ownership

Manchester Super Giants (MSG) rebranded from the Originals, also changing their team logo and colours, after RPSG group – led by Indian billionaire Sanjiv Goenka – bought a 70% stake in the franchise, with Lancashire having 30% ownership.

Goenka’s Indian Premier League (IPL) side Lucknow Super Giants have yet to reach that competition’s final since being founded in 2022, but his Hundred investment has resulted in immediate success as Jos Buttler’s side sealed the Manchester franchise’s first title for either men or women.

Lancashire chief executive Daniel Gidney, also on the board of MSG, says there’s no choice but to be bold in a rebrand.

“If you’re trying to launch a new brand in a new market, in the UK particularly, in a city that is dominated by football, you’ve got to go big and loud,” Gidney told BBC Sport.

One daring ‘brand activation’ resulted in almost 30,000 free shirts being given to Super Giants fans.

“To give everybody a free jersey who bought a ticket is extraordinarily different,” said Gidney.

“You can’t normally do it because a kit manufacturer will go, ‘No, no, no. I’ve got to sell that kit for £60-80.’

“You never get anything for free. It’s had a massive impact, much more than I thought.”

The decision was made this first year to forego a potentially lower kit deal for the opportunity to build the MSG brand, get fans in the team colours, and then strike a more lucrative supplier deal in years to come.

But how does that benefit Lancashire more broadly? The county’s merchandise continues to be sold at Old Trafford on matchdays, while at the moment you won’t find MSG products in the club shop.

Gidney says Lancashire were able to “retain effectively 50% merchandise arrangements” with MSG, who they can use as a “bit of a pilot” – possibly bringing some of what they learn into the T20 Blast competition.

The franchise will now hope to have acquired new fans and take momentum from their first on-field triumph, while they also pocket £275,000 in prize money.

They were dealt the blow of losing captain Aiden Markram halfway through the group stage as he returned to South Africa for personal reasons, but Buttler seamlessly stepped up, while the appointment of Tom Moody as their director was another savvy decision.

Former Australia player Moody was at the helm for Oval Invincibles’ previous dominance in the men’s Hundred, with three consecutive titles. He will hope for further success at Old Trafford alongside compatriot Justin Langer, hired as coach from this season, the same role he has at Lucknow.

There are positives for their women’s side too, who just missed out on a knockout spot, but look likely to be in a good place if they can keep legendary former Australia captain Meg Lanning in charge.

So instead of the Dodgerfication of the Lakers, we’re getting the Disneyfication of the Lakers.

Hakuna Matata?

Yes, it’s weird and distressing, watching billionaires play catch with our ballclubs.

But this high-stakes game of hot potato that resulted in Bob Iger and Joshua Kushner acquiring the Lakers for $12.5 billion from Mark Walter less than a year after the Dodgers owner bought the NBA team?

For the Lakers, it really could end happily ever after.

Because we’re realizing you probably shouldn’t put all your proverbial eggs — or both of a city’s most beloved sports teams — in one guy’s basket. Especially if that one guy happens to be at the center of a federal loan investigation.

And if all it took, really, to get Walter to relinquish his ownership of the Lakers was $2.5 billion more than the reported figure he paid for them, then he wasn’t the right owner for the franchise anyway.

He wasn’t actually going to spin blue into purple and gold.

And Disney did give us some pretty great stories under Iger, didn’t it?

A native New Yorker, Iger, 75, grew up a Knicks fan. But he has also long been an L.A. basketball fan — though he has identified as a Clippers supporter. (Sorry, Clips, I think you’re down a fan.)

Lakers great Magic Johnson said he’s known Iger since the Showtime era, and gushed in an interview Wednesday with The Times’ Broderick Turner: “The great thing for Laker fans is Bob Iger loves basketball, loves the Lakers and I think that we couldn’t have a better person.

“Somebody that don’t know the Lakers, the tradition, that don’t know the city, that don’t know the passion that the fans have for the Lakers here in L.A.? Then I would have been like, ‘Oh man. They gotta learn all that.’

Bob Iger, then chief executive of Disney, addresses the media during the Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge media event in 2019.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“Well there’s no learning curve for Bob.”

And Angelenos know Iger. We don’t know Kushner except for his family ties. But Iger, we do.

Walter isn’t selling the Lakers to some rich guys without any L.A. cred. He’s selling to a basketball fan whom we’ve seen courtside at Lakers games. Someone who joined us in sharing our heartbreak on social media when Kobe Bryant died in 2020, calling him “a friend and a fan of ours, full of life and taken from us too soon.”

We recognize Iger; he’s the Disney guy. We know him for his successful tenures as chief executive of that beloved company, which were highlighted by innovative storytelling, savvy investment and expansion — including into sports. We know he helped turn ESPN into a TV juggernaut.

Before the sale to Walter, the Buss family, which owned and ran the Lakers for 46 years, was having trouble keeping up in a booming NBA. Player salaries are capped, but ownership’s resources matter much in terms of creating a competitive infrastructure of coaches, basketball operations, medical and scouting staffs.

So we were looking forward to seeing sweeping improvements when Walter took control and provided the organization with a much-needed financial infusion. After all, his Dodgers have won three World Series crowns and clinched the National League West in 12 of 13 seasons since 2012, when he and his partners bought the club for a then-MLB record $2.15 billion.

But as of Wednesday morning, we were still looking.

We thought the new Lakers’ regime would get to work without a second to spare. Yeah, they added a second row of seats courtside. And laid off more than a dozen employees.

We expected they’d beef up their scouting department. But they moved the G League team from the South Bay way out to the Coachella Valley, so even the most ardent fans in L.A. will have a hard time keeping an eye on the team’s prospects.

We expected, under Walter, that the Lakers would give their basketball brain trust an obvious boost.

But they’ve only flirted with filling the job of second assistant general manager. And they failed to poach anyone from the league’s most innovative front offices like the Dodgers did when they hired Andrew Friedman. Their big get was Rohan Ramadas, from the … New Orleans Pelicans, a team that made the playoffs only twice in the last eight seasons.

Iger and Kushner can do better. They better do better.

Joshua Kushner, founder and chief executive of Thrive Capital, speaks onstage during the Big Bets panel at the Fortune Global Forum 2024.

(Jemal Countess / Getty Images for Fortune Media)

I think they will.

This isn’t a fly-by-night proposition for Iger, who headed an effort by the Chargers and Raiders to build a stadium in Carson before Stan Kroenke built $5-billion SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

In 2024, Iger and his wife, Willow Bay, who is dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, acquired a controlling stake in the Angel City Football Club of the National Women’s Soccer League for $50 million, pushing its valuation to $250 million, a record for a women’s sports team.

Angel City hasn’t been winning, but they doubled the staff and wasted no time setting up a sizable new performance center at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks. The WNBA’s Sparks, which Walter has owned since 2014, are still waiting for their own practice facility, which is now finally under construction in El Segundo.

“As lifelong NBA fans,” Kushner and Iger said in a statement, “we are deeply honored for the opportunity to become stewards of the Los Angeles Lakers, one of the most iconic sports franchises in the world.”

Iger knows as much as anyone about successfully stewarding an iconic brand.

Now he could be the Imagineer to bring the 17-time champion Lakers back to the happiest place on earth — the NBA’s mountaintop.

Chargers rookie wide receiver Brenen Thompson said he doesn’t love zipping around.

“To be fair, I really hate running,” Thompson, a former track star, said. “But I’m really good at it.”

Thompson has proven that so far in Chargers training camp, sprinting around defenders and maximizing his 5-foot-9, 170-pound frame in passing drills.

His speed and do-it-all attitude have made him one of Justin Herbert’s favorite targets, including on deeper routes, over the last two weeks.

“He’s going to be very good,” Herbert said of Thompson. “We saw it early on that he was going to be. He’s skilled. He’s fast. He’s going to make a lot of plays for us. So, I’m really excited about him.”

Added Thompson: “I know my speed is pretty much unmatched when I step on the field, and that’s something I take strong confidence in.”

Thompson was clearly the fastest player going into the 2026 NFL draft after he posted a time of 4.26 seconds in the 40-yard dash, the third-best time ever, at the scouting combine.

And after leading the Southeastern Conference with 1,054 receiving yards as a senior at Mississippi State, Thompson impressed the Chargers enough to be their fourth-round pick.

He’s thrived ever since — as a wideout and as a returner.

“I agree with Justin,” added coach Jim Harbaugh. “We’re all seeing the same thing. Much like Akheem [Mesidor], so far, so good — really good.”

Special teams coordinator Ryan Ficken has been impressed with Thompson’s work ethic, saying “he’s willing to go ahead and put in the work.”

The Chargers have good reason to be excited about Thompson’s budding role.

New offensive coordinator Mike McDaniel’s scheme is largely focused on getting the ball to playmakers in space quickly. With Herbert being tasked this season with getting rid of the ball quicker, receivers are being tasked with finding ways of getting open sooner.

“We’re doing a lot more motions, a lot more shifts, a lot more stuff like that. “[McDaniel’s] whole philosophy is speed and moving fast,” wideout Quentin Johnston said. “Just different formations … variations of the same route … I mean, shoot, that just shows how good a coach Coach Mike is — got us in different positions to be successful.”

Thompson acknowledged he struggled to adapt to the NFL’s “20-word” play calls early on after coming from no-huddle communication rules in college.

McDaniel, however, acknowledged the progress and dedication he has seen from the rookie over the last few months.

Chargers wide receiver Brenen Thompson runs a drill during rookie minicamp in May.

(William Liang / Associated Press)

“I think he’s captured the attention of the quarterback room by his attack and ownership of the offense,” McDaniel said. “Typically, it’s a very difficult transition … there’s not pictures on the sidelines that you memorize. … The most impressive part has been his professional attack and ownership of assignment, which is not easy.

“Now, the next challenge is that you have all these stacked installs — can you still execute everything while these new plays are being shoveled to you, much like in a season where you have a new game plan every week?”

It helps Thompson to have veteran receivers such as Johnston and Ladd McConkey, who are willing to work with him.

“I pick their brains a lot,” Johnson said. “Whether it’s a certain route or certain play, how do they see these things? … I think the world of those two guys, along with everyone else in the room.”

McConkey and Johnston have enjoyed working with him too.

“He’s flying around across the field,” McConkey said. “He didn’t run 4.2 by accident. … He’s going to be able to help us a lot this year, for sure.”

Added Johnston: “Man, that’s my dawg. He came in with one thing on his mind: speed. Shoot, you’ve seen his [40-yard dash] time … he brought that to the league — to this team — which I appreciate a lot. He’s a very smart dude in the classroom. … He’s been a fun guy to be around.”

The Chargers’ offense will undoubtedly be different under McDaniel — Herbert’s new shotgun stance is proof of that. Speed and spacing will be key. And those who find ways to learn and contribute quickly, like Thompson, will earn playing time.

“I came here to contribute [and] to make this team better, and so whether that’s blocking, running, special teams — whatever that is — I’m going to put my best foot forward,” Thompson said. “I’m nowhere near where I want to be right now.”

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 in favor of allowing TV station ownership groups to own more outlets, easing the way for more consolidation.

The Thursday vote that favored the change means companies can own local stations that cover more than 39% of the U.S. They could also own more than two stations in a single market.

The measure supported by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr will allow the agency to approve deals that put station ownership groups over the cap if the agency determines that they are promoting the public interest. Carr has said the agency would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”

“In my view, if you care about trusted sources of local news and information, you have to care about the future of local TV stations,” Carr said. “They are the economic engines that produce the paychecks for so many of the local journalists that remain in the business. So how can the FCC maximize the odds that those institutions continue to survive and hopefully thrive into the future? To start, we should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions.”

The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. Television stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.

Declining viewership and revenue have also made it more challenging to sustain multiple local TV news operations in a single market.

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, opposed the measure, saying the rule change will only help big firms get bigger and more powerful.

“Eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from economic pressure, it just changes who is doing the squeezing,” Gomez said in a statement issued ahead of the vote. “The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters, they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them.”

The measure ending the cap limits also faced push back from consumer groups and state government officials who believe station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.

TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.

Jeff McCall, a professor of communications at DePaux University, agrees the current limit is outdated in the current media environment. “Local broadcasters are struggling in terms of audience and revenue, and this plan could give them some needed relief,” he said.

But McCall added that having the FCC decide who benefits from the rule change will face resistance.
“it will give the FCC wide discretionary powers and open up any decisions to second-guessing and, of course, court challenges,” he said.

There are also likely to be questions on how even-handed Carr will be when faced with a proposal that puts a station owner over the caps. The chairman has made his name by threatening to pull the broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary. Even Trump-supporting Republicans such as Sen. John Kennedy, R- La., have raised concerns the FCC’s scrutiny of broadcast content could be violating the right to free speech.

In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses for Disney’s eight broadcast TV stations, a day after Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary occurs often, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.

Carr also believes large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over the stations affiliated with their networks.

“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”

Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.

One day after a LIV Golf players-only meeting failed to produce a resolution, CEO Scott O’Neil announced Wednesday that a lead investor plans to fund the tour beyond this season and that the golfers will become the majority equity holders in the league.

The LIV Golf board of directors approved the term sheet, O’Neill said, giving the league new life after the Saudi Public Investment Fund decided in April to cease its financial backing at the end of the current season. The PIF had backed LIV Golf since its inception in 2022, spending an estimated $6 billion.

O’Neil, who made the announcement at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., the site of this week’s tournament, did not identify the investor or terms. He said the league hopes to finalize the transaction in September and that “our next chapter will make our players the majority equity holders in LIV Golf, a first for a major global sports league.”

“LIV Golf has an agreement in place with a lead investor, signed by the investor and approved by the board, to anchor the transaction and play a key role in supporting the path forward for the league’s next era, driven by and for the players,” O’Neil said in a statement. “We’re also seeing strong interest from more than a dozen additional parties to potentially serve as minority investors, creating a multi-partner model built for long-term stability and growth.”

The players-only meeting on Tuesday at Trump National came soon after O’Neil and other LIV Golf executives spoke to the players. The only player to speak at length with the media after the meeting was Richard Bland, who told the Athletic that Bryson DeChambeau had led the discussion to follow O’Neil’s lead, but that nothing definitive had been determined.

“We’re in this together. We’re fully backing Scott,” Bland said. “I think probably in the next two to three weeks we’ll have a bigger picture. We’re just in that kind of stage at the minute that we’re positive with what’s going on, but we just need everything to be fully signed off so you can go forward.”

O’Neil said in June that LIV Golf needed to secure roughly $300 million from outside private equity or institutional investors to sustain operations through 2027 and beyond. He has been pitching “LIV 2.0” with a streamlined business model.

“What we don’t have is a lot of time,” he said in June. “So we’re very urgently out there talking to those who are interested. We like the pool, but we have to get this done through the summer.”

It appears O’Neil might have met the deadline, although questions remain unanswered. LIV has been mulling whether to cancel its Team Championship on Aug. 27-30 at the Cardinal in Plymouth, Mich., the final tournament of the season. The purse is $40 million, cash that instead could be earmarked for 2027.

O’Neil said that making players the majority equity holders “gives the league the foundation to keep growing the game worldwide…. In the meantime, our focus is on delivering a great week for fans and players at Bedminster and finishing the 2026 season strong.’’

TV station ownership groups may finally get their wish to own more outlets.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that the agency will vote next month to end the rule that allows companies to own no more than two TV stations in a single market. The cap also limits the national coverage of any station owner to 39% limit of the U.S.

Carr said the agency will consider a “case by case” review on station merger and acquisition deals that would result in exceeding the current limits. The commission, which has two Republicans and one Democrat, will vote on Aug. 6.

“Previously, the cap operated as a blanket prohibition on any and all deals that would combine stations in [excess] of the 39% limit — regardless of whether it was a good deal or bad deal for the country,” Carr wrote on the right-wing website Breitbart. “Our new proposal would allow the FCC to approve deals that exceed the 39% cap, but only if doing so would promote the public interest.”

TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.

The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. TV stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.

The station groups also argue that declining viewership and revenue make it more challenging to support multiple local TV.news operations in a single market.

But proposed changes to the cap limits have been met with push back from consumer groups and state government officials. They have said station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.

Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.

Carr’s proposal would largely put the FCC in charge of picking winners and losers on a case-by-case basis.

When faced with a merger proposal, Carr said the commission would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”

Carr has made his name by threatening to pull the over-the-air broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary.

In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses for Disney’s eight broadcast TV stations, a day after Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary is rampant, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.

Carr’s Breitbart column also reiterated his view that large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over their affiliates.

“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”

How owning more stations would give groups leverage in their dealings with networks is unclear. The networks control the rights to the NFL — the No. 1 TV ratings attraction for broadcast television by a mile. Stations pay the networks compensation for those games, which they use when negotiating the carriage fees they receive from cable and satellite companies.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

As a student years ago, I dove deep into the history of the Red-hunting McCarthy era and became familiar with the actor who emerged second only to Wisconsin Sen. Joe McCarthy as the villain of that insidious time: his shameless, conniving young lawyer, Roy Cohn. Never would I have imagined that a future president would count Cohn as a mentor and role model.

Then came Donald Trump.

Now, in Cohn-inflected McCarthyesque style, President Trump is channeling his tutor yet again, baselessly labeling his political enemies — all Democrats — as communists as he looks ahead to the fall’s midterm elections. Once more Trump shows that his catchphrase “Make America great again” means regressing, this time to Trump’s formative 1950s and the McCarthy era that sadly helped define it.

In recent speeches, including on the Fourth of July, Trump’s utterances of “communist” or “communism” reached double digits each time. (As that implies, the president didn’t set aside his divisive rhetoric even for the nation’s 250th birthday.)

“Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America,” Trump said late on the Fourth on the National Mall.

Trump couples his commie-baiting with a dash of his trademark xenophobia. “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including by newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success,” he said at Mount Rushmore a day earlier. (He’s got it backward, of course: Immigrants come here for the American way of life and promise of success.)

Here’s the irony: Trump’s actions in his second term make him look more like the commie. He’s projecting again.

Now that Trump is exploiting a few victories lately by left-wing democratic socialists in Democratic primaries to paint the entire party as communists, it’s time to review the record — his record.

A hallmark of communism is government ownership of companies and control of the economy, at the expense of private property and free markets. In just over a year, Trump has used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy shares for the government in a growing list of private companies — U.S. Steel, Intel, Westinghouse and more — citing national security. The companies don’t always welcome their new stakeholder; at a minimum, they rightly fear it for the demands the government could make about prices and production.

“It’s what Putin did,” the estranged Republicans at the Lincoln Project posted online Monday. “Trump is the closest we’ve ever come to communism.”

“What began as a populist revolt against so-called elites has become a program of state ownership, price fixing and top-down industrial control,” free-market economist Veronique de Rugy wrote in The Times last October of Trump’s actions. “The power to ‘partner’ with business is the power to control it.”

Comrade Trump’s first big government grab, and a model for those to come, was in June last year, when he wrested a permanent “golden share” in U.S. Steel in return for approving its sale to Japan’s Nippon Steel. The company’s charter was revised to give the U.S. president extraordinary veto power over nearly a dozen corporate activities, including closing or relocating plants, supply-chain decisions, even pricing.

“We have a golden share, which I control,” Trump told reporters at the time, in words I never thought I’d hear from a president of the party once associated with free markets.

Just last week, Trump boasted to CNBC how he’d extracted a 10% stake in beleaguered chip giant Intel last August, after first demanding that its chief executive resign. “Intel came in. They had a problem. I said, ‘I can solve your problem, but I want 10% of the company.’ … Somebody said that’s not very American. I said, ‘No, I think it is very American, actually.’ And I’ve done that with other deals.”

And so he has.

The Pentagon is now the largest stockholder in struggling MP Materials, a large rare-earth mine in California, and guarantees a 10-year price floor for its output that stunned competitors. The administration has since taken shares in other rare-earth companies. The Commerce Department took an option for an 8% stake in Westinghouse, to spur construction of nuclear reactors, and has the right to 20% if the government decides the company should go public. The government takes a 15% cut of Nvidia’s and Advanced Micro Devices’ AI chip sales to China.

As much as anything he does, Trump’s direct intervention in private enterprise invites the question “What if Biden/Harris/Obama did that?” The answer, of course: Trump and Republicans would cry “Communist!”

Trump’s actions are the sort Americans generally have only seen during economic emergencies or major wars, and then rarely. I covered the frenzied and ultimately successful response to the near-collapse of the global financial system and the U.S. auto, insurance and housing industries. Behind the scenes in the Obama White House (and George W. Bush’s at the outset) was constant, angst-filled debate about any actions smacking of government takeovers and a determination that interventions be temporary, unlike Trump’s schemes. (For all the still-lingering unpopularity of the banking bailout, the Treasury — the taxpayers — got all the money back and then some, and exited the business.)

Trump’s economic big-footing isn’t the only way in which he resembles the commies Americans know best, and whom he so admires: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jung Un. There are also the images of himself everywhere, monuments planned, drearily long and self-adulating speeches and interference in the nation’s cultural, educational and legal spheres and — worst of all — in elections.

At Rushmore, Trump closed with a demand that Congress pass his so-called SAVE America Act to restrict voting. “We do that and we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said, speaking of course about Republicans.

One-party rule through central government election finagling? Now that’s a communist.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security bought two of the largest immigrant detention facilities in California for $1.5 billion, according to the private prison company that sold them.

The purchase comes as the department — flush with cash after Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act infused the agency with $170 billion — has moved to scale up its capacity to detain immigrants without relying as heavily on private prison corporations.

In announcement Monday, the Tennessee-based CoreCivic said the sale of the 2,560-bed California City Detention Facility and the 1,994-bed Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego closed on July 2.

The company said it expects net proceeds of about $1.1 billion after income taxes and transaction expenses.

Ryan Gustin, public affairs director for CoreCivic, said such sales are not uncommon and that “the process was marked with rigor and integrity.” He added that the valuations were established through the federal government’s required appraisal process, using independent appraisers, who determined objective fair market value.

The sale doesn’t immediately change anything at the facilities — CoreCivic expects to continue managing them under existing contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the company and a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But the terms of those contracts could be modified given the change in ownership, the filing states. The California City facility contract expires in August 2027 and the Otay Mesa facility contract expires in December 2029, with the option to extend for another five years.

“We are pleased with the sales of these two mission-critical facilities for the Company’s government partner, which demonstrates the value of the Company’s underlying real estate portfolio, while reflecting our role as a long-term, flexible solutions provider to government,” CoreCivic CEO Patrick Swindle said in the announcement.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During a quarterly earnings call in May, George Zoley, CEO of the GEO Group, another major private prison corporation, said that the company had been in discussions with ICE “regarding the potential sale of multiple facilities.”

Critics of the purchases of detention facilities say the Trump administration is simply looking to avoid state and local oversight by bringing them under federal ownership. That issue was raised during the GEO Group earnings call when a participant later asked why the federal government wants to own the facilities instead of contracting with third parties.

If the facilities are federally owned, Zoley replied, there are “more protections from unwarranted litigation that infringes upon the activities of the ICE processing centers.”

Zoley said federal ownership would bolster the legal defense of the facilities and the argument that “states can only have very limited involvement.”

“There’s been litigation regarding overseeing medical services, food services, general cleanliness, etc.,” Zoley continued. “It’s really unprecedented and I believe it’s fundamentally unconstitutional. As some blue states are considering more active involvement in oversight of facilities, I think the logical solution to much of that is federal ownership of the facilities.”

California tried to kick private detention operators out of the state, but the 2020 law was overturned in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, state leaders have established oversight mechanisms through laws that allow for monitoring and investigation of detention centers by the California Department of Justice and local health authorities.

Asked to comment about the sale, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said his congressional oversight visits to facilities operated by CoreCivic have shown that immigrants who pose no public safety threat are being held in “unacceptable conditions.”

“Whether these facilities are operated by a private contractor or owned by the federal government, my expectations remain the same,” he said. “I will continue demanding transparency, accountability, and humane conditions that respect the dignity and rights of every person in immigration detention.”

Eight ICE detention facilities now operate in California, with a combined capacity to hold nearly 9,000 people.

The California City and Otay Mesa facilities have both been the subject of lawsuits by detainees alleging detainee mistreatment. CoreCivic calls such allegations unfounded and says it complies with all regulations concerning the treatment of detainees.

In its announcement on Monday, CoreCivic said the company is in discussions with ICE about potentially selling additional detention facilities, though it said those talks are in various stages and it’s unclear whether the sales will go through.

Here’s a bit of Dodgers trivia for the bandwagon fans in our midst: Who was the manager before Dave Roberts?

That was 11 years ago. He is Don Mattingly, who returns to Dodger Stadium on Friday as manager of the Philadelphia Phillies.

The Phillies were 9-19 when they fired Rob Thomson and replaced him with Mattingly. They are 20-8 since then, a better record than the Dodgers have posted over the same span.

In Philadelphia, Mattingly got his chance because the Phillies were losing. In Los Angeles, Mattingly departed amid a run of winning.

For Mark Walter and what was then a new Dodgers ownership group, that was not enough. As Walter enters his first offseason as the Lakers’ controlling owner, it’s worth keeping that in mind.

“They have a hunger for victory that is the greatest I’ve ever seen, without exaggeration,” former Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti told me.

In two seasons with Rob Pelinka as president of basketball operations and JJ Redick as coach, the Lakers won division titles both times, failing to get out of the first round of the playoffs one year and failing to get out of the second round of the playoffs the next.

In 2013 and 2014, with Colletti as GM and Mattingly as manager in the first full seasons of Walter’s ownership, the Dodgers won division titles both times, failing to get out of the first round one year and failing to get out of the second round the other.

The Dodgers replaced Colletti with Andrew Friedman.

In 2015, the Dodgers won the division but failed to get out of the first round of the playoffs. Friedman offered Mattingly a short-term extension, and Mattingly opted for a long-term deal to manage the Miami Marlins.

After Walter and Co. took over the Dodgers, Mattingly told me Wednesday, there was one year he thought he might be fired: 2013, when the Dodgers started 30-42 and fell 9 1/2 games out of first place in mid-June. The Dodgers then reeled off 42 wins in 50 games and won the division by 11 games.

He appreciated that Walter, team president Stan Kasten and eventually Friedman did not simply bring in a new manager at their first chance.

“You get to evaluate and see,” Mattingly said, “and you have your vision for where you want it to go, and sustain it. That’s the thing they’ve been great at: sustaining it. It’s been year after year. You can’t really doubt what they’re doing.”

Kasten’s first move was not to fire Colletti, but to ask what ownership could provide for him so that he could do a better job. The owners quickly responded by funding the addition of impact players (Adrián González and Hanley Ramirez), extending the contract of a popular home-grown player (Andre Ethier), revitalizing the Dodgers’ Latin American talent pipeline (Yasiel Puig and Julio Urías), renovating the clubhouse and, at Mattingly’s suggestion, refreshing the family room.

“We started to be able to compete with a different mindset, which was invaluable,” Colletti said.

Similarly, with Friedman and former Dodgers general manager Farhan Zaidi as consultants, the Lakers have added two positions for assistant general managers, overhauled the scouting staff, created more room at team headquarters by relocating their G League affiliate to the Coachella Valley, and borrowed from the Dodgers’ playbook in modernizing medical and biomechanical facilities.

This summer could be critical in determining the future of the Lakers, including who runs them. Walter can spend all he wants, as he does with the Dodgers, but the luxury-tax penalties in the NBA are more severe than in baseball and could restrict the roster flexibility so coveted by the likes of Friedman and Zaidi. A star-studded roster beyond Luka Doncic — say, a trade for Giannis Antetokounmpo? — could require the Lakers to sacrifice the draft picks that also would limit roster flexibility.

The Lakers will have the resources. Walter will want to see the creativity and the championships — or, at least, the path to them. Ultimately, he will decide what he did with the Dodgers: Does he have the best people he can get running the team?

“You see many organizations that win, and then they take a step back,” Colletti said. “They feel like they have some goodwill in the bank, they don’t have to chase the biggest free agents, and they don’t need to re-invest in the team or the stadium.

“From my vantage point, all the way up and down that organization and especially at the ownership level, it’s almost like they’ve never won, and they’re hungry to get there. To be there and be unsatisfied — that quest to be as great as you can be — is one of the great indicators of the excellent ownership it is.”

In the meantime, any advice for Pelinka and Redick? Colletti let out a hearty laugh.

“Do your best,” he said, “and turn it up a notch.”

WASHINGTON — It was perhaps a surprising private overture from OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman to Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The meeting between the two had come just after the Vermont senator announced a plan for the public to take a 50% ownership stake in artificial intelligence companies such as OpenAI, using their stock to create a public wealth fund that would spread the fortune generated by AI behemoths.

Altman told Sanders that he, too, wants the public to have equity in AI companies. Though the CEO said he couldn’t support Sanders’ threshold of 50%, he nonetheless wanted to work with him to advocate for the general idea, according to people with knowledge of the conversation.

The nearly hourlong meeting in Sanders’ Senate office this week, held at Altman’s request, highlighted the inherent tension between AI powerhouses and policymakers as Americans are increasingly asked to accept the costs of the AI boom even as many remain unconvinced of its direct benefits. Yet it’s also creating odd political bedfellows fueled by populism as politicians from Sanders to President Trump embrace giving the public a stake in AI’s growth.

Speaking to reporters Friday on Air Force One, Trump described a potential partnership “where the American people can benefit from the success of AI” and said executives from leading AI companies will visit the White House, perhaps in the coming week, to discuss the idea.

“There’s something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public,” Trump said.

When reporters noted to the Republican president that Sanders, a democratic socialist and political independent, had proposed public ownership in AI companies, he pointed to similarities in their coalitions. The economic views of Trump voters and those who have supported Sanders for president, Trump said, “aren’t that far apart.”

Trump has embraced government investment in private companies in his second term, scrambling his party’s politics. His administration last year secured a 10% stake in the struggling Silicon Valley company Intel, and it considered a government takeover of Spirit Airlines earlier this year, although the airline couldn’t reach a deal and ultimately closed.

Public backlash

The positioning of leading figures such as Trump and Sanders comes as concerns about AI are emerging far beyond Washington.

In Michigan, Democrats recently clashed over Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s appearance with Altman at the site of a major data center. Candidates such as New York Democratic House candidate Alex Bores have also made AI regulation a campaign issue by tapping into voters’ unease about the technology.

“This is a real change to society,” Altman told reporters this week. “I think it’s possible both that people can use AI a lot and like using it and also have anxiety about what it’s going to do for the future.”

Data center projects across the country have drawn opposition from residents concerned about electricity demand, water consumption and environmental impacts. Some states once eager to attract the facilities, including Ohio and Virginia, have moved to reconsider tax incentives.

“We need to pass legislation right now that says there’s not going to be any further data center development until they agree to pay for their own electricity, build their own grids and pay for their own water supply,” Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a leading Republican skeptic of Big Tech, told the Associated Press.

Before arriving in Washington, Altman stopped in Michigan on Monday to appear alongside Whitmer, a Democrat, at the site of a 1.65 million-square-foot data center project. Whitmer’s team said the project will create more than 2,500 union construction jobs.

But it also drew criticism from local activists and some fellow Democrats, including Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who called the project “disgusting.” She said she was “so disappointed” in Whitmer.

“It’s a very controversial topic right now and it’s coming from the ground up,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, another Michigan Democrat, said about the grassroots resistance. “People feel very strongly about it.”

Whitmer defended her appearance, telling reporters afterward that “one thing’s very clear: Everyone has a cellphone in our pocket.”

“We are all, more and more, consuming technology and data, and these data centers are going to get built. So, my thought is if we can hold them to a high standard and do it in Michigan, that’s the best way to do it,” she said.

The tensions extend beyond data centers. On college campuses, commencement speakers have been interrupted by boos when discussing artificial intelligence. About 70% of college students see AI as a threat to their job prospects, according to a 2025 poll by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Altman acknowledged those concerns. He said that while “the impact on jobs has been less than many people in our field expected,” he understands “that college students have a lot of anxiety about the future.”

Washington seeks an AI bargain

The idea that AI’s expansion is inevitable is increasingly shared by leaders across the political spectrum, even as they disagree sharply about how to manage it.

That reality was at the center of Altman’s conversations in Washington. In addition to Sanders, Altman met with Trump administration officials such as Michael Kratsios, the White House’s chief science and technology advisor, and congressional leaders from both parties.

Sanders’ team emphasized that the two did not reach an agreement on the main points that the senator made to Altman, including the 50% figure to ensure that the public has decision-making power. The senator also expressed opposition to the growing spending on elections by the AI industry.

“Unfortunately, Sam Altman did not commit to any of those,” Sanders spokesperson Jeremy Slevin said.

Altman, emerging from the conversation, described it as “great,” though noting that the two “obviously don’t agree on everything.”

How AI should be governed

Congress this week released a bipartisan framework that would establish the first broad federal approach to AI regulation while temporarily preempting many state laws.

Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s top competitors, has proposed mechanisms for coordinating pauses on advanced AI development if systems become too powerful.

The Trump administration has also begun constructing its own oversight structure, signing an executive order to establish a process for reviewing national security risks posed by advanced AI systems before their public release.

Sanders said he found the administration’s move notable after years of warnings that regulation could slow American innovation.

“Even these guys are beginning to catch on that there are legitimate concerns that have to be dealt with,” Sanders said.

Cappelletti and Kim write for the Associated Press.

Bill Plaschke’s and many Angel fans’ desire for Arte Moreno to sell his ownership of the Angels is an overkill. Granted, us Angels fans have suffered under Moreno’s ownership, and the Angels would be better off with new ownership, but over the years Moreno has done many positive and charitable things. I suggest that the Angels provide Moreno with a 10%, non-voting interest, regardless of who the new owners might be. That way the fans are happy, and Moreno will still have a rooting interest.

Michael Gesas
Beverly Hills

Bill Plaschke’s column urging Angels owner Arte Moreno to sell the team hits the bull’s-eye. Clear, concise and comprehensive, it highlights most factors leading the Angels to the bottom of MLB. Most factors, except a significant one: Moreno’s ownership incompetence has been facilitated by the group of sycophants he has apparently surrounded himself with. These same people are now hard at work imploring Moreno, “just don’t read The Times today.”

Rob Fleishman
Placentia

If Bill Plaschke were an attorney delivering closing arguments at a jury trial, his recent article regarding Arte Moreno’s ownership of the Angels would certainly produce a verdict. The jury has reached its decision: the defendant must sell the team.

Wayne Muramatsu
Cerritos

Dear Angels,

I’ll start off by saying it’s not you, it’s me. I tried staying faithful to you but Arte Moreno’s interference in our relationship has clouded my better judgment. I thought I could stick it out knowing how hard you are working trying to reel me back in. It’s not working and I must now turn my back and walk away. What we have now is a shallow affair and it’s not fair to you that the charade continue. In the end, I take great comfort in knowing someday, somehow you will find what you are looking for.

Mark Petrasso
Port Hueneme

The Lakers informed employees Wednesday there would be a round of layoffs as the organization continues restructuring under new ownership, according to multiple people.

Those familiar with the situation but unable to speak publicly confirmed to The Times that at least 15 people across multiple departments, including communications, marketing and sales, would be laid off.

Since Dodgers owner Mark Walter took over as the majority owner of the Lakers in a record-setting $10-billion deal that was finalized in October, the franchise has gradually overhauled both business and basketball operations.

The team hired a new assistant general manager this week, bringing Rohan Ramadas in from the New Orleans Pelicans to oversee strategy and data systems. The front office, led by president of basketball operations and general manager Rob Pelinka, will hire another assistant general manager focused on scouting and player development.

The Lakers functioned as a family business for more than 45 years under the ownership of the late Jerry Buss and his children. They blossomed into one of the premier sports teams in the world, but the ownership change brought swift business changes.

Former Dodgers executive vice president and chief marketing officer Lon Rosen became the Lakers’ president of business operations and created two positions to boost revenue and oversee business strategy.

Michael Spetner, who also most recently worked for the Dodgers, was hired as chief strategy and growth officer while Ryan Kantor, a former business executive with the Clippers, joined as the vice president of global partnerships.

Times staff writer Broderick Turner contributed to this report.