opponent

Bill Cassidy’s roles as a lawmaker, a doctor and a political candidate will collide on Wednesday as he questions Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in two high-stakes Senate hearings.

The Louisiana Republican chairs one of the Senate committees that oversees Kennedy’s department and sits on another, giving him two chances to interrogate the secretary about his plans for an agency responsible for public health programs and research. As a doctor, Cassidy has clashed with Kennedy’s anti-vaccine ideas even though he provided crucial support for the health secretary’s nomination last year.

At the same time, Cassidy is fighting for his political future in next month’s primary in Louisiana, where President Trump has endorsed one of his opponents in an unusual attempt to oust a sitting senator from his own party.

How Cassidy handles the hearings could affect his chances at a pivotal moment of his reelection campaign and set the tone for how Congress oversees the nation’s health agenda at a time of rampant distrust and misinformation.

Cassidy hasn’t faced Kennedy in public since September. In the subsequent months, Kennedy has attempted a dramatic rollback of vaccine recommendations that, if not blocked by an ongoing lawsuit, could undermine protections against diseases like flu, hepatitis B and RSV.

After a backlash, Kennedy has also pivoted to spending more time talking about less controversial topics like healthy eating — albeit with his own spin, including sharing exaggerated claims that various ailments can be cured by diet alone.

Cassidy will have to decide on Wednesday whether to grill Kennedy on vaccines, an issue deeply important to him, or put their differences aside and prioritize loyalty to the Trump administration.

“He’s taken a risk showing any sort of resistance to RFK,” said Claire Leavitt, an assistant professor at Smith College who studies congressional oversight. “He may pay an electoral price for that.”

Cassidy has long advocated for vaccines

Cassidy has spent years walking a political tightrope. He’s one of the few Republican senators who voted to convict Trump during an impeachment trial after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

As a liver doctor, he advocated for babies to receive hepatitis B vaccines shortly after birth, a step that could have prevented the disease in his patients. But when Trump nominated Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, Cassidy supported him. He did so after securing various commitments, including that Kennedy would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring system and support the childhood vaccine schedule.

The vote for Kennedy did not appear to mollify Trump. The president endorsed U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, one of Cassidy’s two primary opponents.

Cassidy also faces opposition from Kennedy’s allies in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, a group that includes both anti-vaccine activists and a wide variety of other crusaders for health and the environment. The MAHA PAC, aligned with Kennedy, has pledged $1 million to Letlow’s campaign. While the organization hasn’t publicly said so, some have questioned whether the support is partly in retaliation against Cassidy for criticizing Kennedy’s vaccine policy agenda.

“I’m not really sure what MAHA’s beef is,” Cassidy told reporters earlier this month. “Let me point out that I am the reason that Robert F. Kennedy is now the secretary of HHS. He would not have gotten there otherwise.”

Cassidy argues that he has “strongly supported” the MAHA agenda, especially when it comes to the fight against ultraprocessed foods. However, the physician-turned-senator acknowledged that he and MAHA have “disagreed on vaccines.”

“We’ve seen, frankly, that I am right,” Cassidy added, pointing to recent measles-related deaths of children who were not vaccinated.

At a hearing in September, he slammed Kennedy’s decision to slash funding for mRNA vaccine development. He interrogated Kennedy over his attempt to replace members of a vaccine committee, suggesting the new members could have conflicts of interest. He also raised concerns that Kennedy’s vaccine policy decisions could be making it harder for Americans to get COVID-19 shots.

Later that month, Cassidy convened a hearing featuring former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez, who was ousted by Kennedy less than a month into her tenure after they clashed over vaccine policy, and former CDC Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, who resigned in August citing an erosion of science at the agency.

“I want to work with the president to fulfill his campaign promise to reform the CDC and Make America Healthy Again. The president says radical transparency is the way to do that,” Cassidy said at the time.

Experts say Cassidy’s vaccine stance might not hurt him

Political consultants said they expect Cassidy’s primary opponents, Letlow and Louisiana Treasurer John Fleming, to seize on any sound bites from Wednesday’s hearings that can make Cassidy seem at odds with the Trump administration.

But Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert at UC Law San Francisco, said the political risk of advocating for vaccines may not be as strong among Republicans as some people assume.

“He’s probably not alienating voters by focusing on the issue and calling it out,” she said.

Louisiana political consultant Mary-Patricia Wray said she thinks most diehard MAHA voters already know who they are voting for, and it’s probably not Cassidy.

Instead, she said, he may still be able to appeal to Democrats who switch their party registration to vote in the primary, as well as a wide swath of still-undecided Republican voters who care about the same health care affordability issues he advocates for every day in Congress.

“If I was advising Bill Cassidy, I would tell him your goal here is not to get out unscathed,” Wray said. “Your goal is to prove that your consistency on issues regarding public health is an asset in your campaign, not a detriment.”

Election outcome will shape future oversight of HHS

Also at stake if Cassidy doesn’t make it to November’s general election is what will happen to his responsibility to oversee the massive U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.

Leavitt, the Smith College professor, said seniority typically plays the most important role in who chairs Senate committees. She said another Republican in today’s increasingly hyperpartisan Congress may not be as willing as Cassidy to check Kennedy’s power.

Reiss, the vaccine law expert, said she wishes Cassidy had done more hearings or introduced legislation to rein in Kennedy. And she said the senator bears the blame for allowing Kennedy to bring unfounded vaccine fears into the government in the first place.

“His original sin, of course, was voting for Kennedy at all,” Reiss said.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Sara Cline contributed to this report.

In just five starts, José Soriano’s season with the Angels has gone from good to great — to historic.

Soriano pitched two-hit ball into the sixth inning of the Angels’ 8-0 victory over the Padres on Friday night, ending San Diego’s eight-game winning streak with yet another dominant outing by the Angels’ right-handed Dominican ace.

Soriano (5-0) has an ERA of 0.28 after allowing just one run in his first 32 2/3 innings this season. He leads the majors with 39 strikeouts while allowing only 11 hits, and he’s tied with Milwaukee’s Aaron Ashby for the lead with five wins.

Except for occasional control problems, Soriano has been overwhelming every lineup he faces — and Drake Baldwin’s first-inning homer for Atlanta on April 6 is still the only run he has allowed all season. His 17-inning scoreless streak is the second-longest in the majors this season, and opponents are batting .104 against his 0.73 WHIP — both the best in baseball.

Angels ace José Soriano delivers to the plate during the fifth inning of a win over the San Diego Padres at Angel Stadium on Friday.

(Jayne Kamin-Oncea / Getty Images)

“It’s like a hot knife through butter,” Angels slugger Jo Adell said. “It’s pretty crazy. It’s really special, and he’s a special talent. He’s always had the stuff to compete at this level, and he’s doing what an ace does. Whatever he’s done, just keep doing it.”

And after five straight dominant starts, Soriano has reached rare company.

The most recent pitcher to allow one earned run or fewer in each of his first five starts in a season with at least 15 total innings pitched was the Dodgers’ Fernando Valenzuela in 1981, when he won the NL Cy Young award in his groundbreaking rookie season. Walter Johnson also did it in 1913 — and nobody else.

Soriano is also the only pitcher in major league history to go at least five innings while yielding one or fewer earned runs and three or fewer hits in each of his first five starts to a season.

“I just feel confident to keep pitching like that,” Soriano said. “I believe in my catcher, and we’re on the same page. I think that’s a big part of the results we’re having.”

While Soriano dazzled his previous two opponents with back-to-back, 10-strikeout outings over 15 combined innings to win the AL Player of the Week award, he actually didn’t overwhelm the Padres’ veteran lineup.

San Diego drew four walks and forced Soriano to throw 99 pitches. The Padres loaded the bases in the third before Soriano got Jackson Merrill to ground out, but San Diego eventually chased him with a single and a walk with two outs in the sixth.

“The thing that impressed was that to us, he had to grind a little bit tonight,” Angels manager Kurt Suzuki said. “I think that’s the maturity showing up, where he’s learning how to pitch — and I say this lightly — without his best stuff. He learned how to navigate a great lineup over there without his best stuff … and it was pretty incredible. You can’t say enough.”

Soriano has a 99-mph fastball and a sinker that ranks among the best in baseball, but he’s also mixing in a curve that has flummoxed his opponents. The combination has been too much for any opponent through his first five starts.

“Knowing him from the past, you always thought of the high-90s sinker, and then he comes in breaking out the curveball,” Padres manager Craig Stammen said. “That pitch was very impressive from the dugout. Gave our guys trouble at the beginning. It’s really hard to lay off that pitch, and it complements his sinker. He did a great job tonight mixing his pitches. … He’s just a really good pitcher.”

Earlier this year, tickets to see SZA perform at the Crypto Arena in Los Angeles were selling for $600 the day before they officially went on sale at $35 a piece.

In San Francisco, tickets to see Sam Smith at the newly renovated Castro Theater went on sale for $120, only to be quickly snatched up by scalpers and resold for upwards of $600.

Those are some of the stories that California lawmakers are citing as they advance two plans to change the ticketing landscape. One caps the extent to which resellers can mark up the original ticket price while the other prohibits resellers from selling tickets they don’t yet own.

Democratic Assemblymembers Issac Bryan of Culver City and Matt Haney of San Francisco are each carrying bills that they say would protect consumers from fraudulent and deceptive ticket sales.

Both measures are backed by the ticket market’s dominant seller, Beverly Hills-based Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster. Its support has some worried that the bills will help the company crush its competitors and jack up prices.

A federal jury in New York this week found that the company illegally acted as a monopoly in a victory for, among others, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who with colleagues in other states sued the company two years ago and kept going after federal prosecutors settled. Live Nation is now awaiting penalties.

Despite these headwinds, the ticket bills are sailing through the Legislature.

Supporters say the legislation has nothing to do with the antitrust case against Live Nation and helps consumers. Opponents disagree.

“The state Legislature should really be standing up for consumers instead of advancing bills that are there to help a monopoly that has been caught on record calling its fans stupid and has bragged about robbing them blind,” said Jose Barrera, national vice president for the far west region at the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights advocacy group.

Ticketmaster’s competitors in the online resale market are lobbying against the measures, a sign that they view the proposals as a threat to their business.

Jack Sterne, StubHub’s head of policy communications, wrote to CalMatters, stating, “Passing laws that hand the Ticketmaster monopoly more power and don’t actually make tickets more affordable is the last thing California’s leaders should do.”

But Stephen Parker, executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, which is co-sponsoring the bills, argues that they will regulate the marketplace to better protect fans by limiting price gouging and encouraging the face value — or below face value — exchange of tickets.

“Ultimately, that is what these bills will do, in addition to making sure that the tickets are actually real,” he said. “That is a good thing for California consumers. It’s a good thing for artists and it’s a good thing for these small businesses and nonprofits that make up the independent stages across the state.”

A Live Nation spokesperson said in a statement to CalMatters, “The resale lobby constantly tries to change the subject by pointing fingers at Ticketmaster, even though it has less than 25% of the resale market. This has nothing to do with anyone’s monopoly, but rather is about protecting fans from scalpers and the resale sites that cater to them.”

The company has spent roughly $165,000 on lobbying efforts this legislative session, including to support Bryan’s bill.

‘Unlikely allies’

Bryan’s Assembly Bill 1349 would ban the sale of speculative tickets — or tickets that are not in the possession or ownership of the people who list them online. In an April hearing, Bryan said the bill protects consumers from predatory mark ups.

“This bill is so important that, after our introduction, it brought unlikely allies together,” Bryan said, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. “In fact, this bill brought the Giants and the Dodgers together, brought the National Independent Venue Association and Live Nation together. It brought Kendrick Lamar and Kid Rock together. It brought Isaac Bryan and Donald Trump together.”

Several secondary ticket sellers are fighting the measure, including StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. The three companies have spent roughly $1.1 million dollars on lobbying efforts this legislative session, which included opposition to Bryan’s bill.

People watch fireworks during Bad Bunny’s halftime show from a parking garage outside Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara on Feb. 8, 2026. Photo by Jungho Kim for CalMatters

Opponents including Robert Herrell, executive director for the Consumer Federation of California, argue that the bill strengthens Live Nation Ticketmaster’s grip on the ticketing and live entertainment industry. According to them, the measure would give Live Nation complete control over the ticket even after it has been purchased — meaning, for example, that consumers could lose the ability to sell it or give it away.

“There’s no consumer choice in the matter,” said Herrell. “They can keep people out of shows if they want to. There have been situations where, if you bought a ticket on the secondary market, you’ve been denied entry into a show.”
Proponents say Herrell and other opponents are mistaken. They say they are not trying to prevent transferability but rather, they want to protect fans from speculative costs.

“We want those rooms full,” said Ron Gubitz, executive director of Music Artists Coalition, which is co-sponsoring both bills. “So you have to be able to transfer a ticket. We just want it to be in a way that’s safe, trustworthy and not creating this run on the market that exists now.”

Gubitz pointed to a recent Bruno Mars concert, where tickets were on StubHub for $400 to $2,000 before they were on sale through Ticketmaster.

“That’s crazy,” he said. “That’s a speculative ticket that Bryan’s bill is trying to stop. That shouldn’t happen. It’s not fair to anybody, except for the secondary (market). It seems great for them.”

Price caps in a free market

Haney’s Assembly Bill 1720, also known as the California Fans First Act, would put a 10% cap on resale event ticket markups, inclusive of the ticket fees. In other words, a reseller could not charge more than 10% higher than the original ticket price.

In an interview with CalMatters, Haney said artists, independent venues and downtowns are currently being “screwed over and exploited” by scalpers and brokers.

“We can’t allow the status quo to continue if we want to ensure Californians have access to affordable tickets to see their favorite artists or if we want independent venues or the broader landscape of musicians and artists to thrive in our state,” he said.

Haney rejected the idea that his bill would strengthen the Live Nation Ticketmaster monopoly, saying that the company is one of the biggest operators and profiteers of the secondary ticket market and would therefore be subject to the same restrictions as any other platform or broker.

“I don’t think it’s a free market to allow folks to come in and buy up all these tickets and then create scarcity and then you’re now required to buy your ticket at a much higher price from someone who had nothing to do with the event,” he said. “This is not something we would ever allow for airplane tickets or even dinner reservations.”

The bill has been criticized by opponents like Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at Progressive Policy Institute, who said price caps notoriously distort the market, describing them as “anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-artist.”

“If you shut down the resale market with price caps then guess what? Ticket buyers have no place to go but right back to Ticketmaster,” said Moss. “If (Live Nation) succeed(s) in decimating the resale market, then they steer millions and millions of fans back to their own ticketing platform where they charge monopoly ticket fees and where fans are hostage to their glitchy online platform and all of their data, privacy and security concerns that we always hear about in the news.”

Those concerns didn’t stop the bill from passing out of the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism last week with a 6-1 vote. The bill also passed out of the Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection on Thursday with a 9-4 vote.

Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow for CalMatters.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, opponents raised alarms about the severe and immediate harms that would surely occur if marriages between same-sex couples were recognized nationally. Afterward, when those harms failed to materialize, those voices grew quieter, but some have been returning with renewed vigor, in hopes that the current Supreme Court, after overturning Roe vs. Wade, may be willing to overturn the Obergefell decision as well — though the justices declined to do so in November.

To build public support for rolling back marriage rights, new campaigns have been repeating the claims that legal recognition of same-sex marriages may harm children or even the stability of different-sex marriages. These are some of the same concerns that were raised in the years prior to the Obergefell decision. They were groundless then, and, more than 10 years later, the data confirm these fears to be unfounded.

In 2024, for the 20th anniversary of the first legal marriages of same-sex couples (in Massachusetts), my lab at UCLA joined with a team of researchers at Rand Corp. to review what social scientists learned over those two decades about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We addressed this question in two ways. First, we searched through the research literature to find every published study that had examined the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to 2015, states legalized and prohibited same-sex marriage at different times, and social scientists tracked a wide range of outcomes, including the well-being of children, national trends in marriage and divorce, and the physical and mental health of same-sex couples. Opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage predicted, in the strongest terms, that people would suffer after same-sex couples were granted the right to marry.

After 20 years of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted. Our review identified not a single study that observed significant negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, the research literature identified many significant positive consequences.

For same-sex couples, legal recognition of their marriages was followed by more stable relationships, increased mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger connections to family. For the children of those couples, our review found no documented negative outcomes, but legal recognition of their parents’ marriages did result in more children obtaining access to health insurance. And what about the rest of the country? States that recognized same-sex marriages prior to Obergefell experienced economic gains and considerable savings in healthcare costs relative to states that did not.

One of the most striking predictions of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that recognizing marriage among same-sex couples would weaken commitment to the institution of marriage among different-sex couples. That did not happen either.

To address this question, our report conducted new analyses, drawing on census data and other sources to determine whether state-level rates of marriage, cohabitation and divorce changed in the states that recognized same-sex marriage, compared with states that did not. No matter how we conducted the analyses, we could find no effects of recognizing same-sex marriage on any of these outcomes. It makes sense: When different-sex couples are making personal decisions about their own relationships, they are not paying much attention to what same-sex couples are doing.

If any harm resulted from allowing same-sex couples to marry, it ought to be well documented by now. The fact that there has been no evidence of harms despite considerable effort to find some suggests that the predictions made by opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage were unwarranted at the time. Now that we have 20 years of research and experience, those predictions remain unwarranted now.

Benjamin Karney is a professor of social psychology at UCLA.