nominee

SACRAMENTO — Former Vice President Kamala’s Harris’ decision to forgo a 2026 run for California governor came as a bit of a surprise, given her impressive winning streak in the state and comfortable lead in early polling. But that’s what makes campaigns so interesting, the unpredictability. It’s also why everyone should view nattering political punditry and campaign handicapping with a healthy heap of skepticism.

So keep that in mind now that the California governor’s race is wide open. The current field of candidates — yes, there’s still plenty of time for folks to jump in — is filled with gubernatorial hopefuls who have a legitimate if not outside chance of taking over for two-term Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is barred from running again.

Four of the top Democrats in the race already have won statewide races — former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurman and former Controller Betty Yee. One is the former mayor of California’s largest city, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles. Two were impactful lawmakers — Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and former state Sen. Toni Atkins. And, as always, there are the wild cards: wealthy Democratic businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck; and Republicans Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, and conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

Some of them have a better chance than others, of course, but all have enough political juice to stir up the race and at least influence the ultimate outcome.

This is Phil Willon, the L.A. Times California politics editor, filling in for columnist George Skelton this week. I’m joined by senior Sacramento reporter Taryn Luna to bring you up to speed on the latest.

The early money

On the same week Harris announced that she wasn’t running, just by coincidence, the latest campaign fundraising reports for the governor’s race were released to the public.

Those financial reports, which cover the first half of 2025, offered a glimpse of a candidate’s popularity and viability, since running a successful gubernatorial campaign in the most populous state in the union can cost tens of millions of dollars.

Campaign fundraising has been a bit frozen; donors were waiting to hear whether Harris was going to jump in the race, since she would have started as the clear favorite.

Plus, the fundraising totals don’t always tell the whole picture, as Times reporters Kevin Rector, Seema Mehta and Laura J. Nelson pointed out in their story on Sunday.

Kounalakis raised just over $100,000 during the first half of this year, a relatively paltry amount. But she had more than $4.6 million socked away and millions more in her lieutenant governor campaign account. Kounalakis’ father, the wealthy developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, also helped bankroll an independent expenditure committee supporting his daughter’s 2018 campaign for lieutenant governor.

Cloobeck, a Los Angeles Democrat, raised about $160,000 — but on Friday, he made a $10-million contribution to his campaign that he said “turbocharged” it.

Here’s a look at what the other candidates hauled in during the first half of the year and how much money they have in their accounts, since they were busy spending money as well:

• Atkins reported having $4.3 million in the campaign, while raising $648,000.
• Villaraigosa raised $1.1 million. He reported $3.3 million cash on hand based on fundraising he did last year.
• Becerra had $2.1 million in the bank after raising $2.5 million.
• Porter reported raising $3 million since announcing she was running for governor in March. She said she had $2 million in the bank.
• Bianco reported raising $1.6 million, and had $1 million in the bank.
• Hilton raised about $1.5 million, of which $200,000 was a personal loan. Hilton has a little less than $800,000 in the bank.
• Yee raised almost $238,000 and had $637,000 on hand.
• Thurmond raised about $70,000, and had almost $560,000 on hand.

Although a few seemingly have a pile of money and others look like they are barely scraping by, the reality is that none of them has enough money to wage a successful campaign for governor at this point. So, how much they rake in in the months ahead will be pivotal.

Harris’ next act

Speculation about Harris’ plans for the future is focused heavily on whether she will run for president again in 2028, talk that started almost immediately after the former vice president announced that she wasn’t running for California governor. Harris indicated that she’d remain active in national politics, but just how remains the big question.

The Times’ story on what Harris might do next explained what might be a motivating influence for Harris:

Experts in power and political leadership expect Harris’ next move to be something in the public eye, given she is relatively young at 60 and no doubt wants her last chapter in the spotlight to be something other than her humbling loss to Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

“Even if it isn’t the governorship of California, the idea of wanting something else other than the 2024 election to be the last thing Kamala Harris ever did would be very appealing,” said Gregory H. Winger, an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Cincinnati who has studied former presidents’ lingering influence.

Winger said his research showed those “most active in trying to be influential” in their post-White House years were those whose time in office ended on a sour note, such as failing to win reelection.

“It’s kind of a frustrated ambition that then leads into higher activity,” Winger said — and Harris has that.

Harris was careful to leave her options open — framing her hopes for the future around ideals such as “fighting for the American people.”

The Democratic Party is losing support from young men

One of the many takeaways from the 2024 presidential election, including Harris’ defeat to Trump, is that Democrats are losing men — and young men feel particularly unseen by the party.

In his ongoing dissection of how Trump prevailed, Newsom brought Richard Reeves, a social scientist and author, onto his podcast this week and asked what he thought about efforts to speak to male voters.

“The way I think about this is that in politics something almost always beats nothing,” said Reeves, founding president of the American Institute for Boys and Men. “And what there was from the Democrats on issues around boys and men was nothing.”

For a Democratic governor of California weighing a potential 2028 presidential run, there are plenty of political reasons for Newsom to strive to understand why men feel disconnected from his party. Kamala Harris won 55% of women and 42% of men, a 9-point increase in the gender gap compared to the 2020 presidential election.

But Newsom also has personal reasons to ponder, too. The governor has talked about his own 14-year-old son, Hunter, and his interest in MAGA podcasters and influencers, such as Charlie Kirk.

Reeves said Democrats lost support from men in the election because they made a conscious choice to appear as the party that supports women — at the exclusion of men.

“I think that was a fatal miscalculation,” Reeves said. “I also think, honestly, it was somewhat insulting to women because there are plenty of women out there, and we may know some in our own lives, governor, who are simultaneously worried about the issues facing women. Access, for example, to reproductive healthcare, justice at work. And they’re desperately worried about their son’s mental health, and they’re very worried about their brother’s job.”

Trump made a stronger effort to win over a micro-generation of young men “who grew up with terms like toxic masculinity and mansplaining and the women’s movement,” Reeves said.

“The Republicans managed to convince young men, ‘We see you and we like you,’ and I don’t think there’s anything more to it than that, but I don’t think the Democrats did a very good job of making young men feel the same way,” Reeves said. “If anything, Democrats struggle with the idea that men might have problems because too many of them are still convinced that men are the problem.”

Men’s issues are a topic Reeves writes and speaks about often. Compared to women, men suffer from higher suicide rates and a greater sense of disconnection from peers. Men are less likely to attend college and more prone to violence.

Reeves casts the problem as the refusal to address the reality that men are struggling, too.

Ignoring men’s issues creates a gulf that the “reactionary online right” fills, he said, and draws young men to controversial figures such as Andrew Tate, a British influencer who promotes misogyny.

When the podcast with Reeves aired on Wednesday, Newsom announced an executive order that directs various state agencies to make recommendations to address suicide among young men, to improve recruitment of male teachers and counselors, and to increase male participation in state-funded volunteer programs, job training, educational partnerships and behavioral health initiatives.

Newsom said the work of Reeves and others “really is a call to arms.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: In America’s hardest-fought congressional district, voters agree: Release the Epstein files
The TK: Newsom provides new details about his plan for a redistricting fight with Trump
The L.A. Times special: Feds move to drop charges in controversial cases as Trump re-ups L.A. prosecutor

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

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers have left Washington for the annual August recess, but a few weeks of relative quiet on the U.S. Capitol grounds can’t mask the partisan tensions that are brewing on government funding and President Trump’s nominees. It could make for a momentous September.

Here’s a look at what’s ahead when lawmakers return after the Labor Day holiday.

A bitter spending battle ahead

Lawmakers will use much of September to work on spending bills for the coming budget year, which begins Oct. 1. They likely will need to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks while they work on a longer-term measure that covers the full year.

It’s not unusual for leaders from both parties to blame the other party for a potential shutdown, but the rhetoric began extra early this year, signaling the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual.

On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent their Republican counterparts a sharply-worded letter calling for a meeting to discuss “the government funding deadline and the health care crisis you have visited upon the American people.”

They said it will take bipartisanship to avert a “painful, unnecessary shutdown.”

“Yet it is clear that the Trump Administration and many in your party are preparing to go it alone and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,” said the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Republicans have taken note of the warnings and are portraying the Democrats as itching for a shutdown they hope to blame on the GOP.

“It was disturbing to hear the Democrat leader threaten to shut down the government in his July 8 Dear Colleague letter,” Thune said on Saturday. “… I really hope that Democrats will not embrace that position but will continue to work with Republicans to fund the government.”

Different approaches from the House and Senate

So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills, mostly along party lines. The Senate has passed three on a strongly bipartisan basis. The House is pursuing steep, non-defense spending cuts. The Senate is rejecting many of those cuts. One side will have to give. And any final bill will need some Democratic support to generate the 60 votes necessary to get a spending measure to the finish line.

Some Democratic senators are also wanting assurances from Republicans that there won’t be more efforts in the coming weeks to claw back or cancel funding already approved by Congress.

“If Republicans want to make a deal, then let’s make a deal, but only if Republicans include an agreement they won’t take back that deal a few weeks later,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a veteran member of the House Appropriations committee, said the Democratic minority in both chambers has suffered so many legislative losses this year, “that they are stuck between a rock and their voting base.” Democrats may want to demonstrate more resistance to Trump, but they would rue a shutdown, he warned.

“The reality would be, if the government were shut down, the administration, Donald Trump, would have the ability to decide where to spend and not spend,” Fleischmann said. “Schumer knows that, Jeffries knows that. We know that. I think it would be much more productive if we start talking about a short-term (continuing resolution.)”

Republicans angry about pace of nominations

Republicans are considering changes to Senate rules to get more of Trump’s nominees confirmed.

Thune said last week that during the same point in Joe Biden’s presidency, 49 of his 121 civilian nominees had been confirmed on an expedited basis through a voice vote or a unanimous consent request. Trump has had none of his civilian nominees confirmed on an expedited basis. Democrats have insisted on roll call votes for all of them, a lengthy process than can take days.

“I think they’re desperately in need of change,” Thune said of Senate rules for considering nominees. “I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations, is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.”

Schumer said a rules change would be a “huge mistake,” especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward.

The Senate held a rare weekend session as Republicans worked to get more of Trump’s nominees confirmed. Negotiations focused on advancing dozens of additional Trump nominees in exchange for some concessions on releasing some already approved spending.

At times, lawmakers spoke of progress on a potential deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home.

“Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate is leaving Washington on Saturday night for its monthlong August recess without a deal to advance dozens of President Trump’s nominees, calling it quits after days of contentious bipartisan negotiations and Trump posting on social media that Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer can “GO TO HELL!”

Without a deal in hand, Republicans say they may try to change Senate rules when they return in September to speed up the pace of confirmations. Trump has been pressuring senators to move quickly as Democrats blocked more nominees than usual this year, denying any fast unanimous consent votes and forcing roll calls on each one, a lengthy process that can take several days per nominee.

“I think they’re desperately in need of change,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said of Senate rules Saturday after negotiations with Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Trump broke down. “I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations, is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.”

The latest standoff comes as Democrats and Republicans have escalated their obstruction of the other party’s executive branch and judicial nominees over the last two decades, and as Senate leaders have incrementally changed Senate rules to speed up confirmations — and make them less bipartisan.

In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans refused to consider any of President Obama’s judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch.

Trump has been pressuring Senate Republicans for weeks to cancel the August recess and grind through dozens of his nominations as Democrats have slowed the process. But Republicans hoped to make a deal with Democrats instead, and came close several times over the last few days as the two parties and the White House negotiated over moving a large tranche of nominees in exchange for reversing some of the Trump administration’s spending cuts on foreign aid, among other issues.

But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told senators to pack it up and go home.

“Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!” Trump posted on his social media platform. “Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country.”

Thune said afterward that there were “several different times” when the two sides thought they had a deal, but in the end “we didn’t close it out.”

It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try to confirm as many of Trump’s nominees as possible.

But Democrats had little desire to give in without the spending cut reversals or some other incentive, even though they too were eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation.

“We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as we have right now,” Schumer said Saturday.

Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When President Trump rocked the economy with an unprecedented attack on global trade in April, the plan was dismissed as swaggering, capricious and unsustainable. Market meltdowns and price increases would teach the White House the true cost of its mistakes, economists warned.

Yet, four months later, Trump is largely getting his way, refashioning the global economic order around his long-standing worldview that the United States has been ripped off for decades — all before the economy can fully absorb the shock.

Prices are ticking up, but markets have rebounded, and consumer confidence is resurgent after Trump backed down from his most draconian threats. Projections of a looming recession are being tempered. And a handful of deals have been struck that, on their surface, give Trump much of what he wanted.

A long road ahead

A staff member inspects clothing material for defects at the apparel manufacturing unit at Bhiwandi in the Thane district of India’s Maharashtra state on July 30, 2025. President Trump said July 30 that imports from India will face a 25% tariff, while also announcing an unspecified “penalty” for New Delhi’s purchases of Russian weapons and energy.

(Indranil Mukherjee / AFP via Getty Images)

Experts still warn that the net effect of Trump’s trade war will hurt the U.S. economy, slowing growth and raising prices in the short term while depressing living standards in the long term.

A handful of preliminary agreements with important trading partners have been announced in recent days. But the president said Wednesday that he was committed to raising tariffs on others by Friday.

“THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE IS THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE — IT STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED,” Trump wrote on social media. “A BIG DAY FOR AMERICA!!!”

That leaves the most valuable U.S. trading relationships — with China, Mexico, Canada and India — vulnerable to devastating rate hikes that could severely roil the U.S. economy by the holiday season, when U.S. retailers makeas much as a quarter of their annual sales, experts said. Trump said Wednesday that he would raise the tariff on India to 25%.

The most dramatic provisions in the biggest deals struck thus far — with the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and Vietnam, among others — lack enforcement mechanisms and are, in some cases, downright fanciful, such as an EU pledge to purchase $750 billion in American energy over the next three years.

Yet, despite raising tariff rates in those deals up to an average of between 15% to 20% — higher than the 10% baseline that Trump unveiled in April, itself a marked increase from historic standards — Trump’s reversals on his most dramatic levies, such as a 125% import duty on Chinese products, have helped calm markets and buoy business confidence.

The gap between reality and public perception is evident in recent economic data, which show slowing U.S. growth but rising U.S. consumer confidence.

U.S. economic growth last year was at 2.8%. This year, economists warn that the country is still on track for less than 2% growth overall, a slowing rate not seen since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020.

“The president’s recent push on trade has produced a flurry of agreements that, while stopping short of the sweeping free‑trade deals of past administrations, have headed off the threat of a full‑blown tariff war,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economist and a former commissioner at the Port of Los Angeles.

“The administration has managed to calm immediate fears of a trade shock while locking in a costlier trading environment,” he added. “The deals represent progress, but the toughest negotiations — with some of America’s most important partners — still remain.”

‘Fragile’ deals

An employee works at the Canadian Copper Refinery in Montreal on July 17, 2025. President Trump on July 9 announced that a 50% tariff would be placed on U.S. imports of copper, a key metal for green energy and other technologies, and will take effect Aug. 1.

(Andrej Ivanov / AFP via Getty Images)

The deals Trump has cut so far amount to loose conceptual frameworks that have not been formalized through U.S. or foreign governing systems — and will ultimately survive at the whims of a president who has thrown out his own trade deals before.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, was a genuine trade deal negotiated by Trump himself during his first term in 2020 that overhauled trade across the continent. Yet that has not stopped him from entering a retaliatory spiral over trade with Canada and putting extraordinary pressure on Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, to bend to painful U.S. demands.

“It is fair to say no comprehensive trade agreements have been reached really with any of our trading partners,” said Stan Veuger, a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent visiting lecturer at Harvard, referring to the settlements reached thus far as “side deals.”

Those deals, he said, “have been limited in scope, and can only be read as an effort to get the U.S. government to calm down and focus on something else.”

“They are also very fragile, as they are ill-defined, barely formalized or not at all, and especially on the U.S. side a mere product of executive action,” Veuger said.

“Neither the tariffs nor the side deals,” Veuger added, “seem to reflect any kind of broader strategy other than trade is bad and tariff revenue is good.”

Recession fears remain

A television on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange shows President Trump on July 28, 2025. U.S. equity futures climbed along with the dollar after the European Union reached a trade deal with Trump.

(Michael Nagle / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

After Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of global tariffs April 2, nearly every U.S. financial institution issued forecasts warning that a U.S. recession this year was more likely than not.

Those forecasts have been downgraded — but the risk is still significant, analysts say. According to J.P. Morgan, the probability of a recession has fallen to 40%. Apollo Global Management warned that the fate of U.S. economic growth probably would fall on the administration’s ongoing trade negotiations with China.

“In this first round of the trade war, Trump has triumphed, at least on the terms he set out for himself. The way the EU caved, in particular, is stunning,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a prominent economist and professor at Harvard. “That said, so far the tariffs seem to have been mostly paid by U.S. importers, not foreign countries that export to the U.S. Eventually, now that the war has settled down, the cost will be passed on to consumers.”

Rogoff still put the odds of an “outright recession over the next 18 months” at greater than 50%.

“It is very likely that there will be some modest inflation over the next year and weaker growth,” he said, adding, “it is already becoming harder to find jobs in many sectors.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How ICE is using the LAPD to track down immigrants for deportation
The deep dive: Who is Kim Yo Jong, sister and ‘right hand’ of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?
The L.A. Times Special: Inside the fringe movement teaching Americans to punish officials with fake debt claims

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — In fighting President Trump, Gov. Gavin Newsom reminds me of actor Gene Hackman’s hard-nosed character in the movie “Mississippi Burning.”

Hackman plays a take-no-prisoners FBI agent, Rupert Anderson, who is investigating the disappearance of three young civil rights workers in racially segregated 1964 Mississippi. His partner and boss is stick-by-the-rules agent Alan Ward, played by Willem Dafoe.

The 1988 film is loosely based on a true story.

The two agents eventually find the victims’ murdered bodies and apprehend the Ku Klux Klan killers after Anderson persuades Ward to discard his high-road rule book in dealing with uncooperative local white folks.

“Don’t drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson,” Ward sternly tells his underling initially.

Anderson shouts back: “These people are crawling out of the SEWER, MR. WARD! Maybe the gutter’s where we oughta be.”

And it’s where they go. Only then do they solve the case.

Newsom contends Trump is playing gutter politics by pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the GOP-controlled Legislature to redraw the state’s U.S. House seats in an effort to elect five additional Republicans in next year’s midterm elections. House seats normally are redrawn only at the beginning of a decade after the decennial census.

Democrats need to gain just three net seats to retake control of the House and end the GOP’s one-party rule of the federal government.

Trump is trying to prevent that by browbeating Texas and other red states into gerrymandering their Democrat-held House districts into GOP winners.

Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats. Democrats have 12.

In California, it’s just the opposite — even more so. Out of 52 seats, Democrats outnumber Republicans 43 to 9, with room to make it even more lopsided.

“We could make it so that only four Republicans are left,” says Sacramento-based redistricting guru Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc.

Mitchell already is crafting potential new maps in case Newsom follows through with his threat to retaliate against Texas by redrawing California’s districts to help Democrats gain five seats, neutralizing Republican gains in the Lone Star State.

Newsom and the Legislature would be seizing redistricting responsibility from an independent citizens’ commission that voters created in 2010. They took the task away from lawmakers because the politicians were acting only in their own self-interest, effectively choosing their own voters. As they do in Texas and most states, particularly red ones.

But the governor and Democrats would be ignoring California voters’ will — at least as stated 15 years ago.

And Newsom would be down in the political gutter with Trump on redistricting. But that doesn’t seem to bother him.

“They’re playing by a different set of rules,” Newsom recently told reporters, referring to Trump and Republicans. “They can’t win by the traditional game. So they want to change the game. We can act holier than thou. We could sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or we can recognize the existential nature that is the moment.”

Newsom added that “everything has changed” since California voters banned gerrymandering 15 years ago.

That’s indisputable given Trump’s bullying tactics and his inhumane domestic policies.

“I’m not going to be the guy that said, ‘I could have, would have, should have,’” Newsom continued. “I’m not going to be passive at this moment. I’m not going to look at my kids in the eyes and say, ‘I was a little timid.’”

Newsom’s own eyes, of course, are on the White House and a potential 2028 presidential bid. He sees a national opportunity now to attract frustrated Democratic voters who believe that party leaders aren’t fighting hard enough against Trump.

Newsom continued to echo Hackman’s script Friday at a news conference in Sacramento with Texas Democratic legislators.

Referring to Trump and Texas Republicans, Newsom asserted: “They’re not screwing around. We cannot afford to screw around. We have to fight fire with fire.”

But yakking about redrawing California’s congressional maps is easy. Actually doing it would be exceedingly difficult.

“Texas can pass a plan tomorrow. California cannot,” says Tony Quinn, a former Republican consultant on legislative redistricting.

Unlike in California, there’s no Texas law that forbids blatant gerrymandering.

California’s Constitution requires redistricting by the independent commission.

Moreover, a 1980s state Supreme Court ruling allows only one redistricting each decade, Quinn says.

Trying to gerrymander California congressional districts through legislation without first asking the voters’ permission would be criminally stupid.

Newsom would need to call a special election for November and persuade voters to temporarily suspend the Constitution, allowing the Legislature to redraw the districts.

Or the Legislature could place a gerrymandered plan on the ballot and seek voter approval. But that would be risky. A specific plan could offer several targets for the opposition — the GOP and do-gooder groups.

In either case, new maps would need to be drawn by the end of the year to fit the June 2026 primary elections.

Mitchell says polling shows that the independent commission is very popular with voters. Still, he asserts, “there’s something in the water right now. There’s potential that voters will not want to let Trump run ramshackle while we’re being Pollyannish.”

“The reality is that a lot of Democrats would hit their own thumb with a hammer if they thought it would hurt Trump more.”

Mitchell also says that California could out-gerrymander Texas by not only weakening current GOP seats but by strengthening competitive Democratic districts. Texas doesn’t have that opportunity, he says, because its districts already have been heavily gerrymandered.

Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio says Newsom is “trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube” and doubts it will work. “Unilaterally disarming was a mistake.

“But Newsom’s not wrong. They play hardball. We don’t.”

Newsom and California Democrats should fight Trump and Texas Republicans in the MAGA gutter, using all weapons available.

As Hackman’s character also says: “Don’t mean s— to have a gun unless you (sic) ready to use it.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump’s urging, but there’s a risk
The TK: The Age-Checked Internet Has Arrived
The L.A. Times Special: Trump’s top federal prosecutor in L.A. struggles to secure indictments in protest cases

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

July 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Navy needs to complete its shipbuilding program and modernize its weapons systems to effectively address the nation’s defense needs, Adm. Daryl Caudle told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Committee members questioned Caudle on Thursday morning to consider his nomination for Chief of Naval Operations and reappointment to the grade of admiral.

“I view this nomination as a solemn opportunity to ensure the nation’s maritime dominance never is surpassed by competitors or adversaries,” Caudle told the committee during his opening comments.

“Our sailors are the Navy’s most enduring competitive advantage,” Caudle said. “A stronger Navy means a more effective fleet.”

He said his father was an Army veteran who served in the Korean War and passed on the importance of service to protect American families and their way of life from harm.

Recruitment standards, shipbuilding

Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said the Navy has lowered its recruitment standards in recent years to enable more people to join its ranks.

He asked how Caudle might ensure the Navy does not permanently rely on lowered standards.

Caudle said the Navy has not lowered its standards but instead has increased access.

“All that graduate from boot camp meet the rigorous standards of that course to the letter,” he told Wicker.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said the Navy has an “overdue” 30-year shipbuilding plan that has not been followed and asked if Caudle would undertake a shipbuilding program to increase the Navy’s size and visibility.

Caudle said King has his “complete commitment” to the Navy shipbuilding program.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., also raised the matter of the 30-year shipbuilding program and asked if Caudle would commit to completing the program in a timely manner and on budget.

Caudle affirmed he would do so and cited the Navy’s nuclear submarine program as especially important for ensuring the nation does its part to fulfill strategic agreements with other nations.

Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., raised concerns about the Navy’s force structure design to deter other nuclear powers that are threatening the United States and the world.

Caudle called the matter a “math problem” and said he will work closely with Strategic Command to address growing threats from China and other nations to maximize the Navy’s effectiveness.

Munitions and maintenance

Fischer also asked what the Navy could do to ensure it has an ample supply of munitions to quickly replace those that are expended during naval operations.

King said the Navy has “way too many sole-source vendors that are underproducing” munitions due to difficulties with obtaining the materials needed to make them.

“We need to work through that,” King said, adding that the Navy needs to streamline production for greater efficiency.

“We roll a Ford F-150 off the assembly line every 20 hours, but it takes greater than a year to build an SM-6” missile, he added. “It’s just unacceptable.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked about drydock construction in Hawaii and what Caudle would do to complete an under-construction drydock there on time to ensure Naval vessels can use it for maintenance and repairs.

Caudle called the drydock a national asset and said he shares Hirono’s concern regarding the importance of the drydock and getting it completed for as close to its budget as possible.

Weapons systems modernization

Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., asked how Caudle might incorporate unmanned weapons systems to counter naval growth among the nation’s potential adversaries.

“There is no question that unmanned robotic autonomous systems will be part of any modern warfare going forward,” Caudle answered.

He said they are used in the Russia-Ukraine war, in space and Middle East conflicts.

“We’re all learning from this,” he said. “Everyone is, including our adversaries.”

He said the Navy must invest in robotic autonomous weapons systems and ensure the command structure and operational systems are in place to maximize their effectiveness.

During his questioning, King suggested directed-energy weapons are the “future” of naval warfare and asked Caudle what his position might be regarding their development and use.

“A directed-energy shot is much cheaper than a $4 million missile,” but the Biden administration “grossly underfunded” development of the weapons system, King said.

Caudle responded that his master’s degree is in directed energy and his thesis was on high-powered lasers.

“I’ve not seen the Navy do an adequate amount of effort translating the research and development into shipboard use,” he said.

“If confirmed, I will make that a priority because it is the infinite magazine, especially against certain targets,” Caudle said.

“Admiral, you just got my vote,” King responded.

The morning confirmation hearing lasted for more than two hours.

Before the confirmation hearing, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., met with Caudle and in a news release said the admiral “knows a stronger Navy means a safer America.”

Caudle is a four-star admiral and would replace former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

If confirmed, Caudle would control a naval fleet that is 14 times smaller than the Chinese fleet and has experienced costly shipbuilding delays, according to Politico.

WASHINGTON — President Trump revealed an “action plan” for artificial intelligence on Wednesday ostensibly designed to bolster the United States in its race against China for AI superiority.

But experts in the field warn the administration is sidestepping safety precautions that sustain public trust, and is ignoring the impacts of research funding cuts and visa restrictions for scientists that could hold America back.

‘Dangerous incentives to cut corners’

President Trump at a meeting Tuesday in the Oval Office.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Trump introduced the new policy with an address in Washington, a new government website and a slew of executive actions, easing restrictions on the export of AI technology overseas and greasing the wheels for infrastructural expansion that would accommodate the computing power required for an AI future — both top requests of American AI companies.

The plan also calls for AI to be integrated more thoroughly across the federal government, including at the Pentagon, and includes a directive targeting “woke” bias in large language models.

The new website, ai.gov, says the United States “is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence,” and lays out three pillars of its plan for success: “Accelerating Innovation, Building AI Infrastructure, and Leading International Diplomacy and Security.”

Scholars of machine learning and AI believe that whichever country loses the race — toward general artificial intelligence, where AI has capabilities similar to the human mind, and ultimately toward superintelligence, where its abilities exceed human thought — will be unable to catch up with the exponential growth of the winner.

Today, China and the United States are the only powers with competitive AI capabilities.

“Whether we like it or not, we’re suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself, because of the genius and creativity of Silicon Valley — and it is incredible, incredible genius, without question, the most brilliant place on Earth,” Trump said on Wednesday in his policy speech on AI.

“America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I’m here today to declare that America is going to win it,” he added. “We’re going to work hard — we’re going to win it. Because we will not allow any foreign nation to beat us. Our children will not live in a planet controlled by the algorithms of the adversary’s advancing values.”

Yoshua Bengio, founder of Mila-Quebec AI Institute and a winner of the Turing Award for his work on deep learning, told The Times that the urgency of the race is fueling concerning behavior from both sides.

“These technologies hold enormous economic potential,” Bengio said, “but intense competition between countries or companies can create dangerous incentives to cut corners on safety in order to stay ahead.”

‘Self-inflicted ignorance’

Silicon Valley may be getting much of what it wants from Trump — but the administration’s continued assault on the student visa program remains a significant concern for the very same tech firms Trump aims to empower.

Yolanda Gil, senior director of AI and data science initiatives at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, said that the Trump administration’s reductions in funding and visas “will reduce U.S. competitiveness in AI and all technology areas, not just in the near future but for many years to come,” noting that almost 500,000 international students in science and engineering are currently enrolled in U.S. universities.

The majority of America’s top AI companies have been founded by first- or second-generation immigrants, and 70% of full-time graduate students at U.S. institutions working in AI-related fields have come from abroad. Yet the administration’s revocation and crackdown on F-1 visas risks crippling the talent pipeline the industry views as essential to success against China.

Funding cuts to research institutions, too, threaten the stability of programs and their attractiveness to the best foreign minds, said Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and technology studies at the Harvard Kennedy School.

“Our openness to ideas and people, combined with steadiness of funding, drew bright talents from around the globe and science prospered,” Jasanoff said. “That achievement is in a precarious state through the Trump administration’s unpredictable and exclusionary policies that have created an atmosphere in which young scientists are much less comfortable coming to do their science in America.”

“Why would a talented young person wish to invest in a U.S. graduate program if there is a risk their visa could be canceled overnight on poorly articulated and unprecedented grounds? It’s clear that other countries, including China, are already trying to benefit from our suddenly uncertain and chaotic research environment,” she added. “We seem to be heading into an era of self-inflicted ignorance.”

Teddy Svoronos, also at Harvard as a senior lecturer in public policy, said that the president is deregulating the AI industry “while limiting its ability to recruit the highest-quality talent from around the world and de-incentivizing research that lacks immediate commercial use.”

“His policies thus far convince me that the future of the U.S. will certainly have more AI,” Svoronos said, “but I don’t see a coherent strategy around creating more effective or more aligned AI.”

Safety fears

Aligned AI, in simple terms, refers to artificial intelligence that is trained to do good and avoid harm. Trump’s action plan doesn’t include the phrase, but repeatedly emphasizes the need to align AI development with U.S. interests.

The deregulatory spirit of Trump’s plan could help expedite AI development. But it could also backfire in unexpected ways, Jasanoff said.

“It’s not clear that technology development prospers without guardrails that protect scientists and engineers against accidents, overreach and public backlash,” she added. “The U.S. biotech industry, for example, has actively sought out ethical and policy clarification because missteps could endanger entire lines of research.”

The plan also has the United States encouraging the development of open-source and open-weight AI models, allowing public access to code and training data. It is a decision that will allow AI to be more readily adopted throughout the U.S. economy — but also grants malicious actors, such as terrorist organizations, access to AI tools they could use to threaten national security and global peace.

It is the sort of compromise that Bengio feared would emerge from the U.S.-China race.

“This dynamic poses serious public safety and national security risks, including AI-enabled cyberattacks, biological threats and the possibility of losing human control over advanced AI — outcomes with no winners,” Bengio said.

“To realize the full benefits of these technologies,” he added, “safety and innovation must go hand in hand, supported by strong technical and societal safeguards.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: National Guard came to L.A. to fight unrest. Troops ended up fighting boredom
The deep dive: Hollywood’s being reshaped by generative AI. What does that mean for screenwriters?
The L.A. Times Special: As west Altadena burned, L.A. County fire trucks stayed elsewhere

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — No outsider politicians venture into sultry South Carolina in July unless they are running for president.

Certainly not a West Coast politician. Especially a California governor who lives in delightful Marin County near wonderful cool beaches. A governor who could easily vacation at spectacular Big Sur or hike a wilderness trail into the majestic Sierra.

We can assume Gov. Gavin Newsom didn’t choose South Carolina for its nightly light show of amazing fireflies or symphony of crickets. He was attracted to something so alluring that he was willing to brave skin-eating chiggers and oppressive humidity.

The lure, of course, was that South Carolina will hold one of the earliest — perhaps the first — Democratic presidential primaries in 2028. The precise calendar for contests hasn’t been set. But Newsom knows this: South Carolina propelled Joe Biden to the party’s nomination in 2020. And it provided a huge boost for Barack Obama in 2008.

“What South Carolinians saw this week as … Newsom made a two-day swing through the state was more than a highly visible candidate who probably will run for president in 2028,” wrote Andy Brack, editor, publisher and columnist at the Statehouse Report and Charleston City Paper.

“They saw a guy sweating through a white shirt in the South Carolina heat who was having fun. Yep, he seemed to enjoy engaging with voters in rural places too often forgotten by many candidates.”

Yes, Newsom, 57, loves campaigning on the stump — a whole lot more than he does toiling in the nitty-gritty of governing.

I’d only bicker with Brack’s word “probably” when characterizing Newsom’s White House bid. We’re talking semantics.

California’s termed-out governor actually has been running for months. And he’ll run as far as he can, slowly for a while and try to pick up speed down the road.

That’s conventional politics. Most candidates — especially office holders — initially claim that running for president is “the furthest thing” from their mind, then ultimately declare their candidacy with all the hoopla of a carnival barker.

OK, I admit to having been wrong about the governor in the past. I should have known better. I took him at his word. He persistently denied any interest in the presidency. “Subzero,” he asserted. But to be fair, he and reporters previously were centered on the 2024 race and the distant 2028 contest got short shrift.

I figured Newsom mostly was running for a slot on the “A” list of national political leaders. He wanted to be mentioned among the roster of top-tier potential presidents. He clearly savors the national attention.

But I’ve also always wondered whether Newsom might be leery of running for president because of his lifelong struggle with dyslexia. He could view the task with some trepidation. The governor has acknowledged having difficulty reading, especially speeches off teleprompters.

That said, he has adapted and is an articulate, passionate off-the-cuff speaker with a mind full of well-organized data. He excels on the stump — especially when he restrains a tendency to be long-winded and repetitive.

Newsom is finally starting to acknowledge the White House glimmer in his eye.

“I’m not thinking about running, but it’s a path that I could see unfold,” he told the Wall Street Journal last month.

More recently, in a lengthy interview with conservative podcaster Shawn Ryan, Newsom said: “I’ll tell you, the more Trump keeps doing what he does, the more compelled I am to think about it.”

Newsom’s proclaimed hook for traveling to South Carolina was to “sound the alarm” about President Trump’s brutish policies and to light a fire under Democratic voters to help the party win back the U.S. House next year.

He’s again trying to establish himself as a leader of the anti-Trump resistance after several months of playing nice to the president in a losing effort to keep federal funds flowing to California.

But it’s practically inevitable that a California governor will be lured into running for president. Governors have egos and ears. They constantly hear allies and advisors telling them they could become the leader of the free world.

And, after all, this is the nation’s most populous state, with by far the largest bloc of delegates to the Democratic National Convention — 20% of those needed to win the nomination.

But there’s a flip side to this California benefit. There’s a California burden. In much of the country, we’re seen as a socialist horror with dreadful liberal policies that should never be emulated nationally.

“People who live in other states just don’t like us, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans,” says Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “A Democrat from California is going to have an uphill fight no matter who they are. That’s just a reality.

“The odds [for Newsom] are pretty long, although he has a shot because the field is totally open.”

But Democratic strategist Bill Carrick — a South Carolina native — says the California burden “is exaggerated. That’s just the Republican stereotype of California. Who cares?

“If Newsom runs, he’ll be competitive. He’s smart. Good charisma. South Carolina was a good trip for him.”

Former Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, director of the Center for the Political Future at USC, says: “Too many people write Newsom off. He has a realistic chance.

“He’s very good at pushing off against Trump. It all depends on whether he goes into the election with a message about the future. The message has to center around the economy. The two times Trump was elected he won the message war.”

Can Newsom win the nomination? Maybe. The presidency? Probably not.

But there’s no certainty about anything in an antsy country that swings from twice electing Barack Obama to twice anointing Donald Trump. Newsom is smart to roll the dice.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Forget the high road: Newsom takes the fight to Trump and his allies
The TK: Will she or won’t she? The California governor’s race waits on Kamala Harris
The L.A. Times Special: The forgotten godfather of Trump’s scorched earth immigration campaign

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON — Democrats may not agree on a solution to the country’s broken immigration system — but President Trump’s crackdown in Los Angeles has finally given them a line of attack.

‘Better terrain’

A flicker of hope has emerged from a brutal polling environment for the party suggesting the public is torn over Trump’s blunt tactics in the immigration raids. The recent set of numbers have been an outlier on an issue that has otherwise been Trump’s strongest since taking office.

“Absolutely, sentiment is shifting,” said G. Cristina Mora, a sociology professor at UC Berkeley. “You’re seeing more dissatisfaction and less agreeance with the president’s strategy on immigration enforcement.”

Polls released over the course of the last month found that, while a plurality of Americans still support Trump’s overall approach to immigration, a majority believe that ICE has gone too far in its deportation efforts. And a new survey from Gallup found record public support for immigration, with public concern over crossings and support for mass deportations down significantly from a year ago.

Top Democratic operatives are testing new talking points, hoping to press their potential advantage.

“The only place in the world that Donald Trump has put boots on the ground and deployed troops is in America,” Rahm Emanuel, a veteran party insider who served under President Obama before becoming mayor of Chicago, said this week. “In L.A., they get troops on the ground. That’s the Trump Doctrine. The only place he’s actually put boots on the ground is in an American city.”

In Washington, efforts to corral Democratic lawmakers behind a unified message on immigration have been futile ever since the party split over the Laken Riley Act, one of the first bills passed this term. The law allows ICE to detain undocumented immigrants that have faced charges, been arrested or convicted of nonviolent crimes such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.

But last month, when the shock of Trump’s military deployment to Los Angeles was still fresh, every single Democrat in the Senate joined in a call on the White House to withdraw the troops. The letter had no power or influence, and was paid little attention as the nascent crisis unfolded. But it was a small victory for a party that saw a rare glimpse of political unity amid the chaos.

Now, Democrats are hoping in part that Trump becomes a victim of his own success, with focus pulled from a quiet border that has seen record-low crossings since he resumed office.

In the House, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands) is leading an immigration working group, sources said, hoping to foster consensus in the party on how to proceed.

“The issue has gotten a little less hot, because the border is calmed down,” said one senior Democratic congressional aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Now the focus is raids, which is better terrain for us.”

A party split

In May, Ruben Gallego, a Democrat who won a statewide race for his Senate seat in Arizona the same year that Trump handily won the state’s presidential contest, released a vision for immigration policy. His proposal, titled “Securing the Border and Ensuring Economic Prosperity,” received little fanfare. But the plan called for significant border security enhancements as well as an increase in visa and green card opportunities and a pathway to citizenship.

It was a shot at the middle from an ambitious politician scheduled to visit Iowa, a crucial state in the presidential nominating contest, early next month.

Yet it is unclear whether efforts by Gallego, a border state senator, to moderate the party’s messaging on immigration will resonate with its base. Gallego was one of only 12 Democratic senators who voted for the Laken Riley Act.

On the other side of the party, leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, as well as Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, have focused their criticism on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, with Mamdani calling the agency “fascist” in its tactics.

“Democrats built the deportation machine that Trump has now turbocharged,” said Elliott Young, a history professor at Lewis & Clark College. “The Democrats have an opportunity to stake out a humane and economically sensible position of encouraging immigration and welcoming our future citizens from around the world. The Republicans will always be better at cruelty and xenophobia, so better to leave that to them.”

In her research at UC Berkeley, Mora still sees “very strong support” across party lines for a pathway to citizenship, as well as for the constitutional preservation of birthright citizenship. But she is skeptical of an emerging strategy from a segment of Democrats, like Gallego, to adopt a prevailing Republican narrative of rampant criminal activity among immigrants while still promoting legal protections for the rest.

Having it both ways will be difficult, she said. The Trump administration says that anyone who crossed the border without authorization is a criminal, regardless of their record once they got here.

“The Democratic Party is in this sort of place where, if you look at the Ruben Gallegos and that element, they’re sort of ceding the narrative as they talk about getting rid of the criminals,” Mora said. “Narratives of immigrants and criminality, despite all the data showing otherwise, are so tightly connected.”

“It’s a tricky dance to make,” she added.

An L.A. opportunity

Before Gallego’s visit to Iowa, California Gov. Gavin Newsom visited South Carolina earlier this month, a transparent political stop in another crucial early primary state by a Democratic presidential contender.

For Newsom, the politics of the raids in his home state have been unavoidable from the start. But the governor’s speech in Bennettsville teased a political line of attack that appears to reflect shifting public opinion against ICE tactics.

Linking the raids with Trump’s response to the Los Angeles fires, Newsom noted the president was silent on the six-month anniversary of the devastating event, while that day ordering hundreds of federal troops into MacArthur Park in the heart of the city.

“Kids were taken away and hidden into the buildings, as they paraded around with American flags on horseback in military garb and machine guns — all masked,” Newsom said. “Not one arrest was made.”

“He wanted to make a point,” Newsom added. “Cruelty is the point.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom threatens Texas over power grab. He’s blowing smoke
The deep dive: Trump cuts to California National Weather Service leave ‘critical’ holes: ‘It’s unheard of’
The L.A. Times Special: These California tech hubs are set to dominate the AI economy
More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

July 15 (UPI) — U.N. ambassador nominee Mike Waltz denied any sensitive information was shared during a controversial mobile app chat in March while undergoing a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday.

The hearing was the first Congressional appearance by Waltz since his controversial participation in a Signal app chat that inadvertently included a journalist while discussing a pending military operation in March against Houthi targets in Yemen.

Waltz was the Trump administration’s national security adviser when the chat occurred, but no mention of the Signal chat occurred until past the hearing’s first hour.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., raised using the Signal app to discuss classified matters, which since has been dubbed “Signalgate.”

Waltz said no classified information was shared during the discussion that accidentally included The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.

“That engagement was driven by and recommended by the CyberSecurity Infrastructure Security Agency [and] by the Biden administration,” Waltz said, as reported by ABC News.

Waltz said Signal is an encrypted app that was authorized by the CSISA and recommended by the Biden administration.

“We followed the recommendation,” Waltz said. “But there was not classified information shared.”

Coons responded by saying he had hoped Waltz would express “some sense of regret” over the matter that he said included “very sensitive, timely information about a military strike on a commercially available app.”

Waltz told Coons they have a “fundamental disagreement” because no classified information was shared during the Signal chat.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said the Defense Department’s inspector general and the Air Force have separate investigations ongoing in the matter and have not drawn any conclusions.

“There are two investigations going on at the Pentagon precisely to determine in an objective and independent way whether classified information was shared,” Kaine said.

Waltz declined to comment because the investigations are ongoing.

The U.N. ambassadorship is the last vacancy to be filled by the Trump administration, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called Waltz one of the nation’s “most well-qualified” U.N. ambassador nominees when introducing him to the committee members, CBS News reported.

Lee said Waltz is skilled at negotiations and has a lot of policy experience to guide him while dealing with the United Nations and representatives of its member nations.

“With Waltz at the helm, the U.N. will have what I regard as what could and should be its last chance to demonstrate its actual value to the United States,” Lee told the committee.

The countdown is almost over: The 2025 Emmy nominations will be announced this morning.

Harvey Guillén, the actor who played the sole human roommate in a vampire household on FX’s “What We Do in the Shadows” for six seasons, and Netflix’s “Running Point” star and real-life knowledgeable sports fan Brenda Song will be on hand to make the announcement live from the Television Academy’s Wolf Theatre along with academy chair Cris Abrego. The nominations will be streamed live starting at 8:30 a.m. PT on the Television Academy website and social media channels.

As a teaser, the nominations for talk series and reality competition program were announced at 4:47 a.m. PT live on “CBS Mornings.”

Among the buzzy new shows expected to earn some nominations are HBO’s medical drama “The Pitt,” Apple TV+’s Hollywood satire “The Studio” and Netflix’s crime drama “Adolescence.” Returning series expected to once again receive Emmys love include “Severance,” “The White Lotus,” “Hacks,” “The Bear” and “Abbott Elementary.”

The 77th Emmy Awards will be held on Sept. 14 at 5 p.m. The live telecast will air on CBS and stream on Paramount+. The Creative Arts Emmy Awards, which honors the artistic and technical achievements as well as some performance categories, will be held on Sept. 6 and 7, then edited to air Sept. 13 on FXX.

Talk series

“The Daily Show”
“Jimmy Kimmel Live!”
“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”

Reality competition program

“The Amazing Race”
“RuPaul’s Drag Race”
“Survivor”
“Top Chef”
“The Traitors”

This story will be updated.

SACRAMENTO — If there were more people like George Steffes in politics, the public wouldn’t hold the institution in such low esteem.

There’d be a lot less bull and much more thoughtful debate.

Paralytic polarization would give way to problem solving.

Steffes was the kind of person who people profess to want in the halls of government power.

If more Republicans like him were in Washington, there’d be no rationalization for tyrannical ICE raids at schools and workplaces because Congress and the president would have long ago compromised on immigration reform.

The Republican Party would still be modeled after Steffes’ early mentor — pragmatic conservative Ronald Reagan — and not be the misused tool of demagogue Donald Trump.

Steffes, 90, died peacefully in his sleep in a Sacramento hospital July 6. He was admitted two weeks earlier after a painful bathroom fall. The precise cause of death was unknown at this writing, according to his wife, Jamie Khan.

He was the last remaining top advisor of Gov. Reagan who remained in Sacramento after the future president moved on — the last person around the state Capitol with firsthand, close-up knowledge of the GOP icon’s governorship. He was Reagan’s lead legislative lobbyist.

Ordinarily, Steffes would be best known around the Capitol for being a past Reagan honcho. But he’s better known for being a classy guy.

No one in Sacramento for the last 60 years — at least — has been more liked, respected and successful as a lobbyist than Steffes. He’d easily rank in the top 10. No, make that top 5.

If there were more lobbyists like Steffes, the profession wouldn’t be such a pejorative.

He didn’t try to BS governors, legislators, clients or journalists. He was a straight shooter. People trusted him.

He always had a smile, but wasn’t a backslapper.

People instantly liked him — as I did when we first met in a Santa Cruz hotel bar one night in 1966 after a day of traipsing after Reagan running for governor. Steffes was a campaign aide. I was a reporter who found him highly interesting, thoughtful and candid.

But don’t take just my word about the guy.

“He was never part of the nonsense that is characteristic of those of us in politics,” former Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown told me. “I could rely on his word about good public policy. He was knowledgeable. He knew what he was doing.”

Brown, who was elected San Francisco mayor after leaving the Legislature, recalled that Steffes helped him pass a landmark bill “eliminating a law punishing people for being gay. I had to get Republican votes. George talked to them about how it wasn’t a bad vote to cast.”

The 1975 bill, signed by new Gov. Jerry Brown, repealed a century-old law prohibiting “crimes against nature.” The measure eliminated criminal penalties for oral sex and sodomy between consenting adults.

“The biggest thing that stands out to me about Steffes is how different he was from the mean-spirited slashing politics of today,” says Kip Lipper, a chief environmental consultant for several Democratic state Senate leaders. “He was unfailingly considerate, always in good spirits. He didn’t wear his politics on his sleeve like a lot of others.”

Retired journalist Lou Cannon, who has written several Reagan biographies, recalls that after the new Republican governor took office in 1967, he continued to bash Pat Brown, the Democratic incumbent he had trounced the previous year.

“George told him, ‘Governor, that ‘s not worthy of you.’ So Reagan stopped. And he actually became quite fond of Pat Brown. George was never afraid to say to Reagan that he was wrong about something. And Reagan appreciated that.”

If only we had some White House aides with that courage and wisdom today.

Cannon adds: “One of the reasons I liked George is he didn’t bulls— you. If he couldn’t tell you something, he’d tell you he couldn’t tell ya. He was straight. Some people you interview them and you think, ‘Why did I waste my time?’”

Public relations veteran Donna Lucas says, “He set the standard for good lobbying in the Capitol.”

One Steffes rule: “He would never ask a legislator to do anything that wasn’t in their interest as well,” says Jud Clark, a former legislative staffer for Democrats and a close friend and business associate of Steffes.

Before he retired a few years ago, Steffes had a very long A-list of clients, such as American Express, Bechtel, IBM, Exxon and Union Pacific.

He also represented less lucrative clients such as newspapers, including The Times. And he advocated for some interests pro bono, mostly golf associations.

His passion was golf. And he became a golf instructor after retiring from lobbying.

“George was such a cerebral teacher,” says a pupil, Capitol Weekly editor Rich Ehisen. “He didn’t spend a lot of time correcting your elbow bend. He focused on the mental part of the game.”

Steffes once told an interviewer: “Golf offered good lessons for life. If I had a bad stroke, I can’t fix it now. It’s in the past. … Sitting and stewing [about it] saps our mental energy. Focus on what you can do to move forward, win the issue.”

But Steffes did stew about the declining state of politics.

“Politics became too polarized — Republican conservatives, Democratic liberals. The middle ground where he used to operate was disappearing,” his wife, Jamie, told me last week.

Reagan’s GOP that formed Steffes’ philosophy of political pragmatism had already disappeared. In the last election, he voted for Democrat Kamala Harris over Republican nominee Trump.

Steffes was honest even with himself — a human quality possessed by too few in politics.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Glimpse of Newsom’s presidential appeal, challenges seen during South Carolina tour
The TK: New poll finds most Californians believe American democracy is in peril
The L.A. Times Special: Six months after L.A. fires, Newsom calls for federal aid while criticizing the Trump administration

Until next week,
George Skelton

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