble with so many other states in the game, no matter how many threats Paramount drops, and unlikely the merger will escape this lawsuit without concessions that the attorneys general can cite as victories.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ICE to outfit officers with gloves that can deliver electric shocks
The California angle: Nick Reiner lay in wait before killing his parents, prosecutors allege
The L.A. Times Special: Live updates: Bob Iger, Joshua Kushner agree to buy Lakers for $12.5 billion
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Say you want a new pair of running shoes, but you just can’t make up your mind. So you spend a solid week checking them out online, coming back to one pair on a particular site again and again.

When you’re finally ready to check out, you notice something upsetting — the price you saw on day one is now 20% higher. What the heck?

Welcome to the brave new world of surveillance pricing, where some companies are not just tracking your every move online but also purchasing deep-dive data into your life for a single purpose — to figure out the maximum you will pay for an item and jack up the price accordingly to squeeze every possible dollar out of every unwitting consumer.

It’s legal, and whether it’s good or bad “depends on which side of the transaction you’re on,” said Roger White, an economics professor at Whittier College.

For those of you who are really terrible at economics, we, the little people, are on the bad end of that deal.

“It is using your own personal data and your characteristics, your demographics, information about you, to set a different price based on the perceived willingness to pay, and that is causing Californians a potential chance of being gouged,” said state Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego).

Ward is trying to outlaw surveillance pricing in California with his AB 2564, which seems like a no-brainer if you actually care about affordability and your constituents. But he’s having a hard time getting his bill through the Legislature. In fact, he tried last year and failed.

This year, the bill still has a chance, but the clock is ticking, the lobbyists representing big retailers and data brokers are spending, and our state elected officials seem lukewarm on the issue.

A bad problem gets worse

But if surveillance pricing seems corrupt or unethical, get ready. Because retailers are getting ready — for artificial intelligence.

Right now, most surveillance pricing is relying on established data collection. That is about to get super-charged as AI goes further and further into sweeping up bits of information on every aspect of our lives, on and offline.

Did your car break down and you have to shop at home? Are you injured or have a medical condition that makes you desperate for comfy shoes? Did you just get a raise and maybe are in the mood to spend?

The amount of data that can be definitively known about your life is huge. The amount that can be inferred is even bigger. Imagine if artificial intelligence in real time, using every bit of information it can find, is basically working to squeeze every dime out of you, every day on every purchase — groceries, clothes, plane tickets, maybe even medicines.

“AI gives them powerful tools to do that, and they can basically use information almost instantaneously to set prices,” said Darrell M. West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy think tank.

Which makes regulating surveillance pricing now all the more important.

The big bad picture

White, the Whittier professor, sees an even bigger threat looming with surveillance pricing. He points out that income inequality in the United States has been increasing since the 1970s, and it is mostly rich people who control and own large retail endeavors.

If surveillance pricing is allowed to blossom unfettered, he’s concerned the rich will get richer by selling at higher prices, and everyone else will be paying so much to survive that the poor and middle class will suffer even further.

“This could lead to an acceleration of income inequality,” White said. “This could be a way for, sort of, the rich to benefit more,” leaving “the middle class and the poor potentially being even worse off.”

Immediate gouging, and long-term erosion of the already tenuous ability of the middle class and poorer people to survive. You’d think our state Legislature would be all over fixing this.

Other states have. In fact, about 20 states have some sort of law about “dynamic pricing,” a broader term for how retailers use data to set prices.

Just a few days ago, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed A4085 (the Fair Price Protection Act), which prohibits surveillance pricing for groceries.

New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Maryland also have laws on the issue, though some won’t take effect until next year.

And this isn’t some sort of blue-state push. MAGA Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) suggested last week that he might be considering federal legislation on the issue, the same week the democratic socialist mayor of Seattle proposed curbs on it.

“There are both Republicans and Democrats who are worried about these issues because they’re getting complaints from their own constituents,” West said.

But in California, the winds are blowing in favor of the big guys. While Ward is working through one colleague at a time trying to pass the measure, the lobbying pressure against it has been significant.

Retailers and others argue it could have unintended consequences, like preventing them from offering discounts to certain customers, or having loyalty programs.

C’mon. No one is coming for your coupons.

White, the economist, points out that companies are spending millions to implement surveillance pricing, and they aren’t doing it so they can slash prices and lose money.

“They won’t say this, but you know, the reality is that millions, if not billions, of dollars in inflated profit is on the line,” said Ward. “Unfortunately, that is coming at the expense of everyday Californians who are having that ripped out of their pocketbooks without them even knowing it.”

White put it even more bluntly.

“If you’re opposed to the Assembly bill, it seems that you are siding with the businesses, and if you’re in favor of it, then it seems that you’re siding with consumer protections.”

Ward is fighting an uphill battle, but he isn’t giving up. It’s about trying to “right the universe when it comes to fair pricing for consumers,” he told me.

“We need to go back to a place of a fair marketplace where you have an honest relationship between the consumer and the business and everybody is being treated the same,” he said.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘Pervert glasses’: Backlash against Meta’s smart glasses grows
The California angle: L.A. shelter provider has paid CEO who lives in Hawaii $1.6 million in salary, vacation over two years
The L.A. Times Special: D.A. faces backlash after charging LAPD officer who recorded colleagues’ racist remarks

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nick Offerman is more than just his facial hair. For one thing, the actor made viewers weep with his Emmy-winning turn as Bill, a man who found unexpected love in “The Last of Us.”

Then again, Bill did have a great beard.

Fans who celebrated Ron Swanson and his mustache on “Parks and Recreation” have had much to enjoy with the two roles that earned Offerman Emmy nominations this year. As Chester A. Arthur, corrupt politician-turned-surprise president in Netflix’s limited series “Death by Lightning,” and retired professional wrestler and recovering addict Jinx in the Apple TV series “Margo’s Got Money Troubles,” he had two powerful redemption arcs to navigate. As well as some mighty coifs.

“I pride myself on that,” he deadpans. “It’s not something you can learn. I literally come by it honestly because it’s what Mother Nature provided me. Benedict Cumberbatch got the cheekbones and the nimble, articulate language tools. I got whiskers, and shoveling, and slow talking. We all get our things.”

Nick Offerman as Chester A. Arthur in “Death By Lightning.”

(Larry Horricks/Netflix)

Speaking by video chat from the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, where he’s playing Eugene O’Neill opposite wife Megan Mullally’s Broadway diva in “Iceboy! The Musical,” Offerman is humble and erudite, poking fun at himself while praising colleagues. He is “sincerely gobsmacked” by the double nod. He is also fresh-faced, because he’s filming the Alex Garland film “Elden Ring” in London during his downtime. “Here is this meager little mustache that someone made me, and I glue it on every night,” he says, holding up two tiny hairy wings.

In contrast, Arthur’s mutton chops just won’t stop. “If a president is not thin and has facial hair, then it’s been suggested that I should play him,” Offerman says. “People send me all of them, you name it: McKinley, Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt.”

Of course, the actor goes beyond whiskers to create his roles. To play Arthur, he read “Destiny of the Republic” by historian Candice Millard, which the show is based on. He also read Scott Greenberger’s biography “The Unexpected President.”

But ultimately he found his character on the pages of creator Mike Makowsky’s scripts. “The incredible advantage of great writing is that they’ve answered a lot of the questions for you,” Offerman says, adding, “Makowsky told me that he had me in mind when he was writing it. Once you learn about Chester, you’re like, ‘That’s a mixed compliment.’”

Nick Offerman.

(Billy Delfs / For The Times)

He says working on “Death” was “exquisite,” likening the shoot to a camp for theater kids, delighting in the depth of talent in the cast, and recalling when he and star Michael Shannon, at the time performing plays together in Chicago, used to get up to youthful drunken shenanigans, “like climbing a building outside the L&L Tavern.”

Jinx would probably have enjoyed that in his early years. When we see him on “Margo,” he’s been brought low by pain, prescription drugs and a lost love (Michelle Pfeiffer), trying to make amends with his daughter Margo (Elle Fanning), who’s struggling with single parenthood.

“Jinx desperately wants to be a good guy, he wants to be a good dad, he wants to be a good lover,” says Offerman. “He wants to be the hero of any circumstance, but unfortunately he has these frailties that I know too well.”

Offerman trained for three months with bodybuilder Grant Roberts “to create the body of, thankfully, a former pro wrestler, so you don’t necessarily need terrific abs,” Offerman says. Then for three weeks during the shoot he worked with pro wrestler Chavo Guerrero Jr. “I’m a former fight choreographer for the stage, and I do my own stunts, so I’ve been waiting this whole time to play a swashbuckler. By the time we were done, I was flying off the top rope.”

The physical preparation helped him find his way into the role. “What I learned about pro wrestlers, who are incredibly generous and loving people, is that they are all hurt, all the time. They’re all performing through pain,” he notes. “So how can I summon everything I have to blow away this audience with superheroic energy, even though I’m just this dumb theater-school kid?”

Offerman with “Margo’s Got Money Troubles” co-stars Elle Fanning, center, and Michelle Pfeiffer.

(Apple TV)

Jinx’s look is also key to the portrayal. For present-day scenes, Offerman sports his own beard, with some color added. But for flashbacks, “they made my spray tan extra dark, gave me this gorgeous mane of hair and put some braids in my beard. I was just over the moon. People complain about three hours in the makeup chair. I don’t complain because someone is putting their masterpiece on my head. I have the tractor and the hay rack that they’re building their float on that’s going to win the Rose Bowl Parade. It’s such a privilege to get to drive their masterpiece around.”

He soon faced Fanning. “She’s such a badass professional. It was so fun because she inspires me to also be more flexible and creative.” He calls Pfeiffer “a cinematic Mt. Rushmore. That was very thrilling because I traditionally have not been cast as people who have heat with glamorous movie stars.” He giggles.

“I understand that I have value as a performer, but I still don’t get how I got this part,” he says, sounding a bit baffled. “This is the best part of my life. I’ve had some wonderful parts that I’m very grateful for, but I’ve never had scenes with such complicated emotional relationships.”

He adds a point that could apply to Chester Arthur as well. “It’s fun to be a protagonist who gets to indulge in human weakness, knowing that we hopefully will bring the audience back around to caring about you.”

Eighty-three lawsuits filed against the Trump administration in 18 months, at a cost of more than $20 million.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced those stats this week, part of an annual report to the Legislature on how we’re spending a special fund set aside to combat President Trump’s overreach.

That doesn’t include more than 120 friend of the court briefs the Golden State has written in legal matters brought by others, or the multitude of cases in which the Trump administration has sued California and Bonta’s office is defending us.

That’s a whole lot of litigation. Is it worth it? Are we huffing and puffing for political points, or do all these lawsuits actually do something positive for the average Californian?

You get what you pay for

I’m going to sound like a bus bench ad for the legal profession, but, at this point, “the courts are standing as the only barrier to the president doing anything that the president wants to do,” Hiroshi Motomura, a professor of law at UCLA, told me.

And what the president apparently wants to do is make the poor and vulnerable poorer and more vulnerable. And don’t think there’s a middle-class exemption. In his second term, Trump has attacked healthcare coverage, special education, education in general, reproductive rights, gender rights, the environment, endangered species, immigrants and more.

“The disastrous impact of Trump’s lawlessness isn’t theoretical or hypothetical. It’s not imagined. It is real. It is hurting real people,” Bonta said. “It is hurting Californians, real families, real businesses, real communities every single day.”

You name it, if it’s not rich and connected, it’s probably under attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched a very different war on poverty in 1964 with social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start. This new war on poverty seems intent on increasing it, not eradicating it.

It would be nearly impossible for the people affected by these attacks on government services to fight them on their own, said Richard Abel, a professor emeritus of law at UCLA and the author of multiple books on the Trump presidency.

“They don’t know why it’s happening,” he said. “They don’t have access to lawyers. Many of them are undocumented or afraid to mobilize the legal system.”

That leaves the states, which are often the only other entities that have a legal right to sue, because they too are being harmed by the cuts.

So yeah, our $20 million is well spent. Bonta said his legal work has protected about $207 billion in funding. But I’ll argue the true return on investment is California residents who have been protected in ways they don’t even realize.

Risks we don’t even realize

Take Massachusetts vs. Department of Agriculture, one of the cases California is involved in. This is Trump’s attempt to put new rules on USDA grants for food programs including emergency food assistance, school lunches and food stamps. It would tie compliance with his right-wing, discriminatory policies on immigration, gender ideology and diversity issues to receiving those funds.

California and other states sued and won a preliminary injunction stopping them in June — meaning most recipients kept their benefits without ever realizing they were at risk.

Then there’s New York vs. Administration for Children & Families, in which Trump goes after child welfare funds; Washington vs. Department of Education, which attacks mental health grants that help hire school psychologists and counselors; and Illinois vs. Vought, which targets California and three other states run by Democrats for cuts to transportation and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for no other reason than politics, the states argue.

Food benefits, access to mental health care, lead poisoning prevention. Just a few more things most of us didn’t realize could be at risk for some of us.

In each of those cases, Bonta and the other Democratic attorneys general stopped the federal actions, even if only temporarily. Some of those cases are ongoing, but with restraining orders or injunctions in place.

Then there’s United States vs. Baass, Trump’s attempt to force Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, to turn over a bunch of applications for Medi-Cal benefits for the last five years so the federal government can go on a witch hunt for undocumented folks.

Supposedly these applications, which Baass and her agency were subpoenaed for, are needed for an immigration investigation in the Central Valley. California won in court in March, when a judge denied the federal government’s petition to enforce that subpoena.

Now, the feds are appealing to the 9th Circuit — and California continues to fight to protect the privacy and maybe even safety of the residents who just needed medical care, but could see their sensitive information, including addresses, turned over to immigration authorities if Trump had his way.

How could they possibly fight that on their own?

Then there’s a lawsuit in which Trump is trying to prevent California from continuing to give in-state tuition to Dreamers — undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as youngsters.

In battles such as that one, fought because it’s the right thing to do, Motomura sees a benefit greater than just protecting funding.

It forces us to push back against the federal government’s framing that immigration is “about invaders, you know, climbing walls,” Motomura said.

“This is about people who live in our communities,” he said. “And I think that when Bonta claims that space, he’s not just pushing back. He’s saying, ‘Let’s think about this in terms of building stronger communities,’ and I think that’s a significant shift.”

The rule of law may be battered and bruised, and even at times a bit hinky. But so far, it has held — in no small part because of Democratic attorneys general like Bonta who aren’t just filing lawsuits but have built the staffs and networks to do it effectively. It’s a much larger effort than we give it credit for, but one that has fundamentally protected our everyday lives so well that many have barely noticed the wolves at the door.

I’m sure there will be losses, wolves that crawl through windows, and we will all feel the bite of that. But 83 lawsuits will soon likely be 84, 94, whatever it takes to protect Californians.

Each one is a fight worth having, because every Californian is worth fighting for.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: From decorated U.S. Marine to arrested at Trump golf course: What we know about Jeanine John Taele
The deep dive: The obscure financial maneuver at issue in Dodgers owner probe explained
The L.A. Times Special: New park under neglected 6th Street Bridge stirs up hope, Boyle Heights gentrification fears

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Today we’re talking about California’s Proposition 39, a bid to turn Trump’s election conspiracy fantasies into California law, and a proposal so disingenuous it’s caused Democratic legislators to sue the Democratic secretary of state in an attempt to stop the misinformation surrounding it.

As these lawsuits move forward and the November election rolls closer, we’re going to hear a lot about Proposition 39 — a measure that would require in-person voters to present government-issued identification, among other provisions. I fear most if not all of this debate will revolve around the false claim that large numbers of undocumented people vote illegally in our elections.

“It’s directly a product of all of the rhetoric that Trump has been putting out there regarding election fraud and voting fraud,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

Romero stresses that there is not and has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, and the state already has a system that effectively checks voter eligibility.

Proposition 39 is “seeking a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and a solution that actually could cause additional problems,” she said. “So in and of itself, it perpetuates this false and dangerous narrative that there has been voter fraud in California.”

That lie is part of the ongoing grievance-fueled Trump campaign against non-white “replacement” Americans, meant to undermine trust in elections — you may recall he’s gone so far as to say immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” It’s a venal and dark vein of partisanship aimed at keeping the far-right in power even at the expense of democracy.

But also an effective lie. Because many folks don’t know exactly how their ballots are verified but do have ID, they don’t see the full impacts of Proposition 39.

The easy ID myth

I’ll tell you more about Proposition 39, but I’m starting with a story about an all-American teenager I’ll call “Sofia.” I’ve been helping Sofia,18, attempt to get her first government-issued identification. I stress attempt.

Folks, there’s been hoops, there’s been hurdles, there’s been Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

For people like Sofia that don’t have bills or jobs or even accurate student records (she’s moved a lot), scraping up enough documentation to convince the DMV you are who you say you are is tough. First, you really need a certified birth certificate.

Sofia wasn’t born in the county where she lives (it’s county recorders that keep them), which means she had to either drive hours or go through the state’s third-party online vendor to order one, at a cost of about $30. But here’s the catch — she needed proof of identity to order it.

So to get a birth certificate to get her ID, she needed ID.

Stuck in this circular nightmare, we found, after much effort, a loophole: I could appear in front of a public notary with Sofia, to testify using my ID that she was indeed Sofia. Strange, but whatever. We did it.

That wasn’t enough for the DMV. Sofia also needed two bills or other documents verifying her address. Because they will literally give a credit card to anyone, she applied to an online company, and got her first statement. One document down.

Again, scouring the DMV rules for days, we found another weird loophole: The second document can be a letter from a nonprofit with the person signing it vouching for Sofia’s identity. We got the letter, and Sofia’s Real ID was issued.

But then she had to move before it arrived. She tried to arrange mail forwarding with the postal service, but guess what? They required ID.

So the ID was lost in transit, and we are back to square one.

Who Proposition 39 really targets

That means Sofia is one of thousands of Californians, born and raised in the Golden State, who lack official identification because its not as easy to obtain it as some want you to believe.

And because she lacks it, she could be prevented from voting if Proposition 39 is passed, even though she is a legal citizen with every right to have her ballot counted, and California already has a system in place to ensure only citizens vote.

Sofia is exactly the kind of voter that Proposition 39 is actually aimed at. This is a voter suppression law, plain and simple, and it will harm women with name changes, naturalized citizens, young people, older people and virtually anyone who cares about not returning to Jim Crow-style laws that push people out of voting with subterfuge.

Proponents of the proposition would like you to believe it’s something very different from what I just described. Their fight about how we talk about this proposal has led to two lawsuits so far — one filed by the backers of Proposition 39 because they don’t like the official title the California attorney general put on it, and one filed by the leaders of the state Legislature because they argue the statements written by proponents for official voting materials aren’t truthful.

I’ll give you a taste of both of those arguments. Right now, the state is proposing to title the measure “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the always-Trumper behind Proposition 39, helped lead a lawsuit claiming that is inaccurate.

DeMaio issued a statement claiming Democrats are “trying to deceive voters by putting a false ballot title on it and are now even distracting voters from their tampering of the ballot title with this frivolous lawsuit.”

That frivolous lawsuit he’s complaining about is the one where the Democratic leaders of the Legislature last week sued the Democratic secretary of state and others over the language included in the state voter guide. The Democrats aren’t really angry at each other, it’s just that Secretary of State Shirley Weber is in charge of voter materials, so she’s one of the folks they’ve got to sue to make their case.

The lawsuit alleges, among other complaints, that proponents are falsely framing Proposition 39 as making it “easier to vote” when in fact it does the opposite.

“Prop. 39 requires no burdens be placed on voters,” the materials at issue read, according to the lawsuit. “No additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required.”

So I take you back to Sofia. Because while Proposition 39 might not ask her to bring her birth certificate to the polls, it would ask her to bring her ID, which required her birth certificate to get.

A distinction without a difference.

“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” wrote the lawsuits’ plaintiffs, House speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón, in a statement. “As Californians and Latinos, we will not let MAGA cronies take Constitutional rights away from voters.”

That lawsuit will likely have its first hearing in court this week. But whatever a judge decides, the ballot box is where the fate of Proposition 39 rests.

Though it seems like average Californians could see through this sham, there are big bucks backing it, and money always speaks loudly.

The donors in support read like the guest list for a White House dinner. So far, they’ve raised more than $15 million. That includes $4 million from Richard Uihlein, the Illinois billionaire and Trump supporter who often funds organizations and causes that promote election conspiracies and far-right candidates.

The crypto-billionaire Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, have each donated $250,000, along with other Silicon Valley types including former RFK Jr. running mate Nicole Shanahan, who ponied up $370,000 in support of Proposition 39.

Oh, and by the way, L.A. developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso has donated $25,000 to the effort.

That’s a lot of dough being poured into stopping certain Californians from voting. If they succeed, it won’t just be an inconvenience at the polls — but instead a double victory for Trump, both suppressing the vote ahead of the presidential election and legitimizing his election lies through law.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: FBI Escalates Trump’s “Voter Fraud” Crusade With Disturbing Move
The California angle: How Trump’s Endangered Species Act rollback is roiling Northern California
The L.A. Times Special: Trump running out of options to fix inflation, economic woes before election, experts say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The 2026 Emmy nominations have been revealed.

HBO’s emergency medical drama “The Pitt” was the top nominee, with a total of 25. The premium cable network’s intergenerational comedy comeback story “Hacks,” meanwhile, earned 24 nominations. Other top nominees include Apple TV’s freshman offerings “Widow’s Bay” and “Pluribus,” which nabbed 19 and 18 nods a piece, respectively.

With its 24 nominations, “Hacks” set a new record for most nominations in a year by a comedy series. The previous record of 23 nods was set by “The Bear” in 2024 and matched by “The Studio” in 2025.

“[The nominees’] creativity and talent remind us why television remains one of our most powerful art forms,” Television Academy chair Cris Abrego said in his introductory remarks Wednesday morning. “While these nominations recognize individual achievement, they also celebrate the collaborative spirit that defines our industry. Every nomination today is a result of countless people coming together to create work that moves us, entertains us and, above all, inspires us.”

Previous Emmy winners Liza Colón-Zayas, known for her role as no-nonsense chef Tina on FX’s culinary dramedy “The Bear,” and Jeff Hiller, the “Widow’s Bay” actor who also portrayed sweet and lovable best friend Joel on HBO’s tender comfort-watch “Somebody, Somewhere,” were on hand at the Television Academy’s Wolf Theatre to joke about their nerves — and height difference — while presenting the nominations.

The nominees for variety series and reality competition program were announced before the main nominations ceremony on NBC’s “Today” show.

The 78th Emmy Awards will be held Sept. 14 at 5 p.m. at the Peacock Theater in downtown Los Angeles. Hosted by “Law & Order: SVU” star Mariska Hargitay, the live telecast will air on NBC and stream on Peacock. The Creative Arts Emmy Awards, which honor artistic and technical achievements as well as some performance categories, will be held on Sept. 5 and 6.

Drama series

“The Diplomat”
“The Gilded Age”
“A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms”
“Paradise”
“The Pitt”
“Pluribus”
“Slow Horses”
“Your Friends & Neighbors”

Drama lead actress

Carrie Coon, “The Gilded Age”
Chase Infiniti, “The Testaments”
Keri Russell, “The Diplomat”
Rhea Seehorn, “Pluribus”
Zendaya, “Euphoria”

Drama lead actor

Sterling K. Brown, “Paradise”
Gary Oldman, “Slow Horses”
Mark Ruffalo, “Task”
Rufus Sewell, “The Diplomat”
Noah Wyle, “The Pitt”

Drama supporting actress

Taylor Dearden, “The Pitt”
Fiona Dourif, “The Pitt”
Allison Janney, “The Diplomat”
Katherine LaNasa, “The Pitt”
Sepideh Moafi, “The Pitt”
Julianne Nicholson, “Paradise”
Karolina Wydra, “Pluribus”

Drama supporting actor

Patrick Ball, “The Pitt”
Billy Crudup, “The Morning Show”
Shawn Hatosy, “The Pitt”
Gerran Howell, “The Pitt”
Jack Lowden, “Slow Horses”
Tom Pelphrey, “Task”
Carlos-Manuel Vesga, “Pluribus”

Comedy series

“Abbott Elementary”
“The Bear”
“Hacks”
“Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
“Nobody Wants This”
“Only Murders in the Building”
“Shrinking”
“Widow’s Bay”

Comedy lead actress

Quinta Brunson, “Abbott Elementary”
Ayo Edebiri, “The Bear”
Elle Fanning, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
Lisa Kudrow, “The Comeback”
Jean Smart, “Hacks”

Comedy lead actor

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, “Wonder Man”
Steve Carell, “Rooster”
Matthew Rhys, “Widow’s Bay”
Jason Segel, “Shrinking”
Martin Short, “Only Murders in the Building”

Comedy supporting actress

Dale Dickey, “Widow’s Bay”
Hannah Einbinder, “Hacks”
Janelle James, “Abbott Elementary”
Kate O’Flynn, “Widow’s Bay”
Michelle Pfeiffer, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
Megan Stalter, “Hacks”
Jessica Williams, “Shrinking”

Comedy supporting actor

Colman Domingo, “The Four Seasons”
Paul W. Downs, “Hacks”
Harrison Ford, “Shrinking”
Nick Offerman, “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”
Stephen Root, “Widow’s Bay”
Michael Urie, “Shrinking”
Tyler James Williams, “Abbott Elementary”

Limited series

“All Her Fault”
“The Beast in Me”
“Beef”
“DTF St. Louis”
“Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette”

Television movie

“Heads of State”
“Miss You, Love You”
“People We Meet on Vacation”
“Remarkably Bright Creatures”
“Jack Ryan: Ghost War”

Limited series / TV movie lead actress

Claire Danes, “The Beast in Me”
Sally Field, “Remarkably Bright Creatures”
Carey Mulligan, “Beef”
Sarah Pidgeon, “Love Story”
Sarah Snook, “All Her Fault”

Limited series / TV movie lead actor

Riz Ahmed, “Bait”
Jason Bateman, “Black Rabbit”
Charlie Hunnam, “Monster: The Ed Gein Story”
Oscar Isaac, “Beef”
Matthew Rhys, “The Beast in Me”

Limited series / TV movie supporting actress

Linda Cardellini, “DTF St. Louis”
Dakota Fanning, “All Her Fault”
Laurie Metcalf, “Monster: The Ed Gein Story”
Joy Sunday, “DTF St. Louis”
Yuh-Jung Youn, “Beef”
Constance Zimmer, “Love Story”

Limited series / TV movie supporting actor

Jason Bateman, “DTF St. Louis”
Richard Gadd, “Half Man”
David Harbour, “DTF St. Louis”
Richard Jenkins, “DTF St. Louis”
Charles Melton, “Beef”
Nick Offerman, “Death by Lightning”

Variety series

“The Daily Show”
“Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
“Last Week Tonight With John Oliver”
“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”
“Saturday Night Live”

Reality competition program

“Dancing With the Stars”
“RuPaul’s Drag Race”
“Survivor”
“Top Chef”
“The Traitors”

The complete list of 2026 Emmy nominees is available on the Television Academy website.

Maybe there is something in the fog. Matthew Rhys landed two Emmy nominations in different categories for darkly comedic and darkly chilling turns this TV season.

Rhys is nominated for lead actor in a comedy series for his deft performance as Tom Loftis, a single dad and the mayor of a cursed New England island who is trying to balance the town’s supernatural threats with his efforts to boost tourism, in Apple’s TV’s breakout horror-comedy series “Widow’s Bay.” The word-of-mouth buzz around the series, which premiered in April, intensified each week leading up to its finale last month and prompted chatter around its prospects as a major Emmys contender. The series arrived late in the season, so only its first seven episodes qualify for the 2026 awards cycle, but that was enough for Rhys to nab a nod.

It wasn’t the only performance from Rhys that voters boosted. He is also nominated for lead actor in a limited or anthology series for his role as the sociopath Nile Jarvis, a famed and formidable real estate developer who once was the prime suspect in the killing of his wife, in Netflix’s “The Beast in Me.” Nile finds himself in a cat-and-mouse dynamic with his new neighbor (Claire Danes), an author in search of her next book subject who is suspicious of his innocence.

Prior to this year’s nominations, Rhys received five Emmy nominations over his career, including for his lead roles in “The Americans” and “Perry Mason,” as well as a guest actor nod in “Girls.” He won in 2018 for his role as KGB spy Philip Jennings in “The Americans.”

The Times spoke with Rhys about his nomination; these are edited excerpts.

Matthew Rhys as Mayor Tom Loftis in Apple TV’s “Widow’s Bay.”

(Apple)

Congratulations on your exciting morning — it’s a big day in the Rhys-Russell household [Keri Russell, Rhys’ partner, is nominated for lead actress in a drama for her role in “The Diplomat”]. Let’s start with the most important question: What’s in the fog, Matthew?

[laughs] I love how it took me a moment. I was like, “Wait, what?” Oh, yes, the fog! What’s in the fog is an incredible Season 2.

Place me in the moment when you got the news.

I was in Brooklyn Bridge Marina at the time. I just got off a boat, and I thought, “Oh, God, it’s 11:40.” So I thought quite possibly [they] got to our categories. I checked my phone and there were the many texts. That was the exciting moment because if you haven’t been nominated, there’s no text.

Did one text stand out from the others?

The real pinch-me moment — this is going to sound like a real name drop — but it really got me emotional because I thought, if I’d have told my 18-year-old self that Gary Oldman would text me to congratulate me, I wouldn’t have believed it. That’s when it got me in an emotional way because he’s such a true hero.

Let’s start with “Widow’s Bay,” which recently wrapped its first season. There’s something so thrilling about how it broke through the way that it did. What has struck you about how viewers responded to this horror comedy?

There was a great degree of nervousness about how this would land, whether indeed it would land at all, and the fact that it has, and kind of the depth and the complex nature that’s landed or resonated with people in different ways, is what I’ve loved. Some people go, “Oh my God, it’s so funny”; some people say, “Oh my God, it’s terrifying” — some people say both. And some people pick up on the weirdest things, and then some people pick up on the most obvious, great things. But it’s the length and breadth and the variety of its resonances that has really made me very happy, and really made me doff my cap to [creator] Katie Dippold, for what she did.

What should networks and studios take away from the success of “Widow’s Bay” if they are really paying attention?

Take the risk. And challenge audiences. Everyone’s more than ready for it and thirsty for it in a real way. I really hope this does something in the Hollywood psyche, where they go, “Let’s put away the remakes and let’s just get after new challenging, original material.”

What guidance did you get from Katie about who Tom was and how to play him?

She’s dizzyingly collaborative, so she said, “Tom is yours.” It was more me going, “But what about this for Tom?” She would help, but she really said, “Tom is yours to create now. Everything I’ve done is on the page.” And it was. That’s the beauty of her writing. If you’re true to it, and you don’t get in the way of it, it sings.

The way Tom reacts to situations and people is such a master class in facial expressions. Did you recognize that would be your tool for your performance early on?

We had a kind of sliding scale — Hiro [Murai, executive producer and director], myself and Katie — because it was a departure for me. I’d go, “I don’t know where this lives or where reality lives.” And as much as anyone can say, “Play for real” — playing it for real can mean many things. It can mean a very minimal reaction, and it can mean a great reaction, and so there were times when I was like, “I’m gonna hit the sliding scale, and you let me know where it should be landing, or where, in your opinion, it’s landing in a real way.” Sometimes they were like, “Maybe a little less,” and then they were like “Maybe a little more.” That element of collaboration was wonderful too.

The moment on the boat is a GIF I send often. The jolt.

It’s funny, we have a great and incredible stunt coordinator Paul [Marini]. He said, “You have to lead where the momentum of the energy would be; it’d be your hips. So let your hips lead, and then let your body follow.” And I was like, “Oh, that’s smart.” Then if you do that, then it has a degree of comic effect to it. But my pelvis hasn’t quite recovered.

Matthew Rhys as Nile Jarvis opposite Claire Danes as Aggie Wiggs in Netflix’s “The Beast in Me.”

(Netflix)

Sort of like your dance moment in “The Beast in Me” — lead with the hips. This is your thing, Matthew.

Anytime, in the stage direction, it says “dances,” I’m like [mimics vomit sound]. That strikes ice in my veins because I’m always like, “Oh my God.”

That’s your horror comedy.

That is my true horror comedy because my dancing can be horrific and comical when it is to be neither.

Let’s talk about “The Beast in Me.” Nile Jarvis was also quite the departure from you. What was your entry point to understanding him and figuring out how chilling to make him?

It was a lot of YouTube watching, where you just type in “psychopaths” and stuff comes up. I read Jon Ronson’s “The Psychopath Test” and “The Journalist and the Murderer” [by Janet Malcolm]. The writing was so strong in “The Beast in Me,” so much of Nile was preemptively done for me. As [director] Antonio Campos said, “The trick might be not to do too much because enough has been said.” Everyone has this predisposed idea of who he is and, therefore, the idea we came up with was to do not as little as possible, but to be minimal with it because he’s aware of what everyone thinks of him and there’s a degree of enjoyment and relishing in that.

Have you been able to sensibly eat a roast chicken since?

No, not sensibly. It’s become Pavlovian for me now. When I eat roast chicken, I devour it in a slightly psychotic way. I love that scene. It’s an astute piece of writing to say so much about someone without words.

What would you be best suited to achieve: rebranding the town of Widow’s Bay as a tourist destination or charming your neighbors into signing paperwork for the construction of a running path through the backwoods of their properties?

I’m not saying I could charm the neighbors, but I would attempt to charm the neighbors. Playing Tom was exhausting in a way that playing Nile wasn’t. I always spent the end of the day on “Widow’s Bay” going, “My God, I’m exhausted” — because you’re just vibrating on a higher level with Tom. It’s always like, “Listen, please!” The pitch is always higher; you’re always like, “You’ve got to listen to me!” Or if you’re terrified, you’re just hyperventilating.

I know the news of these nominations is still fresh and I don’t want to tell you how to approach the big night, but I just have to say, this could be the moment you take a page from Philip Jennings of “The Americans” and come with a wig and getup so when they pan to you during both categories, you can make them feel distinct.

That’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’m going to Jennings it. I’m going to PJ it. When it pans to me in the second category, I’m gonna look completely different. I’m going to be dressed as Elizabeth [Jennings].

Well, congratulations. How do you think you and Keri are going to celebrate?

Keri, in true “Americans” style, is having me meet her in a clandestine spot that I don’t know anything about, so who knows what. I don’t know what the afternoon is going to unfold, but it’s a big surprise. She might end up killing me, who knows.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas publicly praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and his philosophy of black empowerment eight years ago, but the embattled judge said Friday that he “repudiates” the anti-Semitic views later attributed to Farrakhan.

“I cannot leave standing any suggestion that I am anti-Semitic,” Thomas said in a prepared statement. “I am and have always been unalterably and adamantly opposed to anti-Semitism and bigotry of any kind, including by Louis Farrakhan.”

Disclosures that Farrakhan was praised in two speeches prepared for delivery by Thomas to black organizations in 1983 prompted expressions of concern from leading Jewish organizations and raised new questions about the beliefs of the conservative black jurist. The Farrakhan material was actually delivered in only one speech.

Since President Bush nominated him two weeks ago to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court’s only black and its leading liberal voice, Thomas has come under increasing criticism for his views on civil rights and other issues.

At the time of Thomas’ speeches in 1983, Farrakhan was a relatively unknown Chicago preacher who had yet to attain national notoriety for his militancy and anti-Semitic views.

Thomas, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, opposes affirmative action and other race-based remedies for discrimination long favored by civil rights organizations and many members of Congress.

On Thursday, the Congressional Black Caucus registered its opposition to Thomas, saying it was concerned about his commitment to civil rights. Although the House members who belong to the caucus will play no direct role in the Senate confirmation process, their opposition could prompt other black organizations to coalesce against Thomas.

The list of groups expressing reservations about Thomas was joined Friday by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation’s largest public employee union. It urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Thomas, saying that he “lacks the judicial experience necessary” to serve on the high court and has exhibited a “lack of commitment to equal justice and fundamental rights.”

Thomas has also had to deal with the problem of reports that he had used marijuana as a college student, although President Bush on Friday dismissed the significance of his drug experimentation.

“I think the matter has been put in proper perspective, and I think he handled it very well, and, certainly, in this instance, in these circumstances, in no way is disqualifying,” Bush told reporters in Kennebunkport, Me.

The references to Farrakhan were contained in the prepared texts of two speeches written for Thomas when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Ronald Reagan Administration.

Farrakhan, who has espoused black separatism as leader of the Nation of Islam, has drawn fire from Jewish rights groups for characterizing their faith as “a dirty religion” in early 1984, several months after Thomas delivered his speeches.

According to the texts of the prepared speeches, which were released by EEOC officials, Thomas concluded his remarks about black self-empowerment with a reference to Farrakhan as “a man I have admired for more than a decade.”

Both speeches went on to quote Farrakhan: “And so, I say to you, whether America overcomes or not, we the poor, we the oppressed, we the blacks, we the Hispanics, we the disinherited, we the rejected and most despised, we will overcome and then together we will be able to say in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we have united and made freedom a reality at last.”

The speeches were written by Thomas aide Armstrong Williams, who said they were intended to endorse only the self-help philosophy espoused by Farrakhan. In late 1983, he said, there was “no inkling” that Farrakhan later would become associated with anti-Semitism.

“Farrakhan was not controversial at that time,” Williams said. “If he had been the least bit controversial, I would not have included the quote in a speech, and Clarence would never have used it.”

In his statement, Thomas sought to distinguish between Farrakhan’s self-help philosophy and his other views. “I repudiate the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan or anyone else,” he said. “While I support the concept of economic self-help, I have never supported or tolerated bigotry of any kind.”

Despite that assurance, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith said that Thomas “unfortunately did not go far enough” to distance himself from Farrakhan. “It is not possible to separate Farrakhan’s message from Farrakhan, the messenger,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the group’s national director.

However, spokesmen for the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles said they were satisfied with Thomas’ explanation. “That put the issue to rest,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the center. “We are satisfied as far as the Farrakhan issue is concerned.”

Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), who is serving as Thomas’ sponsor during the confirmation process, said the nominee “was adamant” in his opposition to anti-Semitism. “As a victim of prejudice himself, he feels most strongly that it is morally wrong, and he has committed much of his professional life to combating it,” Danforth said in a statement.

One of the 1983 speeches, prepared for delivery to a group of black journalists in Washington, was not delivered as written, Williams said. Because he was speaking to an informal gathering of reporters, Thomas abandoned the prepared text and apparently did not mention Farrakhan in his off-the-cuff remarks, he said.

However, the second speech was a more formal presentation at a convention of the National Assn. of Black MBAs in Atlanta. In that case, Thomas stuck to the prepared text, including the reference to Farrakhan, Williams said.

Thomas received a standing ovation from the MBAs, something that happened only rarely in speeches to black groups, he said.

Williams, now a managing partner in a Washington public relations firm, said he included the Farrakhan quote in the Atlanta speech in an effort to link Thomas’ self-help philosophy with a similar opinion held by a figure familiar to inner-city blacks.

“We always discussed his speeches and interviews,” Williams said. After he drafted the speech and showed it to Thomas, Williams said, his boss told him: “This is one passage of Farrakhan’s I can relate to.”

Staff writer James Gerstenzang in Kennebunkport, Me., contributed to this story.

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Last week, news broke that an artificial intelligence thingamajig broke free from the constraints of its maker, OpenAI, and committed what could be considered a string of white-collar felonies if it were human.

Because the AI thingamajig is in fact not human, the incident raised a big kerfuffle but is largely being treated as a giant oopsie we can learn from, without needing the pesky intervention of new rules or laws to stop it from happening again.

Such is the state of AI regulation in America right now.

California Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) would like to change that. Last week, he introduced the bipartisan Frontier Act with Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.). While the bill might not make either safety advocates or big tech companies entirely happy, it offers up the most comprehensive and strongest regulations of this dangerous industry that we’ve yet seen at the federal level.

Roman Yampolskiy, an AI expert and professor at University of Louisville, called the Frontier Act a “positive step because it acknowledges that frontier AI presents risks requiring dedicated oversight.”

Now, the challenge becomes passing it, and passing it in a meaningful, not-watered-down form — no easy task in a dysfunctional Congress driven by money and Donald Trump, and paralyzed by its own sycophancy to both.

If anyone has a shot, though, it’s Obernolte, who is that rarest of birds, a legislator who understands science, and his colleagues.

Obernolte represents Inland Empire areas around San Bernardino, but grew up in Fresno back in the era when the movie “War Games” was just hitting theaters.

Those of a certain age will remember how far-fetched it seemed when Matthew Broderick’s high school genius character accidentally breaks into a military AI system to play chess, but “Joshua,” the computer, takes it too far and tries to blow up the world. Now, of course, that just sounds like a regular Tuesday.

By the time he was in high school himself, Obernolte was giving that Broderick character a run for his money. An apparent computer savant, Obernolte was competing in artificial intelligence contests as a teenager, back when most of us were still playing Pong on Atari. Then he headed off to Caltech and then UCLA for advanced AI degrees. He said AI was his “first calling,” sparked when his father bought him an Apple II computer when he was 8.

He ended up dropping out of UCLA after getting his master’s because his side hustle making video games, including “NFL ’95,” turned out to be more lucrative than being a starving student. He ended up founding his own video game company, FarSight Studios, and building up a personal net worth close to $100 million.

Not bad for a kid from Fresno. In Congress, he has stuck close to the MAGA power base and was one of seven California legislators to vote against certifying the 2020 election results, a vote he took in his first days in office. He has been endorsed by Trump multiple times, and now sits on a bunch of committees and subcommittees of relevance.

For the past few years, he has pushed hard, if unsuccessfully, to create a framework for regulating AI, combining his deep understanding of the technology with his equal understanding of MAGA distaste for intervening in business.

Now, though, we’re in a moment, thanks to more than one big oopsie by technology companies. Just a few months ago, Anthropic and the Pentagon had their own tense encounter after Anthropic questioned how its AI was being used by the military. Huffy Pete Hegseth is still huffing over that one.

The public is increasingly skeptical of allowing the AI industry to govern itself, which is pushing legislators to rethink their hands-off approach, even as AI money pours like Niagara Falls into elections. Even Trump seems more inclined to consider it, signing an executive order recently that largely called for voluntary restraints on AI companies.

The introduction of the Frontier Act “shows how far the Overton window has shifted just in the past few months,” wrote Charlie Bullock, a senior research fellow with the nonpartisan Institute for Law & AI. “Not too long ago, a bipartisan bill this good and serious would have been a pipe dream. But things change quickly.”

Obernolte said the bill has been “a long time in the making,” but he hopes to package it with other legislation and is “cautiously optimistic” he can get something passed and signed by the end of the year.

As written now, the bill would allow the federal government to set minimum safety requirements and set up a framework for licensed, independent auditors to monitor compliance. That third party verification has been a key push by safety experts.

The bill would also give the government emergency powers to pause an AI model if it has a “present or impending catastrophic risk.”

It also borrows from state laws including California’s Proposition 53 that require some (not enough) transparency on the part of AI companies when things do go wrong.

To the consternation of some, the bill still contains curbs on what states can regulate on their own — basically carving out AI regulation as federal turf. This has been a huge sticking point in the fight over AI regulation because AI companies hate state laws and want them squashed. Their argument is that a patchwork of rules across states is too complicated.

“You don’t want to have 50 different state requirements for every single product that gets sold on a market, and that is particularly true of AI,” Obernolte told me.

To some extent that’s reasonable — but the problem so far has been that states such as California and New York have been the only level of government willing to try at regulation. California in particular has created some of the most comprehensive AI regulations to date and has about 30 pending bills on this issue this legislative season. The Frontier Act threads the needle on this by creating lanes where states can still pass their own laws — such as around consumer safety that would protect children or stop pornography.

But preventing catastrophic risk would largely be dependent on the federal oversight, which is great when the federal government is up to the task. Currently, we can’t even keep measles in check. So that’s a bit worrisome.

And Obernolte’s bill isn’t the only one vying for attention. Another Californian, Rep. Ted Lieu, introduced a bipartisan measure of his own with Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas). Dubbed the AI Kill Switch Act, it would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to shut down problematic models.

Yampolskiy, the Louisville professor, said that bill had promise as well, because it’s important for companies to have a way to “rapidly disable or contain systems that exhibit dangerous or unexpected behavior.”

But, he warns, that’s just one part of the “complete solution” we need. Regulation is going to require more than one law.

For Obernolte’s part, he’s shown a willingness to work on a practical solution, not just a political one. That alone is worthy of notice. The Frontier Act is a genuine attempt to govern a nascent industry that is too powerful and unpredictable to be left to its own devices.

“I’m hoping that this is we’ve landed somewhere that everyone can understand and be happy with,” Obernolte said. “AI is not something that needs to be a partisan issue, and I don’t think it should be.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How Jimothy the raccoon became the internet’s latest animal obsession
The California angle: Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him
The L.A. Times Special: Mayor’s press team uses disappearing WhatsApp messages, avoiding scrutiny
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

BANGOR, Maine — Former state lawmaker and logger Troy Jackson secured the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Maine on Saturday and will face longtime GOP Sen. Susan Collins in November in a race that could decide which party controls the Senate.

Jackson replaces Graham Platner, who won the Democratic primary in June but withdrew from the race this month following an allegation of sexual assault that Platner has denied. Maine Democrats met Saturday to choose a new nominee to face Collins.

Support coalesced around Jackson, a former Maine Senate president and fifth-generation logger from rural northern Maine who campaigned alongside Platner during a failed bid for governor and was a favorite among progressives to replace him.

“When the people in power refuse to listen, you have to organize, you have to stand in solidarity, together. And you have to make them listen,” Jackson said during a speech at a last-minute nominating convention held Saturday.

The Maine Democratic Party has been scrambling to choose a new nominee after Platner, who sailed to victory in the Democratic primary in June, was accused by a former girlfriend of sexually assaulting her in 2021. Platner denies the allegation, but quit the race after key supporters called on him to withdraw.

Democrats have seen Maine as the party’s best opportunity to flip a Senate seat this year because it is a competitive Senate race in a state that Donald Trump lost in 2024. But defeating Collins won’t be easy. The five-term incumbent holds a fundraising advantage, while the new Democratic nominee will have less than four months to sell himself to voters.

Maine law gave the state party authority to choose a replacement and required a new nominee to be named by Monday — 99 days before the Nov. 3 election.

Maine Democrats’ never-before-used process of voting on a new nominee involved hundreds of Democratic delegates gathering in Bangor, about 130 miles north of Portland. The delegates were elected at county party meetings last weekend. The nominating convention began Saturday morning and wrapped by noon.

Jackson’s victory was largely expected after his campaign touted that more than 480 delegates selected to go to the convention had promised to vote for him, a progressive who supports Medicare for all and dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He ended up winning 566 of 571 delegates who cast votes.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat in Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004 and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by the Vermont independent.

Other top candidates dropped out

Once Platner dropped out July 10, Jackson and a flood of other former gubernatorial candidates and others jumped in to try to take Platner’s place. But by July 19, most had abandoned their bids, with Jackson emerging as the clear favorite.

Jackson received early support from progressives who had backed Platner before he dropped out. Our Revolution initially backed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate. When Platner left the race, the group rallied behind Jackson.

Jackson previously ran Maine operations for Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. This election cycle, Sanders endorsed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate, though he withdrew his support for Platner after the sexual assault allegation. He said he didn’t plan to weigh in on which Democrat should replace Platner.

Just one other candidate remained in the race for the Senate nomination — women’s health company Chief Executive Saundra Pelletier. She faced long odds against Jackson, who has been a fixture in Maine politics for more than a decade.

Jackson has supported progressive positions such as Medicare for all. He also has called for the abolition of ICE, whose presence in Maine has been hotly debated since an agent fatally shot Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national, near his home in Biddeford, Maine.

Maine key to Democrats’ Senate path

Democrats have a narrow path to take back the Senate in November, and it’s unlikely they can do it without a win in Maine. In addition, they need victories in most other competitive races — including in North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio and Texas — and they need to hang on to the seats they already have. That includes open Senate seats in Michigan and Minnesota, where Democratic incumbents are retiring.

Maine’s Democratic primary was one of the early contests where progressives took on establishment-backed Democrats. While Platner faced several controversies during his campaign, he easily outlasted Gov. Janet Mills, who was backed by Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer of New York but dropped out before the June 9 primary.

Platner had backing from Sanders as well as Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. That support disintegrated after the sexual assault allegation surfaced this month.

Midterm messages

Jackson will need to convince the state’s large independent voting bloc that it’s time to replace Collins. Republicans have called Jackson too extreme for Maine voters, and Collins said this week that she knows Jackson well and that his positions are “clearly” in line with socialism.

She noted that Jackson ran democratic socialist Sanders’ first presidential campaign in Maine, adding, “He’s a Bernie Bro.”

Jackson also needs to scramble to make up a fundraising gulf against Collins, who has been raising money for months.

Federal filings show she has raised more than $16 million so far. Jackson’s campaign this week said he raised more than $1 million since jumping into the Senate race.

Jackson said Saturday he believed his team is up to the task.

“We’re not from the left, we’re not from the right. We’re from the bottom, and we are rising,” he said during a speech.

Whittle and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. AP journalist Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

July 23 (UPI) — A Senate committee delayed a vote on the Trump administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director nominee, Erica Schwartz, because enough members were not present.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was absent from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions meeting on Thursday because of a family emergency, which led committee chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., to postpone the vote, Politico reported.

Cassidy also said Thursday that he decided to vote for Schwartz because of a “good faith action” the CDC reportedly made to its website earlier in the day.

The action included changing language on its website about the lack of an association between vaccines and autism, which had been ordered changed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last year.

Cassidy asked detailed questions during her nomination hearing about vaccines and how the agency, which has had a full-time director for just one month since President Donald Trump re-entered the White House, would restore confidence in its public health mission, The Hill reported.

“I’m confident that she knows what she’s doing and will stand against those who do not,” Cassidy said during the meeting.

“If confirmed, I look forward to working with Dr. Schwartz to protect children’s health and regain trust in the CDC,” he said.

“There’s more to do to repair the damage that has been done to the U.S. public health response, but this is a start,” the Louisiana Republican added.

Even with Cassidy deciding to vote for Schwartz, Republicans on the committee would have needed a Democrat or Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who caucuses with the Democrats, to vote in favor.

Sanders ended that possibility when he expressed respect for Schwartz’s career but said that he was concerned she would not be able to hold off some of the controversial changes Kennedy has either proposed or forced on the agency.

“I will be voting against Dr. Schwartz because we need people in this country who are going to stand up, protect the American people and I don’t think you can see that right now with Secretary Kennedy in his position,” Sanders said.

The HELP committee’s next executive session is scheduled for July 30, which is also the next time it will consider nominations, making it the next opportunity for Schwartz’s nomination to come up for a vote.

The committee also put off a vote on Sean Kaufman, who is nominated to lead the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, because Republicans did not have enough votes to forward the nomination to the full Senate.

There are certain truths that are self-evident to all but the willfully blind or stubbornly obtuse.

Heat is hot.

Rain is wet.

Donald Trump is the most brazenly corrupt president in the history of the United States.

The money-grubbing chief executive has raked in at least $2.2 billion during his first year back in office. He’s funneled millions of taxpayer dollars and foreign payments to his businesses. The grift, er, gift of a tricked-out Air Force One from the Qatari government — which Trump plans to keep in retirement — is only the most high-flying example of his avarice.

There’s so much more.

The notorious tax dodger filed suit against himself, allowing his complicit Department of “Justice” to engineer a flimflam settlement amounting to a get-out-of-jail free card that shields Trump and his sticky-fingered family from Internal Revenue Service oversight. He’s used his pardon power to draw contributions.

It’s so blatant and so consistent with Trump’s dodgy corporate background — a career checkered with six bankruptcies — that it’s easy to shrug off his presidential swindling as just more of the same. That’s been Trump’s political superpower: normalizing the outrageous and anesthetizing many Americans to all but the most extreme affronts. Even those have limited shock value these days.

On Thursday, California’s junior U.S. senator, Democrat Adam Schiff, will take to the floor of the chamber to assay the president’s many conflicts of interest, warn against complacency of the seen-it-all variety and offer his prescription for a cleansing once Trump slinks out of the gold-slathered Oval Office.

“The scope of the corruption we’ve seen in this administration is beyond anything we have imagined in prior years or prior administrations, “ Schiff said in a preview of his speech. “It’s really novel and breathtaking.”

Schiff is, of course, one of the president’s long-standing nemeses. As a House member, he led Trump’s first impeachment trial. His frequent criticism of the president, on the cable TV circuit and beyond, earned Schiff a slug of juvenile nicknames and other Trumpian put-downs, as well as a federal investigation — which now appears dormant — into supposed mortgage fraud.

Kitchen-table talk

Trump defenders will be quick to dismiss Schiff’s floor speech as just more overripe agitation.

Birds fly. Fish swim. Schiff attacks Trump.

But the purpose of his remarks, Schiff said, goes beyond simply enumerating the abundant examples of presidential profiteering. (It was a struggle, he said, keeping the list to a top 10.) His intent, he said, is “to bring home … the real cost to ordinary people” of Trump’s egregious self-dealing. Explaining why — in a practical, feel-it-in-your-wallet sense — people should care.

“If a president approves a merger not because it’s good for consumers, not because it’s good for the economy, but because participants in the merger paid him millions, what’s the cost to them?” Schiff said, referring to the proposed marriage of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery and the money CBS shelled out for a flimsy lawsuit against “60 Minutes.” The settlement was widely seen as a way to smooth Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media, which is now bidding to swallow Warner Bros.

“The cost is they’re paying more for their streaming services,” Schiff said. “They’re getting laid off if they work in the industry. “

In 2024, Democrats lost the White House at least in part because they spent so much time talking about noble but abstract concepts like defending democracy and the rule of law, rather than highlighting ways they’d work to bring down the price of bacon and eggs.

Times change. Now it’s the cost of beef and gas that’s plundering paychecks.

Looking to November and beyond

Schiff insists it’s not an either/or choice. To prevail in November’s midterm elections, which means winning at least one chamber of Congress, Schiff said Democrats should discuss both affordability and Trump’s venality. He sees the two as being irrevocably entwined.

“The positive message is we are singularly focused on your cost of living,” Schiff said from his office on Capitol Hill. “We want to build more housing and bring down the cost of housing. We want to attack anti-competitive mergers of grocery stores and food companies to bring down the cost of food. We have a whole agenda that is designed to make your life more affordable.

“Why isn’t the administration doing this?” he said. “And the answer is, they’re corrupt. They’re focused on their own economic well-being. They’re doing great for themselves. They could care less about you.”

Schiff plans to introduce a number of proposed remedies. They include legislation to ban corporate executives from serving in the executive branch if they’ve been convicted of corruption or financial crimes, and a requirement that government employees recuse themselves from matters affecting the financial interests of any employer they’d worked for within the previous four years.

Although the measures stand no chance of passing in the current Congress, Schiff said “it’s important to show the American people, ‘Hey, this is what we intend to do if you give us the majority.’”

He acknowledged that the depth of presidential dishonesty, its constancy and deep weave in the fabric of this administration, can have a deadening effect: “When the guy working the teleprompter at the White House, betting on how many times the president will use a certain word in his speech, is a blip in the corruption…”

But Schiff said it’s important not to turn away or shrink from the malodor rising from Trump’s swampy Washington.

“You just have to take the time to break it down for people,” Schiff said. “I think putting things in context, trying to snap people out of the norm-shattering numbness of this administration, is a daily challenge. But it’s one that we have to undertake.”

There’s no certainly no harm in stating the truth. It’s worth trying, over and over.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump, long a critic of ‘forever wars,’ may be stumbling into one with Iran
The deep dive: Unhappy with Kaiser’s medical dispute process, some patients push for state reform
The L.A. Times Special: Chabria: Newsom pushes California to crack down on sex trafficking — fast

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO —  Gov. Gavin Newsom will soon leave office without gaining the support of fellow Californians for his most ambitious climate project: the banning of new gas-burning car sales by 2035.

Newsom issued an executive order in 2020 taking new fossil-fueled passenger vehicles off the California market nine years from now.

But roughly two-thirds of Californians think that’s a lousy idea, according to a poll released last week by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

Among likely voters, 65% oppose the termed-out governor’s edict and just 34% support it. The opposition among infrequent or nonvoters is even stronger.

Negative attitudes are especially stiff in inland California — particularly the Central Valley — and among middle-class people with incomes between $40,000 and $100,000, those over age 55 and Republicans.

Opposition to being denied new gas vehicles has grown substantially since 2021, when Californians were evenly divided over the issue.

But the state’s anticipated next governor, moderate Democrat Xavier Becerra, is more in line with Californians’ thinking on gas cars than is Newsom.

Becerra told me during his primary election campaign that Newsom’s 2035 goal is not realistic.

“We can’t make it by ‘35,” he said. “But we can make it.” Sometime in the future.

The fact is lots of people can’t afford electric vehicles because they tend to cost more than cars fueled by gas.

Besides, there’s an inconvenience of having to pull off the road for a 40-minute recharging stop on a long trip — if you can find a vacant recharger.

And “electricity is not cheap. It often depends on the time of day,” notes PPIC Polling Director Mark Baldassare, who owns an electric vehicle and says he likes it.

Newsom has been hawking electric vehicles since he came into office, like some slick TV pitchman — his goal being to greatly reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

The governor and the Legislature recently appropriated $135 million to motivate Californians to buy new or used electric vehicles.

First-time EV buyers will receive $3,500 rebates on vehicles with manufacturer’s suggested retail prices of $50,000 or less. Used car buyers will get $1,750 off if the sale price is $25,000 or less.

Automakers will pay for half the incentive costs — obstensibly, at least, if they don’t just secretly add their tab to the vehicle price.

This smacks of a huge taxpayer giveaway to manufacturers if the state isn’t careful. Is it really the state’s job to sell cars? Shouldn’t it be the automakers’ responsibility to offer competitive prices? Whatever.

Newsom’s plan partially replaces a $7,500 federal tax incentive for new EVs that President Trump and the Republican-led Congress allowed to expire last year.

California already leads the nation in EV ownership, with around 1.3 million vehicles registered. That’s more than five times the No. 2 state, Florida. And it’s not just because California’s population is much larger. We also lead in per capita ownership.

There’s plenty of contradiction and hypocrisy in the divided minds of Californians, as highlighted in the lengthy PPIC survey into their views on environmental policies.

People strongly favor fighting climate change — at least in concept — until it adversely affects them directly. That’s just human nature.

Asked what they consider the most important environmental issue facing California, those surveyed placed wildfires first, followed closely by global warming.

Baldassare says what struck him in the poll was “the disconnect between what people support in policies and what they’re prepared to do.”

“Two things are going on in California now,” the pollster continues. “People have their long-standing concerns about the environment. But they also have immediate concerns about affordability.

“When it comes to what people are willing to do, they’re worried about living costs and particularly the cost of energy. It’s something we’ve noticed even more this year. It affects the political and economic landscape.”

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed support Newsom’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero “as soon as possible, but no later than 2045.”

And there’s overwhelming support for taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce.

Roughly 60% favor requiring all electricity to be generated with renewable energy — such as wind and solar — by 2045, although support for that state edict has dropped by 15 percentage points in the last six years.

Paradoxically, people aren’t willing to pay more for electricity produced by renewable sources. Roughly 60% reject that idea. Ten years ago, almost that many told PPIC pollsters they were willing to pay extra.

And today they’re not nearly ready to surrender their option of buying a new gas-fueled automobile.

For one thing, they’re not convinced there’ll be enough charging stations to handle a lot more EVs. Twice as many people are not confident of that as are confident, the poll found.

The California Energy Commission reported in January that there were more than 200,000 public and private EV charging stations in the state, plus 800,000 chargers in homes. The state is helping to add more along highways.

Becerra has pledged to take a fresh look at several controversial Newsom projects, including the pokey bullet train. There’s much uncertainty about the pending new governor.

But there’s one pretty good bet: In 2035, sales of new gas cars will still be getting a green light.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump escalates election attacks, threatens California over voter data
Bringing back competition: Too many congressional races are over before they start. Here’s a remedy
The L.A. Times Special: Trump’s voter fraud speech was bait. Stop biting

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The tight timeline to replace former Maine Senate nominee Graham Platner has left Democratic hopefuls scrambling to woo his progressive base while trying to turn the focus from the disgraced oysterman to defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November.

It’s a delicate balance for the candidates, who are vying to face Collins in a contest that could decide control of the Senate as Platner’s shadow hangs over the race. In their first debate Thursday night, one of the first questions candidates were asked was: What was Graham Platner’s best idea?

Moving past Platner is just one of the challenges facing Democrats. The never-before-used process to pick a new nominee means candidates have less than three weeks to pull off what typically takes campaigns months or years, from organizing volunteers to raising money and preparing for debates.

The whiplash many of the candidates are facing was on display Thursday.

Asked by debate moderators about President Trump’s decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife earlier this year, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows gave inaccurate information about Collins not pushing back against Trump, a Republican. When a moderator called her on it, Bellows said she was on vacation on the Kennebec River last week after previously focusing on her unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign and hadn’t expected to be running for the Senate.

“When I need to know the facts, I will. I’ll do my homework,” said Bellows, who lost to Collins in 2014.

The field of 12 candidates also includes former public health leader Nirav Shah and union-backed logger Troy Jackson, who campaigned alongside Platner in a failed bid for governor.

Platner’s exit means the clock is ticking

Platner quit the Senate race last week after he was accused of rape, which he denies, and his campaign quickly imploded as supporters revoked their endorsements and resources.

Democrats have until July 27 to choose a new nominee, according to state law. The Maine Democratic Party’s succession plan calls for a state party convention at which 601 delegates will meet on July 25 and vote for Platner’s replacement. The majority of the convention delegates will be selected this weekend from each of the state’s 16 counties.

Candidates hoping to replace Platner have been recruiting delegates who will vote for them at the convention. The candidates also must collect 500 voter signatures needed to qualify for the convention vote.

“I don’t think anyone’s happy that we’re in this situation,” said Dan Jenkins, a Maine Democrat who has applied to be a delegate. “We would have preferred that this had broken many, many months ago and then Graham had exited the race when there was a time for a democratic process. But it’s where we are.”

Some candidates might see a boost from prior campaigns

Jackson is among the handful of candidates pivoting to the Senate race after running for other political offices, likely giving them a leg up in not having to launch from scratch.

Our Revolution, a progressive organization founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont that had originally backed Platner, has thrown its support behind Jackson, the former Maine Senate president. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, has not endorsed in the race.

Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, also unsuccessfully ran in this year’s Maine Democratic governor’s primary. He has been pitching Platner’s supporters that he’s also an outsider who can unify a fractured Democratic Party.

“You have an important place in this campaign, and we welcome your voices,” Shah said earlier this month speaking to Platner’s base.

Bellows also ran for governor. She’s hoping that her previous battles with Trump will bolster her argument that she’ll be an advocate for the working class.

Bellows previously attempted to run against Collins in 2014 as the Senate Democratic nominee and lost in a landslide. She later went on to win a seat as a state senator before becoming Maine’s secretary of state. She’s since downplayed her prior loss to Collins by pointing to the Democratic establishment’s unwillingness to take on the Republican in 2014.

Another candidate, Jordan Wood, initially announced his intent to run in the Maine Democratic Senate primary. He dropped out last fall to run in the state’s 2nd District but lost that race.

Candidates seize on recent ICE shooting

The fatal shooting by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Maine this week has been top of mind among the potential Senate nominees.

The Embassy of Colombia has identified the man killed Monday in Biddeford, roughly 15 miles southwest of Portland, as Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 26-year-old Colombian national. The Department of Homeland Security has since said an ICE officer fired his weapon when the man officers were pursuing attempted to flee the scene, threatening “public safety.”

Many have rushed to connect Collins to the embattled federal agency.

All the candidates who debated Thursday said they agreed with the call to “abolish ICE,” though Wood stopped short of saying the agency should be completely dissolved.

“I believe that when I say we have to abolish it, what I mean is that we need a new law enforcement agency that has the trust of the people,” Wood said.

Jackson disagreed, calling ICE a “rogue agency that goes around doing things that they’re being told to on high.”

Candidates asked about Platner’s best ideas

Platner attracted more than 150,000 votes during the June 9 primary, an eye-opening number that signaled a progressive base eager to support a candidate known for his promise to defend the working class and ability to rally large crowds.

With little more than a week until the state convention to find Platner’s replacement, it still remains unknown just who will be able to capture that same excitement seen among Platner’s base.

When pressed during Thursday’s debate about Platner’s best idea on the campaign trail, Jackson pointed to his commitment to “Medicare for All.” As a gubernatorial candidate, Jackson also voiced support for replacing job-based and individual private health insurance with a government-run plan that guarantees coverage for all with no premiums, no deductibles and only minimal copays for certain services.

Bellows said that she agreed with Platner’s description that democracy in the U.S. has been corrupted by those in power.

Shah said he would take up Platner’s commitment to “abolish ICE,” while Wood said he admired Platner’s decision to say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, something Israel denies.

“Graham got into this race saying, ‘this is genocide.’ And I learned that it is so important in these moments to draw those moral lines,” Wood said.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press.

Imagine if Sunday’s World Cup final were played under rules that blatantly favored one side over the other. Let’s say Argentina was spotted four goals against Spain.

Spain could, conceivably, overcome that 4-0 deficit. But it would be awfully hard and something of a miracle if the Spanish team prevailed.

Fans the world over would be rightly outraged. Why bother holding the tournament? What’s the point if one team is saddled with near-insurmountable odds?

Increasingly, that’s what elections for the House of Representatives look like.

As recently as the late 1990s, around 4 in 10 congressional districts were considered competitive, meaning Democratic and Republican candidates each had a plausible shot at winning. Today, per the nonpartisan handicappers at the Cook Political Report, only 18 of 435 House districts are considered toss-ups.

Another 20 districts are rated as either leaning Democratic or Republican, meaning candidates from one party or the other enjoy a noteworthy advantage, but aren’t necessarily a lock to win in November.

In sum, that means fewer than a tenth of all House seats are even somewhat competitive.

That’s hardly an accident, as lawmakers have increasingly manipulated the election process to suit themselves, rejiggering congressional districts to sideline voters and boost their political parties.

It’s undemocratic, and it stinks.

Stifling competition, rewarding extremes

“Every voter has a stake in making sure that these elections are fair and that the process is transparent,” said Rep. Jeff Hurd, a Republican who represents a large, mostly rural swath of western and southern Colorado. “Gerrymandering undermines representative democracy … by preventing voters and communities from having cohesive representation.

“It unfortunately rewards political extremes,” he went on. “It reduces competition and contributes to the polarization and dysfunction that prevents Congress from effectively addressing the issues that our constituents care about.”

Hurd is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of 44 House members dedicated to working through their ideological and political differences to — lordy! — try to get stuff done.

Recently, to mark Independence Day, the caucus announced a framework for legislation aimed at bringing competition back to many congressional races, in part by limiting the redrawing of political maps to once every 10 years, following the census. Among other reforms, the bipartisan group also called for establishing a uniform, national standard requiring that congressional districts be drawn “using clear, objective criteria while rejecting partisan advantage and incumbent protection as legitimate goals.”

The effort is, of course, too late for this election. The hope is Congress will enact the changes in time for the next scheduled round of redistricting, which is due to take place after the 2030 census. The rules would be in place starting in 2032.

The chances of passage are not strong. As Hurd noted: “Any reform that asks politicians to give up political leverage is going to be challenging.” But if ever there was a time for a badly needed systemic fix, it’s now.

A race to the bottom

Gerrymandering has been around for more than 200 years. The term derives from the efforts of Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry to skew state Senate races in the election of 1812. The portmanteau, which appeared in the Boston Gazette, described one politically engineered, misshapen district that resembled a salamander.

The practice reached new heights of creativity (or deviousness, depending on your perspective) in the modern age, when ever-more sophisticated computers allowed for ever-finer slicing and dicing of the electorate.

In 2019, the Supreme Court effectively greenlighted the practice in a 5-4 decision by the conservative majority, decreeing that partisan gerrymandering was beyond the purview of federal courts. In other words, have at it! And lawmakers did.

But this last year, in particular, has broken new, insidious ground.

Pressured by President Trump — who fears losing the GOP’s whisper-thin House majority — lawmakers in Texas tore up their political map mid-decade and redrew the state’s congressional districts in hopes of nabbing five additional seats this November. California responded in kind, with passage of Proposition 50, a measure that shelved the work of a nonpartisan redistricting commission in favor of a map aimed at handing Democrats five additional seats.

More than half a dozen other states — most of them Republican-run — have jumped into the fight, gerrymandering their congressional districts to gain a partisan edge. Lawmakers in several Democratic-run states are now looking at the prospect of retaliatory gerrymandering ahead of the 2028 election.

There’s not much upside to all this self-dealing — if, that is, you care about political competition and allowing the electorate a genuine say. But all that manipulation and maneuvering has, at least, made voters much more aware of the once-obscure practice of congressional line drawing. And that offers reformers a flicker of hope.

One ally, improbable though it may seem, is Paul Mitchell. He’s the Sacramento political guru who drew the gerrymandered map that California voters approved with passage of Proposition 50. (California, he said, was left no choice but to respond after Texas made its move.)

Mitchell said he has long favored a national redistricting standard that would apply to all 50 states and put the much-abused process on an even footing. “I really believe that redistricting should … serve the public, not serve the politicians,” Mitchell said.

Still looking on that bright side, he suggested perhaps the current redistricting war will prove so odious and have “done so much harm” that combatants will reach a point where they “put down [their] arms and embrace a kind of nonpartisan, non-politicized, public-oriented redistricting.”

It seems far-fetched. But miracles do happen.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Californians rallied to save the coast 50 years ago. Trump is spoiling the celebration
The deep dive: On birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court originalists split on history and Trump
The L.A. Times Special: Inside the states’ case to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger: ‘Each side is taking risks’

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

US President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official, Jay Clayton, evaded directly stating that Trump lost the 2020 election. During his Senate confirmation hearing Clayton said only that Biden had been ‘certified’ as president, adding ‘I am not an election denier’.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s pick to head the nation’s intelligence agencies struggled to win Democratic support in a contentious confirmation hearing Wednesday where he clashed repeatedly with them over the 2020 election.

Democrats asked Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, over and over again whether former President Biden won the election and defeated Trump. Echoing many of Trump’s nominees, Clayton said many times that the election was “certified” for Biden, declining to say outright that the Democrat won.

“I’m not going to get into this with you,” Clayton told Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, the last of several Democrats on the committee to grill Clayton on the 2020 election. Clayton appeared frustrated and flustered as Ossoff repeated the question several times. “I’ve answered it,” he said.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, who had praised Clayton’s nomination when Trump picked him for the role last month, expressed exasperation with him at the end of the hearing. Democrats say they are concerned that Trump will try to direct intelligence agencies to influence U.S. elections as the president has repeated his false claims that the 2020 contest was stolen.

“I’ve known Mr. Clayton for some time, I worked with him closely when he was at the SEC,” said Warner, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel. “But I am bitterly disappointed.”

While Clayton has broad support among Republicans, the acrimony with Democrats could be a blow to GOP leaders who had hoped to gain their consent for a quick vote to replace temporary intelligence director Bill Pulte, a former housing official with no known intelligence experience and who used his previous administration perch to target perceived adversaries of the president.

Senators in both parties have criticized Pulte, and Republicans had hoped to confirm Clayton immediately after he was nominated in June so Pulte did not take over when Gabbard left office. But Trump delayed Clayton’s nomination, allowing Pulte to take the job temporarily.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said the committee will vote on Clayton’s nomination next week.

Clayton emphasizes national security experience

Clayton did not mention Pulte in the hearing. But he emphasized his own government and national security experience, attempting to assuage senators in both parties.

“I saw firsthand how a strong national security apparatus depends on decisive judgment, discipline, integrity, and effective communication and cooperation across different branches of the government,” Clayton said in his opening statement. “If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will commit to upholding these principles every day.”

Cotton expressed frustration last month when the hearing was delayed. He said in his opening statement Wednesday that Clayton has a reputation for operating with “morality, decency and integrity” in his previous positions and that he hopes his nomination will win bipartisan support.

Democrats press Clayton on Gabbard’s election activities

Democrats also pressed Clayton on former National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s visit to a Georgia election office earlier this year during an FBI search related to the 2020 election. Trump administration officials have given varying explanations for Gabbard’s involvement in the search, which appeared to be outside of her intelligence role.

Clayton declined to say whether Gabbard’s visit was appropriate or how he would handle the same situation. At one point he said he wasn’t aware of Gabbard’s visit before this week, then later appeared to backtrack, saying “it wasn’t something on my mind” before he started to prepare for the hearing.

Warner said it “strains credibility” that Clayton wasn’t aware of Gabbard’s election activities.

Democrats also asked Clayton about Trump’s announcement that he will deliver a primetime address on Thursday with a focus on elections, after the president suggested he could revisit long-debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 defeat. Clayton said he had has no involvement with that speech.

As U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Clayton oversees vast portfolio

Clayton is currently the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most prestigious of the Justice Department’s prosecution offices. His cases have ranged from terrorism and espionage cases to security fraud and public corruption.

Democrats pressed Clayton on subpoenas of four New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One. The Committee to Protect Journalists has called the subpoenas “an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country.”

Clayton said he was not able to discuss the details of the subpoenas and declined to elaborate on whether he spoke to the White House before they were issued. He said he is “confident in procedures we have in place to protect freedom of press.”

Under Clayton, the office also facilitated the unsealing of thousands of pages of court records from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — documents that were made public as part of the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late sex offender and his longtime confidant.

Clayton has also overseen the prosecution of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, on drug trafficking charges.

Confirmation vote could unlock renewal of surveillance authority

Clayton’s confirmation could potentially clear the way for bipartisan legislation to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which stalled last month when Democrats had said they would not provide the necessary votes to pass the bill unless Pulte’s temporary appointment was withdrawn.

The law, which aims to prevent terrorist attacks by monitoring the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the United States, expired in June.

Even if Democrats relent, it is unclear if Trump would sign the bill. He said in his June social media post delaying Clayton’s nomination that he would not sign the FISA renewal without his legislation to require proof of citizenship for all voters. The voting bill does not have enough support to pass the Senate.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

The Trump administration’s latest nominee to lead the nation’ top public health agency drew frustrated reactions from some U.S. senators on Wednesday when they pressed her on whether she would protect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from political meddling.

Dr. Erica Schwartz told the Senate health committee she “will never betray the science” and pledged to use “radical transparency” in a bid to rebuild public trust in the agency. But several senators questioned how she might handle pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly moved to alter U.S. vaccine and CDC policies. Schwartz repeatedly declined to dissent from some of those actions.

Schwartz, 54, is up for director of the Atlanta-based CDC, which is charged with protecting Americans from preventable health threats.

Her career has largely been spent in military uniform, including in a leadership position at the U.S. Coast Guard where she oversaw the organization’s system of 41 clinics and 150 sick bays — as well as policies promoting vaccinations of service members. She later served as deputy surgeon general, where she helped lead uniformed medical and health professionals posted at the CDC and government health agencies that serve the general public.

The CDC long enjoyed a sterling international reputation but has been in turmoil since Trump returned to office last year. Largely due to layoffs and resignations, the agency has lost more than 3,000 employees, or more than a quarter of its workforce. Morale has plummeted as a succession of mostly temporary leaders have come and gone — the front office filled with political appointees, many of them with little or no training in medicine or public health.

“There’s still really good people who work there (at the CDC). They are doing their best to navigate choppy waters,” said Dr. David Margolius, director of Cleveland’s health department and a leader in a U.S. coalition of big city health departments. But CDC no longer seems to the authoritative and communicative lead that it was on outbreaks and other public health emergencies.

“Basically everybody’s got to kind of choose their own adventure, as opposed to being led by a national public health department,” Margolius said.

CDC has had several leaders

The agency is overseen by Kennedy, who was a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before he was tapped to lead the CDC and other federal health agencies. Kennedy had promised not to change the nation’s vaccination schedule. But shortly after taking office, Kennedy said he was going to investigate the childhood vaccine schedule and went on to attempt a substantial rewrite of vaccine recommendations for kids. Some of those efforts were put on hold earlier this year by a federal judge.

The administration’s first pick to run the CDC was former Florida congressman Dr. David Weldon, but his March 2025 Senate confirmation hearing was canceled an hour before it was to begin. Weldon said at the time that he’d been told not enough senators were willing to vote for him.

The White House then moved on to Susan Monarez, who had been serving as the CDC’s acting director. Monarez was confirmed by the Senate, but she was ousted in less than a month. Trump administration officials said she wasn’t aligned with their agenda so they terminated her.

Several key CDC scientific leaders resigned in protest, saying Monarez’s dismissal dashed their hopes that a CDC director would be able to guard against political meddling in the agency’s scientific research and health recommendations.

Since then, there’s been a revolving door in agency leadership, with the short-term role of acting director being passed from one Washington-based HHS official to another. National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya has been overseeing the CDC most recently.

Schwartz said she was unaware of actions that hurt the CDC

On Wednesday, some senators suggested Schwartz should follow Monarez’s example, and they asked her about actions Kennedy has taken that have affected CDC.

Schwartz said she was unaware that CDC programs that worked to prevent smoking and promote vaccinations had been curtailed. She declined to commit to taking down a CDC website that suggests there’s a link between childhood vaccines and autism (she said she had not seen it), though she agreed existing medical evidence has not found a link.

Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, asked if she would — if Kennedy ordered her — suspend promotion of a flu vaccination campaign during a deadly flu season.

“Senator, I don’t speak in hypotheticals,” Schwartz responded.

“It isn’t hypothetical. It happened,” said Hassan, referring to internal CDC emails, released by Sen. Bernie Sanders last month, that documented such a directive from Kennedy to CDC staff last year.

Schwartz said she agreed that CDC should prioritize responding to infectious diseases. “I think over time, the CDC has had some mission creep, and it’s trying to be all things to all people,” she said.

But she also agreed to requests from Republican senators to — if confirmed — look into whether AI data centers cause health problems and into the possibility of establishing a World Trade Center Health Program clinical center in Florida.

Senators also heard from nominee overseeing health emergency preparedness

In April, Trump nominated Schwartz, calling her “incredibly talented.” In a congressional hearing in April, Kennedy said he approved of the choice, but refused to commit to supporting whatever vaccine guidance she might issue.

Last month, Schwartz filed letters with the government that address her finances and potential conflicts of interest. She wrote that if confirmed, she will leave her current job with UnitedHealth Group, where she’s making about $850,000 in salary and bonus money and cash out her stock options. She also will resign from the board of directors of Butterfly Network Inc., a Massachusetts company that makes ultrasound devices; from the board of Atlanta-based Aveanna Healthcare, a medical home care provider; and from the board of the Florida-based Searching for Solutions Institute.

At Wednesday’s hearing, senators also considered the nomination of Sean Kaufman as the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR. That job entails overseeing preparations and response to public health emergencies and disasters.

Last year, the Trump administration announced a plan to bring those responsibilities under CDC, but the dramatic HHS restructuring has not happened.

The assistant secretary’s office is involved in decisions about funding next-generation vaccines against pandemic flu or other infectious disease threats. In postings on LinkedIn, Kaufman has made comments cheered by vaccine skeptics, arguing against hepatitis B vaccinations for newborns and saying he served as an expert witness to advocate for people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine.

On Wednesday, Kaufman faced questions about past social media posts, including one in which he expressed hatred for the CDC. He also repeatedly was asked about his support of a Trump administration decision last year to cancel 22 projects, totaling $500 million, to develop vaccines using mRNA technology.

Infectious disease experts say the mRNA technology used in vaccines is safe, and they credit its development during the first Trump administration with slowing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Future pandemics, they warned, will be harder to stop without the help of mRNA.

Kaufman said he supported mRNA technology and believes COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but said it made sense to study work that’s been done so far before, including learning more about any side effects.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, said such evaluations are the responsibility of other federal offices — not ASPR. He also said it may slow the nation’s ability to respond to emerging new infectious threats.

Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Recent news about literacy, education and general smarts in California and across the country has been somewhat distressing.

Along with claims that Americans are becoming illiterate, here in the Golden State there are worries that even the highest-achieving students aren’t prepared for our universities, and a study shows backsliding in civil rights protections in the vacuum created by federal changes under the Trump administration.

Despite being close to terming out of office, and also otherwise occupied with his ever-emerging presidential run, Gov. Gavin Newsom last week found time to announce a consequential, if controversial, move that has the potential to vastly improve educational outcomes for California kids: switching out an independent, voter-chosen leader for a hired gun.

In legislation signed last week, Newsom basically eviscerated the role of the elected superintendent of public instruction and instead shifted oversight of our K-12 schools to a newly created education commissioner — to be appointed by the governor.

The change, set to happen early next year, has been described as a “power grab” by some, and on its surface could be seen that way. The conservative candidate for state superintendent — Sonja Shaw, who says she is running to stop “political ideologies being shoved down everybody’s throats” — quickly claimed Newsom’s move was all about stopping her.

In reality, power grab or not, it’s the kind of reform we should all support — a long-overdue push to create accountability in a hot-mess system where there are too many people almost-sorta in charge of too many conflicting priorities.

‘A’ for accountability

It’s to Newsom’s credit that he’s setting up his successor to helm a system that at least has a chance at coherence, even if it raises the stakes for the next governor to deliver.

For years — decades, really — streamlining the governing structure of schools “has been proposed by Republicans and Democrats and bipartisan and nonpartisan commissions,” Linda Darling-Hammond told me. She’s a professor emeritus at Stanford University, an advisor to the governor and, by any measure, one of the preeminent education policy experts in the country.

“It’s not at all political. It is really about making the system run well,” she said. “The world is changing, the economy is changing. There’s just a need to be very efficient and effective in making policy and then implementing that policy.”

“Run well” is the key there. California operates the biggest and most diverse school system in the country. We’ve got roughly 10,000 regular schools (depending on how you count), including about 1,200 charter schools, around 1,00 school districts and 58 counties, each with their own slice of local control over those schools, according to the Department of Education.

That’s about 5.7 million students, nearly 300,000 teachers and $150 billion in costs (counting the new funding in the next budget).

To be kind, this system does not always run well. That’s in no small part because oversight and control are fragmented, overlapping and confusing. Currently, the State Board of Education sets policies, but the elected superintendent implements them through the Department of Education. Then control runs downhill to individual school districts, filtering through local school boards and even principals.

The board can’t control how the superintendent does their job, and vice versa. In fact, they don’t always agree, despite (or because of) the shotgun wedding nature of their relationship. At times, it can feel like they are working against each other. Never mind the complexities of local control.

This has been especially true in recent years as Newsom and the Legislature have pushed through big changes, such as the new prekindergarten grade, that have required massive coordination and effort. At the local level, administrators often complain there is little clarity on what is expected of them and, too often, outright conflict.

“The idea of having policy in one place and implementation in the other is really crazy,” Michael Kirst told me. He’s professor emeritus of education at Stanford and the longest-serving president of California’s State Board of Education, serving under both of Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial stints.

Newsom’s proposed system promises “much clearer, cleaner accountability,” Kirst said.

Expertise counts

It also has the benefit of putting an actual education expert in charge of schools. Because the superintendent role is elected, it has too often been coveted by career politicians looking for a landing spot. Its incumbent, Tony Thurmond, had a background in social work before running for various offices, but that kind of experience isn’t always the case. Neither is experience running a major organization with thousands of employees.

While Newsom’s plan leaves many, if not most, of the details to be ironed out later (a frustrating strategy he’s used more than once to keep the ball rolling on policy without having the drag of actual detail), it does promise to put in someone with the kind of high-level educational policy experience that should be required when managing this vast and important endeavor.

Kirst points out that this will be a “powerful position” charged with making sure our schools are indeed run well, and at the end of the day, it gives us one person to blame if they don’t: the governor.

So if schools don’t improve and our kids don’t learn, voters will know exactly who failed.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump ousts members of bipartisan election commission ahead of midterms
The California edge: The Work of Helping A.I. Destroy Work
The L.A. Times Special: In bed 23 at Adelanto ICE detention center, a terrified teenager missed his mom

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.