Party

WASHINGTON — Elections this week that energized Democrats and angered President Trump have cast a chill over efforts to end the record-breaking government shutdown, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of a breakthrough despite the punishing toll of federal closures on the country.

Trump has increased pressure on Senate Republicans to end the shutdown — now at 37 days, the longest in U.S. history — calling it a “big factor, negative” in the poor GOP showings across the country. Democrats saw Trump’s comments as a reason to hold firm, believing his involvement in talks could lead to a deal on extending health care subsidies, a key sticking point to win their support.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune opened what’s seen as a pivotal day in efforts to end the government shutdown by saying the next step hinges on a response from Democrats to an offer on the table.

“It’s in their court. It’s up to them,” Thune told reporters Thursday.

But Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer held firm in opening remarks Thursday, saying voters “fired a political torpedo at Trump and Republicans” in Tuesday’s election.

“Donald Trump clearly is feeling pressure to bring this shutdown to an end. Well, I have good news for the president: Meet with Democrats, reopen the government,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Trump is refusing to meet with Democrats, insisting they must open the government first. But complicating the GOP’s strategy, Trump is increasingly fixated instead on pushing Republicans to scrap the Senate filibuster to speed reopening — a step many GOP senators reject out of hand. He kept up the pressure in a video Wednesday, saying the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to pass legislation should be “terminated.”

“This is much bigger than the shutdown,” Trump said. “This is the survival of our country.”

Senate Democrats face pressures of their own, both from unions eager for the shutdown to end and from allied groups that want them to hold firm. Many see the Democrats’ decisive gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey as validation of their strategy to hold the government closed until expiring health care subsidies are addressed.

“It would be very strange for the American people to have weighed in, in support of Democrats standing up and fighting for them, and within days for us to surrender without having achieved any of the things that we’ve been fighting for,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

Meanwhile, talks grind on, but the shutdown’s toll deepens. On Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration announced plans to reduce air traffic by 10% across 40 high-volume markets beginning Friday to maintain safety amid staffing shortages. Millions of people have already been affected by halted government programs and missed federal paychecks — with more expected as another round of paydays approaches next week.

Progressives see election wins as reason to fight

Grassroots Democratic groups nationwide touted Tuesday’s election results as voter approval of the shutdown strategy — and warned lawmakers against cutting a deal too soon.

“Moderate Senate Democrats who are looking for an off-ramp right now are completely missing the moment,” said Katie Bethell, political director of MoveOn, a progressive group. “Voters have sent a resounding message: We want leaders who fight for us, and we want solutions that make life more affordable.”

Some Senate Democrats echoed that sentiment. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats and a leading voice in the progressive movement, said Democrats “have got to remain strong” and should secure assurances on extending health care subsidies — including “a commitment from the speaker of the House that he will support the legislation and that the president will sign.”

Still, how firmly the party remains dug in remains to be seen. Some Democrats have been working with Republicans to find a way out of the standoff, and they held firm after the election that it had not impacted their approach.

“I don’t feel that the elections changed where I was,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo. “I still feel I want to get out of the shutdown.”

Some Republicans also shared in Trump’s concerns that the shutdown is becoming a drag on the party.

“Polls show that most voters blame Republicans more than Democrats,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican. “That’s understandable given who controls the levers of power.”

Trump sets another shutdown record

While some Democrats saw Trump’s comments on the shutdown Wednesday as evidence he’d soon get more involved, he’s largely stayed out of the fray. Instead, the talks have intensified among a loose coalition of centrist senators trying to negotiate an end to the shutdown.

Trump has refused to negotiate with Democrats over their demands to salvage expiring health insurance subsidies until they agree to reopen the government. But skeptical Democrats question whether the Republican president will keep his word, particularly after his administration restricted SNAP food aid despite court orders to ensure funds are available to prevent hunger.

Trump’s approach to the shutdown stands in marked contrast to his first term, when the government was partially closed for 35 days over his demands for money to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall. At that time, he met publicly and negotiated with congressional leaders. Unable to secure the money, he relented in 2019.

This time, it’s not just Trump declining to engage in talks. The congressional leaders are at a standoff, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home in September after they approved their own funding bill, refusing further negotiations.

Johnson dismissed the party’s election losses and said he’s looking forward to a midterm election in 2026 that’ll more reflect Trump’s tenure.

In the meantime, food aid, child care money and countless other government services are being seriously interrupted. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed or are expected to work without pay.

Senators search for potential deal

Central to any resolution will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate but also by the House and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington.

Asked if the House would guarantee a vote on extending health care subsidies if the Senate struck a deal, Johnson said Thursday, “I’m not promising anybody anything.”

Senators from both major parties, particularly the members of the powerful Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process in Congress can be put back on track. Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills to fund various aspects of government such as agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of people are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of enhanced federal subsidies, which were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has promised Democrats at least a vote on their preferred health care proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government. But that’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

Cappelletti, Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

When Nancy Pelosi first ran for Congress, she was one of 14 candidates, the front-runner and a target.

At the time, Pelosi was little known to San Francisco voters. But she was already a fixture in national politics. She was a major Democratic fundraiser, who helped lure the party’s 1984 national convention to her adopted home town. She served as head of California’s Democratic Party and hosted a salon that was a must-stop for any politician passing through.

She was the chosen successor of Rep. Sala Burton, a short-timer who took over the House seat held for decades by her late husband, Philip, and who delivered a personal benediction from her deathbed.

But at age 49, Pelosi had never held public office — she was too busy raising five kids, on top of all that political moving and shaking — and opponents made light of role as hostess. “The party girl for the party,” they dubbed her, a taunt that blared from billboards around town.

She obviously showed them.

Pelosi not only made history, becoming the nation’s first female speaker of the House. She became the party’s spine and its sinew, holding together the Democrat’s many warring factions and standing firm at times the more timorous were prepared to back down.

The Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s signature achievement — would never have passed if Pelosi had not insisted on pressing on when many, including some in the White House, wished to surrender.

She played a significant role in twice helping rescue the country from economic collapse — the first time in 2009 amid the Great Recession, then in 2020 during the shutdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic — mustering recalcitrant Democrats to ensure House passage.

“She will go down in history as one of the most important speakers,” James Thurber, a congressional expert at Washington’s American University, said. “She knew the rules, she knew the process, she knew the personalities of the key players, and she knew how to work the system.”

Pelosi’s announcement Thursday that she will not seek reelection — at age 85, after 38 years in Congress — came as no surprise. She saw firsthand the ravages that consumed her friend and former neighbor, Dianne Feinstein. (Pelosi’s eldest daughter, Nancy, was a last caretaker for the late senator.)

She was not about to repeat that final, sad act.

Pelosi, who was first elected in 1987, once said she never expected to serve in Congress more than 10 years. She recalled seeing a geriatric House member hobbling on a cane and telling a colleague, “It’s never going to be me. I’m not staying around that long.”

(She never used a cane, but did give up her trademark stiletto heels for a time after suffering a fall last December and undergoing hip replacement surgery.)

Pelosi had intended to retire sooner, anticipating Hillary Clinton would be elected president in 2016 and seeing that as a logical, and fitting, end point to her trailblazing political career. “I have things to do. Books to write; places to go; grandchildren, first and foremost, to love,” she said in a 2018 interview.

However, she was determined to stymie President Trump in his first term and stuck around, emerging as one of his chief nemeses. After Joe Biden was elected, Pelosi finally yielded the speaker’s gavel in November 2022.

But she remained a substantive figure, still wielding enormous power behind the scenes. Among other quiet maneuvers, she was instrumental in helping ease aside Biden after his disastrous debate performance sent Democrats into a panic. He was a personal friend, and long-ago guest at her political salon, but Pelosi anticipated a down-ticket disaster if Biden remained the party’s nominee. So, in her estimation, he had to go.

It was the kind of ruthlessness that gave Pelosi great pride; she boasted of a reptilian cold-bloodedness and, indeed, though she shared the liberal leanings of her hometown, Pelosi was no ideologue. That’s what made her a superb deal-maker and legislative tactician, along with the personal touch she brought to her leadership.

“She had a will of steel, but she also had a lot of grace and warmth,” said Thurber, “and that’s not always the case with speakers.”

History-making aside, Pelosi left an enduring mark on San Francisco, the place she moved to from Baltimore as a young mother with her husband, Paul, a financier and real estate investor. She brought home billions of dollars for earthquake safety, re-purposing old military facilities — the former Presidio Army base is a spectacular park — funding AIDS research and treatment, expanding public transit and countless other programs.

Her work in the 1980s and 1990s on AIDS funding was crucial in helping move discussion of the disease from the shadows — where it was viewed as a plague that mainly struck gay men and drug users — to a pressing national concern.

In the process, she become a San Francisco institution, as venerated as the Golden Gate Bridge and beloved as the city’s tangy sourdough bread.

“She’s an icon,” said Aaron Peskin, a former San Francisco County supervisor and 2024 candidate for mayor. “She walks into a room, people left, right and center, old, young, white, Black, Chinese stand on their feet. She’s one of the greatest speakers we have ever had and this town understands that.”

Pelosi grew up in Baltimore in a political family. He father, Tommy D’Alesandro, was a Democratic New Deal congressman, who went on to serve three terms as mayor. “Little Nancy” stuffed envelopes — as her own children would — passed out ballots and often traveled by her father’s side to campaign events. (D’Alesandro went on to serve three terms as mayor; Pelosi’s brother, Tommy III, held the job for a single term.)

David Axelrod, who saw Pelosi up close while serving as a top aide in the Obama White House, said he once asked her what she learned growing up in such a political household. “She didn’t skip a beat,” Axelrod said. “She said, ‘I learned how to count.’ ”

Meaning when to call the roll on a key legislative vote and when to cut her losses in the face of inevitable defeat.

Pelosi is still so popular in San Francisco she could well have eked out yet another reelection victory in 2026, despite facing the first serious challenge since that first run for Congress. But the campaign would have been brutal and potentially quite ugly.

More than just about anyone, Pelosi knows how to read a political situation with dispassion, detachment and cold-eyed calculation.

She knew it was time.

Republican infighting crescendoed in the aftermath of California voters overwhelmingly approving Democratic-friendly redistricting plan this week that may undercut the GOP’s control of Congress and derail President Trump’s polarizing agenda.

The state GOP chairwoman was urged to resign and former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the state’s independent redistricting commission, was called “cowardly” by one top GOP leader for not being more involved in the campaign.

Leaders of the Republican-backed committees opposing the ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, were questioned about how they spent nearly $58 million in the special election after such a dismal outcome.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the once prodigious Republican fundraiser, reportedly vowed earlier in the campaign that he could raise $100 million for the opposition but ended up delivering a small fraction of that amount.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, called on state GOP chair Corrin Rankin to step down and faulted other Republican leaders and longtime party operatives for the ballot measure’s failure, calling them “derelict of duty and untrustworthy and incompetent.”

“Unless serious changes are made at the party, the midterms are going to be a complete disaster,” DeMaio said, also faulting the other groups opposing the effort. “We need accountability. There needs to be a reckoning because otherwise the lessons won’t be learned. The old guard needs to go. The old guard has failed us too many times. This is the latest failure.”

Rankin pushed back against the criticism, saying the state party was the most active GOP force in the final stretch of the election. Raising $11 million during the final three weeks of the campaign, the party spent it on mailers, digital ads and text messages, as well as organizing phone banks and precinct walking, she said.

Former Speaker of the House and California Republican Kevin McCarthy speaks to the press at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 19, 2023.

(Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images)

“We left it all on the field,” Rankin said Wednesday morning at a Sacramento press conference about a federal lawsuit California Republicans filed arguing that Proposition 50 is unconstitutional. “We were the last man standing … to reach out to Republicans and make sure they turned out.”

Responding to criticism that their effort was disorganized, including opposition campaign mailers being sent to voters who had already cast ballots, Rankin said the party would conduct a post-election review of its efforts. But she added that she was extremely proud of the work her team did in the “rushed special election.”

Barring successful legal challenges, the new California congressional districts enacted under Proposition 50 will go into effect before the 2026 election. The new district maps favor Democratic candidates and were crafted to unseat five Republican incumbents, which could erase Republicans’ narrow edge in the the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Democrats win control of the body, Trump policy agenda will likely be stymied and the president and members of his administration cold face multiple congressional investigations.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats proposed Proposition 50 in response to Trump urging elected officials in Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to the House next year.

The new California congressional boundaries voters approved Tuesday could give Democrats the opportunity to pick up five seats in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

Proposition 50 will change how California determines the boundaries of congressional districts. The measure asked voters to approve new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission.

Some Republicans lamented that Schwarzenegger was not more involved in the election. The movie star championed the creation of the independent commission in 2010, his final year in office. He campaigned for the creation of similar bodies to fight partisan drawing of district lines across the nation after leaving office.

Shawn Steel, one of California’s three representatives on the Republican National Committee, called Schwarzenegger “a cowardly politician.”

“Arnold decided to sit it out,” Steel said. “Arnold just kind of raised the flag and immediately went under the desk.”

Steel said that the former governor failed to follow through on the messages he repeatedly delivered about the importance of independent redistricting.

“He could have had his name on the ballot as a ballot opponent,” Steel said. “He turned it down. So I’d say, with Arnold, just disappointing, but not surprised. That’s his political legacy.”

Schwarzenegger’s team pushed back at this criticism as misinformed.

“We were clear from the beginning that he was not going to be a part of the campaign and was going to speak his mind,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesman for the former governor. “His message was very clear and non-partisan. When one campaign couldn’t even criticize gerrymandering in Texas, it was probably hard for voters to believe they actually cared about fairness.”

Schwarzenegger spoke out against Proposition 50 a handful of times during the election, including at an appearance at USC that was turned into a television ad by one of the anti-Proposition 50 committees that appeared to go dark before election day.

On election day, he emailed followers about gut health, electrolytes, protein bars, fitness and conversations to increase happiness. There was no apparent mention of the Tuesday election.

The Democratic-led California Legislature in August voted to place Proposition 50 on the November ballot, costing nearly $300 million, and setting off a sprint to Tuesday’s special election.

The opponents were vastly outspent by the ballot measure’s supporters, who contributed nearly $136 million to various efforts. That financial advantage, combined with Democrats’ overwhelming edge in voter registration in California, were main contributors to the ballot measure’s success. When introduced in August, Proposition 50 had tepid support and its prospects appeared uncertain.

Nearly 64% of the nearly 8.3 million voters who cast ballots supported Proposition 50, while 36% opposed it as of Wednesday night, according to the California Secretary of State’s office.

In addition to the state Republican Party, two main campaign committees opposed Proposition 50, including the one backed by McCarthy. A separate group was funded by more than $32 million from major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire who was Warren Buffet’s right-hand man, and who bankrolled the creation of the independent congressional redistricting commission in 2010.

Representatives of the two committees, who defended their work Tuesday night after the election was called moments after the polls closed, saying they could not overcome the vast financial disadvantage and that the proposition’s supporters must be held to their promises to voters such as pushing for national redistricting reform, did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Wednesday.

Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50 had prominent Democrats stumping for the effort, including former President Obama starring in ads supporting the measure.

That’s in stark contrast to the opposition efforts. Trump was largely absent, possibly because he is deeply unpopular among Californians and the president does not like to be associated with losing causes.

On Tuesday, I voted for the first time. Not for a president, not in a midterm, but in the California special election to counter Texas Republicans’ gerrymandering efforts. What makes this dynamic particularly fascinating is that both parties are betting on the same demographic — Latino voters.

For years, pundits assumed Latinos were a lock for Democrats. President Obama’s 44-point lead with these voters in 2012 cemented the narrative: “Shifting demographics” (shorthand for more nonwhite voters) would doom Republicans.

But 2016, and especially the 2024 elections, shattered that idea. A year ago, Trump lost the Latino vote by just 3 points, down from 25 in 2020, according to Pew. Trump carried 14 of the 18 Texas counties within 20 miles of the border, a majority-Latino region. The shift was so significant that Texas Republicans, under Trump’s direction, are redrawing congressional districts to suppress Democratic representation, betting big that Republican gains made with Latinos can clinch the midterms in November 2026.

To counter Republican gerrymanders in Texas, Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats pushed their own redistricting plans, hoping to send more Democrats to the House. They too are banking on Latino support — but that’s not a sure bet.

Imperial County offers a cautionary tale. This border district is 86% Latino, among the poorest in California, and has long been politically overlooked. It was considered reliably blue for decades; since 1994, it had backed every Democratic presidential candidate until 2024, when Trump narrowly won the district.

Determined to understand the recent shift, during summer break I traveled in Imperial County, interviewing local officials in El Centro, Calexico and other towns. Their insights revealed that the 2024 results weren’t just about immigration or ideology; they were about leadership, values and, above all, economics.

“It was crazy. It was a surprise,” Imperial County Registrar of Voters Linsey Dale told me. She pointed out that the assembly seat that represents much of Imperial County and part of Riverside County flipped to Republican.

Several interviewees cited voters’ frustration with President Biden’s age and Kamala Harris’ lack of visibility. In a climate of nostalgia politics, many Latino voters apparently longed for what they saw as the relative stability of the pre-pandemic Trump years.

Older Latinos, in particular, were attracted to the GOP’s rhetoric around family and tradition. But when asked about the top driver of votes, the deputy county executive officer, Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter, told me: “It wasn’t immigration. It was the economic hardship and inflation.”

Republicans winning over voters on issues such as cost of living, particularly coming out of pandemic-era recession, makes sense, but I am skeptical of the notion that Latino voters are fully realigning themselves into a slate of conservative positions.

Imperial voters consistently back progressive economic policies at the ballot box and hold a favorable view of local government programs that deliver tangible help such as homebuyer assistance, housing rehabilitation and expanded healthcare access. In the past, even when they have supported Democratic presidential candidates, they have voted for conservative ballot measures and Republican candidates down the ticket. Imperial voters backed Obama by a wide margin but also supported California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. This mix of progressive economics and conservative values is why Republican political consultant Mike Madrid describes Latino partisanship as a “weak anchor.”

The same fluidity explains why many Latinos who rallied behind Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2020 later voted for Trump in 2024. Both men ran as populists, promising to challenge the establishment and deliver economic revival. For Latinos, it wasn’t about left or right; it was about surviving.

The lesson for both parties in California, Texas and everywhere is that no matter how lines are drawn, no district should be considered “safe” without serious engagement.

It should go without saying, Latino voters are not a monolith. They split tickets and vote pragmatically based on lived economic realities. Latinos are the youngest and fastest-growing demographic in the U.S., with a median age of 30. Twenty-five percent of Gen Z Americans are Latino, myself among them. We are the most consequential swing voters of the next generation.

As I assume many other young Latino voters do, I approached my first time at the ballot box with ambivalence. I’ve long awaited my turn to participate in the American democratic process, but I could never have expected that my first time would be to stop a plot to undermine it. And yet, I feel hope.

The 2024 election made it clear to both parties that Latinos are not to be taken for granted. Latino voters are American democracy’s wild card — young, dynamic and fiercely pragmatic. They embody what democracy should be: fluid, responsive and rooted in lived experience. They don’t swear loyalty to red or blue; they back whoever they think will deliver. The fastest-growing voting bloc in America is up for grabs.

Francesca Moreno is a high school senior at Marlborough School in Los Angeles, researching Latino voting behavior under the guidance of political strategist Mike Madrid.

WASHINGTON — As the federal shutdown has dragged on to become the longest in American history, President Trump has shown little interest in talks to reopen the government. But Republican losses on election day could change that.

Trump told Republican senators at the White House on Wednesday that he believed the government shutdown “was a big factor” in the party’s poor showing against the Democrats in key races.

“We must get the government back open soon, and really immediately,” Trump said, adding that he would speak privately with the senators to discuss what he would like to do next.

The president’s remarks are a departure from what has largely been an apathetic response from him about reopening the government. With Congress at a stalemate for more than a month, Trump’s attention has mostly been elsewhere.

He spent most of last week in Asia attempting to broker trade deals. Before that, much of his focus was on reaching a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas and building a $300-million White House ballroom.

To date, Trump’s main attempt to reopen the federal government has been calling on Republican leaders to terminate the filibuster, a long-running Senate rule that requires 60 votes in the chamber to pass most legislation. Trump wants to scrap the rule — the so-called nuclear option — to allow Republicans in control of the chamber to push through legislation with a simple-majority vote.

“If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” Trump told the GOP senators and warned that with the rule in place, the party would be viewed as “do-nothing Republicans” and get “killed” in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump’s push to end the shutdown comes as voters are increasingly disapproving of his economic agenda, according to recent polls. The trend was reinforced Tuesday as voters cast ballots with economic concerns as their main motivation, an AP poll showed. Despite those indicators, Trump told a crowd at the American Business Forum in Miami on Wednesday that he thinks “we have the greatest economy right now.”

While Trump has not acknowledged fault in his economic agenda, he has began to express concern that the ongoing shutdown may be hurting Republicans. Those concerns have led him to push Republicans to eliminate the filibusters, a move that has put members of his party in a tough spot.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has resisted the pressure, calling the filibuster an “important tool” that keeps the party in control of the chamber in check.

The 60-vote threshold allowed Republicans to block a “whole host of terrible Democrat policies” when they were in the minority last year, Thune said in an interview Monday with Fox News Radio’s “Guy Benson Show.”

“I shudder to think how much worse it would’ve been without the legislative filibuster,” he said. “The truth is that if we were to do their dirty work for them, and that is essentially what we would be doing, we would own all the crap they are going to do if and when they get the chance to do it.”

Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said last week he is a “firm no on eliminating it.”

“The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t,” Curtis said in a social media post.

As the government shutdown stretched into its 36th day Wednesday, Trump continued to show no interest in negotiating with Democrats, who are refusing to vote on legislation to reopen the government that does not include a deal on healthcare.

Budget negotiations deadlocked as Democrats tried to force Republicans to extend federal healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year. If those credits expire, millions of Americans are expected to see the cost of their premiums spike.

With negotiations stalled, Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he “won’t be extorted” by their demands to extend the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

On Wednesday, Democratic legislative leaders sent a letter to Trump demanding a bipartisan meeting to “end the GOP shutdown of the federal government and decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis.”

“Democrats stand ready to meet with you face to face, anytime and anyplace,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote in a letter to Trump.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Democrats’ letter.

“The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” Schumer told the Associated Press.

Trump’s remarks Wednesday signal that he is more interested in a partisan approach to ending the shutdown.

“It is time for Republicans to do what they have to do and that is to terminate the filibuster,” Trump told GOP senators. “It’s the only way you can do it.”

If Republicans don’t do it, Trump argued Senate Democrats will do so the next time they are in a majority.

Democrats have not signaled any intent to end the filibuster in the future, but Trump has claimed otherwise and argued that it is up to Republicans to “do it first.”

SIR David Beckham celebrated his knighthood with a champagne knees-up — and jam roly-poly.

Best pal Gordon Ramsay hosted the bash at his flagship restaurant in Chelsea, whipping-up a three course meal including a Michelin-star take on Becks’ favourite pud.

The former Manchester United, Real Madrid and England ace carried his medal around with him all night in its souvenir red box.

Guests including his three youngest children Romeo, Cruz and Harper joined his parents, Ted and Sandra, and sister Joanne for beef Wellington — while wife Lady Victoria, who avoids red meat, had sea bass.

They then tucked into roly-poly and custard.

A friend said: “It was a super-lovely, very chilled sit-down dinner with David’s inner circle.

read more on david beckham

go jo

David Beckham’s rarely seen sis Joanne looks incredible at his knighthood party

GOLDEN BOY

Tearful David Beckham opens up to The Sun on ‘surreal’ honour of being knighted

“Gordon took care of the whole thing.

“Becks’ favourite Chateau Margaux — plus a lot of champagne — was flowing.

“Obviously everyone kept making a big deal of calling him ‘Sir David’ and that was the running gag of the night.”

After the Windsor Castle ceremony Sir David, 50, changed into a dapper black velvet tux while Lady Victoria, 51, opted for a slinky black floor length number from her own fashion range.

But there was still no sign of estranged eldest son Brooklyn.

One of the great conceits of California is its place on the cutting edge — of fashion, culture, technology, politics and other facets of the ways we live and thrive.

Not so with Proposition 50.

The redistricting measure, which passed resoundingly Tuesday, doesn’t break any ground, chart a fresh course or shed any light on a better pathway forward.

It is, to use a favorite word of California’s governor, merely the latest iteration of what has come to define today’s politics of fractiousness and division.

In fact, the redistricting measure and the partisan passions it stirred offer a perfect reflection of where we stand as a splintered country: Democrats overwhelming supported it. Republicans were overwhelmingly opposed.

Nothing new or novel about that.

And if Proposition 50 plays out as intended, it could make things worse, heightening the country’s polarization and increasing the animosity in Washington that is rotting our government and politics from the inside out.

You’re welcome.

The argument in favor of Proposition 50 — and it’s a strong one — is that California was merely responding to the scheming and underhanded actions of a rogue chief executive who desperately needs to be checked and balanced.

The only apparent restraint on President Trump’s authoritarian impulse is whether he thinks he can get away with something, as congressional Republicans and a supine Supreme Court look the other way.

With GOP control of the House hanging by the merest of threads, Trump set out to boost his party’s prospects in the midterm election by browbeating Texas Republicans into redrawing the state’s congressional lines long before it was time. Trump’s hope next year is to gain as many as five of the state’s House seats.

Gov. Gavin Newson responded with Proposition 50, which scraps the work of a voter-created, nonpartisan redistricting commission and changes the political map to help Democrats flip five of California’s seats.

And with that the redistricting battle was joined, as states across the country looked to rejigger their congressional boundaries to benefit one party or the other.

The upshot is that even more politicians now have the luxury of picking their voters, instead of the other way around, and if that doesn’t bother you maybe you’re not all that big a fan of representative democracy or the will of the people.

Was it necessary for Newsom, eyes fixed on the White House, to escalate the red-versus-blue battle? Did California have to jump in and be a part of the political race to the bottom? We won’t know until November 2026.

History and Trump’s sagging approval ratings — especially regarding the economy — suggest that Democrats are well positioned to gain at least the handful of seats needed to take control of the House, even without resorting to the machinations of Proposition 50.

There is, of course, no guarantee.

Gerrymandering aside, a pending Supreme Court decision that could gut the Voting Rights Act might deliver Republicans well over a dozen seats, greatly increasing the odds of the GOP maintaining power.

What is certain is that Proposition 50 will in effect disenfranchise millions of California Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who already feel overlooked and irrelevant to the workings of their home state.

Too bad for them, you might say. But that feeling of neglect frays faith in our political system and can breed a kind of to-hell-with-it cynicism that makes electing and cheering on a “disruptor” like Trump seem like a reasonable and appealing response.

(And, yes, disenfranchisement is just as bad when it targets Democratic voters who’ve been nullified in Texas, North Carolina, Missouri and other GOP-run states.)

Worse, slanting political lines so that one party or the other is guaranteed victory only widens the gulf that has helped turn Washington’s into its current slough of dysfunction.

The lack of competition means the greatest fear many lawmakers have is not the prospect of losing to the other party in a general election but rather being snuffed out in a primary by a more ideological and extreme challenger.

That makes cooperation and cross-party compromise, an essential lubricant to the way Washington is supposed to work, all the more difficult to achieve.

Witness the government shutdown, now in its record 36th day. Then imagine a Congress seated in January 2027 with even more lawmakers guaranteed reelection and concerned mainly with appeasing their party’s activist base.

The animating impulse behind Proposition 50 is understandable.

Trump is running the most brazenly corrupt administration in modern history. He’s gone beyond transgressing political and presidential norms to openly trampling on the Constitution.

He’s made it plain he cares only about those who support him, which excludes the majority of Americans who did not wish to see Trump’s return to the White House.

As if anyone needed reminding, his (patently false) bleating about a “rigged” California election, issued just minutes after the polls opened Tuesday, showed how reckless, misguided and profoundly irresponsible the president is.

With the midterm election still nearly a year off — and the 2028 presidential contest eons away — many of those angry or despondent over the benighted state of our union desperately wanted to do something to push back.

Proposition 50, however, was a shortsighted solution.

Newsom and other proponents said the retaliatory ballot measure was a way of fighting fire with fire. But that smell in the air today isn’t victory.

It’s ashes.

WASHINGTON — Signs of a potential end to the government shutdown intensified Tuesday with behind-the-scenes talks, as the federal closure was on track to become the longest ever disrupting the lives of millions of Americans.

Senators from both parties, Republicans and Democrats, are quietly negotiating the contours of an emerging deal. With a nod from their leadership, the senators seek a way to reopen the government, put the normal federal funding process back on track and devise some sort of resolution to the crisis of expiring health insurance subsidies that are spiking premium costs from coast to coast.

“Enough is enough,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, as he opened the deadlocked chamber.

On day 35 of the federal government shutdown, the record for the longest will be broken after midnight. With SNAP benefits interrupted for millions of Americans depending on federal food aid, hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or working without pay and contracts being delayed, many on and off Capitol Hill say it’s time for it to end. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy predicted there could be chaos in the skies next week if the shutdown drags on and air traffic controllers miss another paycheck. Labor unions put pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.

Election Day is seen as a turning point

Tuesday’s elections provide an inflection point, with off-year governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, along with the mayor’s race in New York that will show voter attitudes, a moment of political assessment many hope will turn the tide. Another test vote Tuesday in the Senate failed, as Democrats rejected a temporary government funding bill.

“We’re not asking for anything radical,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Lowering people’s healthcare costs is the definition of common sense.”

Unlike the earlier shutdown during President Trump’s first term, when he fought Congress in 2018-19 for funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall, the president has been largely absent from this shutdown debate.

Trump threatens to halt SNAP food aid

But on Tuesday, Trump issued a fresh threat, warning he would halt SNAP food aid unless Democrats agree to reopen the government.

SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” Trump said on social media. That seemed to defy court orders to release the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program contingency funds.

His top spokeswoman, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said later that the administration continues to pay out SNAP funding in line with court orders.

With House Speaker Mike Johnson having sent lawmakers home in September, most attention is on the Senate. There, the leadership has outsourced negotiations to a loose group of centrist dealmakers from both parties have been quietly charting a way to end the standoff.

“We pray that today is that day,” said Johnson, R-La., holding his daily process on the empty side of the Capitol.

Contours of a potential deal

Central to any endgame will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House, and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington where Republicans have full control of the government.

First of all, senators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process can be put back on track.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, along with several Democrats, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Chris Coons of Delaware, are among those working behind the scenes.

“The pace of talks have increased,” said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has been involved in conversations.

Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills where there is already widespread bipartisan agreement to fund various aspects of governments, like agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

“I certainly think that that three-bill package is primed to do a lot of good things for the American people,” said Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala, who has also been in talks.

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

White House won’t engage on health care until government reopens

The White House says its position remains unchanged and that Democrats must vote to fund the government until talks over health care can begin. White House officials are in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats, according to a senior White House official. The official was granted anonymity to discuss administration strategy.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of Americans are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of federal subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Republicans, with control of the House and Senate, are reluctant to fund the health care program, also known as Obamacare. But Thune has promised Democrats a vote on their preferred proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government.

That’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

“Trump is a schoolyard bully,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, in an op-ed. “Anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates.”

Moreover, Democrats, and some Republicans, are also pushing for guardrails to prevent the Trump administration’s practice of unilaterally slashing funds for programs that Congress had already approved, by law, the way billionaire Elon Musk did earlier this year at the Department of Government Efficiency.

With the Senate, which is split 53-47, having tried and failed more than a dozen times to advance the House-passed bill over the filibuster, that measure is out of date. It would have funded government to Nov. 21.

Trump has demanded senators nuke the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires a 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation, which preserves minority rights in the chamber. GOP senators panned that demand.

Both Thune and Johnson have acknowledged they will need a new temporary measure. They are eyeing one that skips past the Christmas holiday season, avoiding what often has been a year-end crunch, and instead develop an agreement that would keep government running into the near year, likely January.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Seung Min Kim and Matt Brown contributed to this story.

Independent New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo said President Donald Trump would cut through Democratic rival Zohran Mamdani “like a hot knife through butter” after voting in Manhattan on Tuesday. Cuomo, trailing in polls, warned of a “civil war” in the Democratic Party.

WASHINGTON — One year after Trump retook the White House and set into motion a dramatic expansion of executive power, the Republican president figures prominently in state and local elections being held Tuesday.

The results of those contests — the first general election of Trump’s second term — will be heralded by the victors as either a major repudiation or resounding stamp of approval of his second-term agenda. That’s especially true in high-profile races for Virginia and New Jersey governor, New York City mayor and a California proposition to redraw its congressional district boundaries.

More than half of the states will hold contests on Tuesday. Here’s a look at some of the major statewide and local races on the ballot:

Governors: New Jersey and Virginia

In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli are the nominees to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy. Sherrill is a four-term U.S. representative and former Navy helicopter pilot. Ciattarelli is a former state Assemblyman backed by Trump. In 2021, Ciattarelli came within about 3 percentage points of toppling Murphy.

In Virginia, Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and Democratic former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger look to replace term-limited Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin. While Spanberger has made some efforts to focus on topics other than Trump in stump speeches, the president remained a major topic of conversation throughout the campaign, from comments Earle-Sears made about him in 2022 to some of his more polarizing policies, such as the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill tax and spending cut measure and the widespread dismissal of federal workers, many of whom live in northern Virginia.

Trump was scheduled to participate in telephone rallies for the candidates on Monday night.

As the only gubernatorial races held in the year following a presidential election, the contests have long served as the first major test of voter sentiment toward the party holding the White House. In every race for governor since 1973, one or both states have elected a governor from a party different than that of the sitting president.

New York City Mayor

The race to lead the nation’s largest city features Democratic state legislator Zohran Mamdani, independent candidate and former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

Mamdani’s comfortable victory over Cuomo in the June primary generated excitement from the party’s more progressive wing and apprehension among the party establishment. Party leaders like Gov. Kathy Hochul and U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries eventually endorsed the self-described democratic socialist months after he won the nomination.

The winner will replace outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, who initially sought renomination as a Democrat. After losing the primary Adams opted to run as an independent, but dropped out of the race in September and eventually endorsed Cuomo. In February, the Trump Justice Department asked a court to drop corruption charges against Adams because the case impeded Trump’s “ immigration objectives.” Trump later said he’d like to see both Adams and Sliwa drop out of the race in an effort to defeat Mamdani.

California Proposition 50

California voters will decide a statewide ballot measure that would enact a new congressional map that could flip as many as five Republican-held U.S. House seats to Democratic control.

Proposition 50, championed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is in response to a new Texas map that state Republicans enacted in August as part of Trump’s efforts to keep the U.S. House under Republican control in the 2026 midterms. The Texas plan, which could help Republicans flip five Democratic-held U.S. House seats, has sparked an escalating gerrymandering arms race among states to pass new maps outside of the regular once-a-decade schedule.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be at stake when voters cast Yes or No votes on whether to retain three justices from the high court’s 5-2 Democratic majority.

Partisan control of the court could have major implications for the 2028 presidential race, since justices might be asked to rule on election disputes, as they did in 2020. Spending on Tuesday’s contests is on track to exceed $15 million as Republicans have campaigned to end the majority and Democrats have responded.

If all three justices are ousted, a deadlock in the confirmation process to replace them could result in a court tied at 2-2. An election to fill any vacant seats for full 10-year terms would be held in 2027.

Other notable contests

VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Republican incumbent Jason Miyares seeks a second term against Democrat Jay Jones. Much of the fall campaign has focused on text messages suggesting violence against political rivals that Jones sent in 2022.

TEXAS-18: Sixteen candidates hope to fill a vacant congressional seat previously held by the late Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.

STATE LEGISLATURES: Control of the Minnesota Senate and Virginia House of Delegates is at stake, while New Jersey Democrats defend their 52-28 General Assembly majority.

BALLOT MEASURES: Maine voters will decide statewide questions on voting and a “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence. Texas’ 17 ballot measures include constitutional amendments on parental rights and limiting voting to U.S. citizens. Colorado and Washington also have statewide measures on the ballot.

MAYORS: Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey City and Buffalo will elect new mayors, while incumbents in Atlanta, Minneapolis and Cincinnati seek another term.

Yoon writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 2 (UPI) — Nine people were wounded Sunday in a shooting that erupted at a party being held at a large Airbnb in northern Ohio, authorities said.

Vito Sinopoli, chief of police for Bath Township, located about 26 miles due south of Cleveland, told reporters during a press conference that officers were working to identify the victims.

He said they were a “mix” of adults and youth. At least one suffered a leg injury in a fall, he said, stating they were unsure of how many suffered gunshot wounds.

Their conditions were unknown.

“This kind of violence is unacceptable in our community, and we’re committed to applying all available resources to this investigation,” he said.

Police were notified of the shooting at a residence in the 900 block of Top O Hill Drive at about midnight Saturday.

Officers arrived to find what Sinopoli described as a “chaotic scene” and began administering life-saving aid to the victims, who were then transported to area hospitals.

The shooting disrupted a “large party” at the residence that Sinopoli said had been advertised on social media as a birthday party that was to begin at 9:30 p.m.

Attendees fled when the shots were fired, he said, adding that preliminary information indicates that the majority of the shots were fired on the ground floor.

No arrests have been made. The number of shooters, if more than one, was unknown.

“We don’t have a clear indication yet of the number of individuals who may have been responsible,” he said.

Evidence was being gathered, surveillance was being reviewed and witnesses were being interviewed, he said, while calling on members of the public with information about the shooting, no matter how seemingly insignificant, to contact the authorities.

Police are in contact with Airbnb and the property owner.

There is a zoning prohibition on short-term rentals, such as those offered by Airbnb, Sinopoli said.

“Typically in a situation like this, there’d be a compliance letter issued to the property owner,” he said.

In July 2017, a shooting was reported at an Airbnb in Bath township, resulting in one person sustaining a leg wound.

On Monday, Airbnb announced an “anti-party system” to be in effect for the Halloween weekend.

It said the system uses “machine learning” on bookings to identify potential party risks. Employed last year, the system “deterred” 38,000 people in the United States and 6,300 people in Canada from booking listings over Halloween.

In a statement to ABC News, Airbnb said it was “heartbroken by this senseless act of gun violence.”

“Unauthorized and disruptive gatherings are strictly prohibited on Airbnb and our Safety team acted immediately to remove the account of the individual who deliberately broke rules by booking this stay,” the company said.

According to The Gun Violence Archive, which tallies gun violence across the United States, there have been at least 358 mass shootings involving four or more victims in the country so far this year.

All eyes are on Beijing as the Communist Party of China (CPC) convenes to outline the next five years. These meetings take place amidst heightened trade tensions with Washington and mounting domestic challenges. This fourth plenary session of the CPC Central Committee, known as the “Fourth Plenum,” is a pivotal political event in the country, shaping future policies. The four-day closed-door meeting aims to finalize China’s new Five-Year Plan for 2026-2030, an economic and political roadmap outlining the priorities of the world’s second-largest economy for the coming years. Approximately 370 members of the Central Committee, led by “Xi Jinping,” are participating in the meeting, with expectations of changes in some leadership positions, although details of these changes may not be revealed for several days or weeks. The full details of the plan are expected to be announced during the annual session of the National People’s Congress in March 2026.  Perhaps the most important things for the Chinese leadership at the moment are stability, legitimacy, and continued support. Therefore, it is crucial that they demonstrate their ability to improve the quality of life, as this is the cornerstone of their legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people.

 Many objectives of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) have come to fruition. The assessment of the key economic and social development achievements under the 14th Five-Year Plan, according to my view, is very positive, especially since they have global impacts in many aspects, such as economic growth, new quality productive forces, high-level opening-up, green transition, technological innovation, international cooperation, cultural and academic exchange, etc.

  As China’s 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025) draws to a close, the country has achieved a number of notable accomplishments, including fostering a resilient economy and making tangible strides in technology, manufacturing, economic reform, sustainability, and innovation. The country’s strategic plan has supported the country’s high-quality development, contributing to national progress across various sectors in China. China’s five-year plans are strategic guidance documents that chart the country’s development path over five years and form the overall framework for national planning. China will continue its 15th five-year plan in its opening-up and reform process to achieve more balanced and comprehensive development.

 China’s 15th Five-Year Plan will cover the period from 2026 to 2030. Planning began in December 2023. The plan aims to achieve General Secretary Xi Jinping’s goal of doubling the size of the economy between 2020 and 2035. The recommendations of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) outlined several actionable plans and programs for the national economic and social development of the People’s Republic of China. These plans focus on innovation-driven growth, low-carbon development, and urban-rural integration while deepening social inclusion and addressing the problem of population aging.

 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was held in Beijing from October 20 to 23, 2025. A total of 168 members and 147 alternate members of the Central Committee attended the plenary session. Members of the Standing Committee of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and responsible comrades from relevant departments attended as observers. Some comrades from grassroots units and a number of experts and scholars who were delegates to the 20th CPC National Congress also attended as observers. The plenary session was presided over by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and “Xi Jinping”, General Secretary of the Central Committee, delivered an important speech. The plenary session heard and discussed a work report delivered by Chinese President “Xi Jinping”, in his capacity as General Secretary of the CPC, commissioned by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and approved, after consideration, the “Proposals of the CPC Central Committee on Compiling the 15th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development.” President Xi Jinping made explanations to the plenary session on the draft of the “Proposals.”

 The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China will be held from October 20 to 23, 2025, to discuss proposals for formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan for China’s Economic and Social Development. China has achieved significant achievements during the 14th Five-Year Plan, both domestically and internationally. In the new plan, it will continue its pursuit of high-quality development and strengthen international cooperation to achieve a more prosperous shared future.

The 14th Five-Year Plan focuses on achieving high-quality development, encompassing key areas such as scientific and technological innovation, the green economy, improving living standards, and balanced regional development. China’s achievements during this period were not limited to domestic matters but rather extended their impact to the entire world.

  This year, 2025, marks the conclusion of the implementation of China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025). Chinese authorities recently reviewed the most significant achievements made during this period, a development that received widespread attention from the international community. China’s achievements in innovation during the 14th Five-Year Plan represent a global model of scientific and technological self-reliance. Not only did it increase spending on research and development, but it also succeeded in transforming knowledge into a sustainable, productive, and economic force. This reflects a strategic vision that has made China a leader in the fields of artificial intelligence, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and modern communications. Giant Chinese companies, such as Huawei, Alibaba, Xiaomi, and BYD, have become symbols of this transformation. They have not only succeeded in building global brands but also established integrated innovation systems that blend scientific research with practical application.

 China’s five-year plans have always been an effective tool for driving progress across all sectors. According to my analysis as an Egyptian expert on Chinese politics and the policies of the ruling Communist Party of China, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan is described as “diverse, innovative, and open.” I expect China’s upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan to continue prioritizing technological innovation, artificial intelligence, social welfare, scientific research, the digital economy, and carbon reduction. China’s development model is unique, with its sole goal of ensuring the prosperity of the Chinese people, under the motto “from the people, for the people.” Taking effective measures and prioritizing the protection and improvement of citizens’ livelihoods have been key factors behind China’s rapid development. This Chinese development model has become an inspiring example by transforming human capital into an engine of growth.

  Based on the previous analysis, perhaps what most caught my attention during China’s 14th Five-Year Plan is the significant Chinese focus on the innovation sector at the forefront. Over the past five years, the country’s total investment in research and development (R&D) has reached record levels. By 2024, China’s R&D spending will have increased by about 50 percent, or 1.2 trillion yuan, since the end of the 13th Five-Year Plan period (2016-2020), according to China’s National Development and Reform Commission.

When it comes to Proposition 50, Marcia Owens is a bit fuzzy on the details.

She knows, vaguely, it has something to do with how California draws the boundaries for its 52 congressional districts, a convoluted and arcane process that’s not exactly top of the mind for your average person. But Owens is abundantly clear when it comes to her intent in Tuesday’s special election.

“I’m voting to take power out of Trump’s hands and put it back in the hands of the people,” said Owens, 48, a vocational nurse in Riverside. “He’s making a lot of illogical decisions that are really wreaking havoc on our country. He’s not putting our interests first, making sure that an individual has food on the table, they can pay their rent, pay electric bills, pay for healthcare.”

Peter Arensburger, a fellow Democrat who also lives in Riverside, was blunter still.

President Trump, said the 55-year-old college professor, “is trying to rule as a dictator” and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to stop him.

So, Arensburger said, California voters will do it for them.

Or at least try.

“It’s a false equivalency,” he said, “to say that we need to do everything on an even keel in California, but Texas” — which redrew its political map to boost Republicans — “can do whatever they want.”

Proposition 50, which aims to deliver Democrats at least five more House seats in the 2026 midterm election, is either righteous payback or a grubby power grab.

A reasoned attempt to even things out in response to Texas’ attempt to nab five more congressional seats. Or a ruthless gambit to drive the California GOP to near-extinction.

It all depends on your perspective.

Above all, Proposition 50 has become a political ink-blot test; what many California voters see depends on, politically, where they stand.

Mary Ann Rounsavall thinks the measure is “horrible,” because that’s how the Fontana retiree feels about its chief proponent, Gavin Newsom.

“He’s a jerk,” the 75-year-old Republican fairly spat, as if the act of forming the governor’s name left a bad taste in her mouth. “No one believes anything he says.”

Timothy, a fellow Republican who withheld his last name to avoid online trolls, echoed the sentiment.

“It’s just Gavin Newsom playing political games,” said the 39-year-old warehouse manager, who commutes from West Covina to his job at a plumbing supplier in Ontario. “They always talk about Trump. ‘Trump, Trump, Trump.’ Get off of Trump. I’ve been hearing this crap ever since he started running.”

Riverside and San Bernardino counties form the heart of the Inland Empire. The next-door neighbors are politically purple: more Republican than the state as a whole, but not as conservative as California’s more rural reaches. That means neither party has an upper hand, a parity reflected in dozens of interviews with voters across the sprawling region.

On a recent smoggy morning, the hulking San Bernardino Mountains veiled by a gray-brown haze, Eric Lawson paused to offer his thoughts.

The 66-year-old independent has no use for politicians of any stripe. “They’re all crooks,” he said. “All of them.”

Lawson called Proposition 50 a waste of time and money.

Gerrymandering — the dark art of drawing political lines to benefit one party over another — is, as he pointed out, hardly new. (In fact, the term is rooted in the name of Elbridge Gerry, one of the nation’s founders.)

What has Lawson particularly steamed is the cost of “this stupid election,” which is pushing $300 million.

“We talk and talk and talk and we print money for all this talk,” said Lawson, who lives in Ontario and consults in the auto industry. “But that money doesn’t go where it’s supposed to go.”

Although sentiments were evenly split in those several dozen conversations, all indications suggest that Proposition 50 is headed toward passage Tuesday, possibly by a wide margin. After raising a tidal wave of cash, Newsom last week told small donors that’s enough, thanks. The opposition has all but given up and resigned itself to defeat.

It comes down to math. Proposition 50 has become a test of party muscle and a talisman of partisan faith and California has a lot more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.

Andrea Fisher, who opposes the initiative, is well aware of that fact. “I’m a conservative,” she said, “in a state that’s not very conservative.”

She has come to accept that reality, but fears things will get worse if Democrats have their way and slash California’s already-scanty Republican ranks on Capitol Hill. Among those targeted for ouster is Ken Calvert, a 16-term GOP incumbent who represents a good slice of Riverside County.

“I feel like it’s going to eliminate my voice,” said Fisher, 48, a food server at her daughter’s school in Riverside. “If I’m 40% of the vote” — roughly the percentage Trump received statewide in 2024 — “then we in that population should have fair representation. We’re still their constituents.” (In Riverside County, Trump edged Kamala Harris 49% to 48%.)

Amber Pelland says Proposition 50 will hurt voters by putting redistricting back into the hands of politicians.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Amber Pelland, 46, who works in the nonprofit field in Corona, feels by “sticking it to Trump” — a tagline in one of the TV ads supporting Proposition 50 — voters will be sticking it to themselves. Passage would erase the political map drawn by an independent commission, which voters empowered in 2010 for the express purpose of wrestling redistricting away from self-dealing lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento.

“I don’t care if you hate the person or don’t hate the person,” said Pelland, a Republican who backs the president. “It’s just going to hurt voters by taking the power away from the people.”

Even some backers of Proposition 50 flinched at the notion of sidelining the redistricting commission and undoing its painstaking, nonpartisan work. What helps make it palatable, they said, is the requirement — written into the ballot measure — that congressional redistricting will revert to the commission after the 2030 census, when California’s next set of congressional maps is due to be drafted.

“I’m glad that it’s temporary because I don’t think redistricting should be done in order to give one political party greater power over another,” said Carole, a Riverside Democrat. “I think it’s something that should be decided over a long period and not in a rush.” (She also withheld her last name so her husband, who serves in the community, wouldn’t be hassled for her opinion, she said.)

Texas, Carole suggested, has forced California to act because of its extreme action, redistricting at mid-decade at Trump’s command. “It’s important to think about the country as a whole,” said the 51-year-old academic researcher, “and to respond to what’s being done, especially with the pressure coming from the White House.”

Felise Self-Visnic, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher, agreed.

She was shopping at a Trader Joe’s in Riverside in an orange ball cap that read “Human-Kind (Be Both).” Back home, in her garage-door window, is a poster that reads “No Kings.”

She described Proposition 50 as a stopgap measure that will return power to the commission once the urgency of today’s political upheaval has passed. But even if that wasn’t the case, the Democrat said, she would still vote in favor.

“Anything,” Self-Visnic said, “to fight fascism, which is where we’re heading.”

WASHINGTON — The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

Complex factors for Democrats

Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

Republican-led states press ahead

Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

‘Political tribalism’

Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

“Little Mermaid” star Halle Bailey and her rapper ex-boyfriend DDG decided this week to temporarily put their differences aside in their months-long custody battle over their 1-year-old son, Halo.

The pair of musicians, who dated from 2022 to 2024, agreed to drop their mutual domestic violence restraining order requests and settled on temporary custody terms to co-parent their child, according to a stipulation filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The stipulation, signed by both parties, is a significant development in the exes’ dispute, which came to a head in the summer.

When Bailey (of the “Do It” sister-singer duo Chloë x Halle) and DDG (born Darryl Dwayne Granberry Jr.) announced their split in October 2024, the latter said “we are still best friends and adore each other” and would work to co-parent their son. But tension between the exes surfaced in May after Bailey secured a temporary restraining order alleging the father of her child was abusive throughout their two-year relationship and had continued to behave badly since their breakup. “Darryl has been and continues to be physically, verbally, emotionally, and financially abusive towards me,” she said at the time, according to court documents. Bailey, 25, requested that DDG, 28, be ordered to stay away from her and their son.

Influencer DDG, known for the 2016 single “Balenciaga,” fired back with allegations against Bailey and a request for his own domestic violence restraining order. He accused his ex-girlfriend of “emotional instability and coercive control,” raised concern about her “repeated threats of suicide and self-harm” and alleged instances where she “endangered the child’s safety while in emotional distress.”

Though the stipulation states both Bailey and DDG must “immediately dismiss” their restraining order requests, they can each file new requests in case of future abuse.

Court documents say that Bailey will have physical custody over Halo except on Wednesdays and certain weekends. The stipulation also outlines a custody agreement for birthdays and the upcoming holidays.

The latest court documents also address each parent’s social media use, which proved to be a point of contention after the breakup. Notably, DDG brought baby Halo with him for Twitch star Kai Cenat’s livestream in November 2024.

“Neither party shall post, upload or disseminate on the internet or any social media platforms, photographs, images, and or/information regarding the Minor Child,” court documents say. Friends and family of the two musicians are also barred from posting about Halo. Additionally, neither Bailey nor DDG can “disparage the party publicly” or in the presence of their child, who turns 2 in December.

Bailey was a fan of DDG years before they became an item. After sparking up a romance via social media DMs, the former pair made their red carpet debut at the 2022 BET Awards. The singer was vocal about how she was smitten with DDG, telling Essence the romance was her “first deep, deep, real love.”

Through their time together, the former couple faced their share of ups and downs — including DDG’s diss track about his ex’s starring role in “The Little Mermaid” and some criticism from Bailey’s older sister Ski Bailey.

Halle Bailey currently has more than just family matters on her plate.

She released her debut solo album, “Love?…or Something Like It,” on Friday. Upon announcing the release earlier this month, she said on Instagram that the project is a “story of first love, heartbreak, and everything that comes after.”

Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla and editorial library director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called Monday for state lawmakers to return to Indianapolis for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries, escalating a national fight over midcycle redistricting.

President Trump has ramped up pressure on Republican governors to draw new maps that give the party an easier path to maintain control of the House in the midterms. While Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina have moved quickly to enact new districts and California Democrats are seeking to counter with their own redistricting plan, Indiana lawmakers have been far more hesitant.

Braun called for the General Assembly to convene Nov. 3 for the special session. It’s unclear whether enough of the GOP majority Senate will back new maps.

The White House held multiple meetings with Indiana lawmakers who have held out for months. The legislative leaders kept their cards close as speculation swirled over whether the state known for its more measured approach to Republican politics would answer the redistricting call.

National pressure campaign

Vice President JD Vance first met with Braun and legislative leaders in Indianapolis in August and Trump met privately with state House Speaker Todd Huston and state Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray in the Oval Office weeks later. Vance also spoke to state lawmakers visiting Washington that day.

Vance returned to Indianapolis on Oct. 10 to meet with the governor, as well as the Republican state House and Senate members.

Braun is a staunch ally of Trump in a state the president won by 19 percentage points in 2024. But Indiana lawmakers have avoided the national spotlight in recent years — especially after a 2022 special session that yielded a strict abortion ban. Braun previously said he did not want to call a special session until he was sure lawmakers would back a new map.

“I am calling a special legislative session to protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair,” Braun said in a statement Monday.

Typically, states redraw boundaries of congressional districts every 10 years after the census has concluded. Opponents are expected to challenge any new maps in court.

State lawmakers have the sole power to draw maps in Indiana, where Republicans hold a supermajority in both chambers. Democrats could not stop a special session by refusing to attend, as their peers in Texas briefly did.

Republican opposition to redrawing the maps again

A spokesperson for Bray said last week that the Indiana Senate lacked the votes to pass a new congressional map and she said Monday that the votes are still lacking, casting doubt on whether a special session will achieve Braun’s goals.

With only 10 Democrats in the 50-member Senate, that means more than a dozen of the 40 Republicans oppose the idea. Some state Republican lawmakers have warned that midcycle redistricting can be costly and could backfire politically.

Republicans who vote against redistricting could be forced out of office if their colleagues back primary opponents as punishment for not toeing the party line. Braun’s move to call a special session could force lawmakers who haven’t commented publicly to take a stance.

Indiana’s Republican legislative leaders praised existing boundaries after adopting them four years ago.

“I believe these maps reflect feedback from the public and will serve Hoosiers well for the next decade,” Bray said at the time.

Indiana Senate Democratic Leader Shelli Yoder decried the special session and threatened legal action over any maps passed by the Legislature.

“This is not democracy,” she said in a statement. “This is desperation.”

Redistricting balloons

Democrats only need to gain three seats to flip control of the U.S. House, and redistricting fights have erupted in multiple states.

Some Democratic states have moved to counter Republican gains with new legislative maps. The latest, Virginia, is expected to take up the issue in a special session starting this week.

Republicans outnumber Democrats in Indiana’s congressional delegation 7 to 2, limiting possibilities of squeezing out another seat. But many in the party see it as a chance for the GOP to represent all nine seats.

The GOP would likely target Indiana’s 1st Congressional District, a longtime Democratic stronghold that encompasses Gary and other cities near Chicago in the state’s northwest corner. The seat held by third-term Democratic U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan has been seen by Republicans as a possible pickup in recent elections.

Lawmakers in Indiana redrew the borders of the district to be slightly more favorable toward Republicans in the 2022 election, but did not entirely split it up. The new maps were not challenged in court after they were approved in 2021, not even by Democrats and allies who had opposed the changes boosting GOP standing in the suburbs north of Indianapolis.

Mrvan still won reelection in 2022 and easily retained his seat in 2024.

Republicans could also zero in on Indiana’s 7th Congressional District, composed entirely of Marion County and the Democratic stronghold of Indianapolis. But that option would be more controversial, potentially slicing up the state’s largest city and diluting Black voters’ influence.

Volmert writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The first caller on a telephone town hall with Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, leader of the House’s conservative Freedom Caucus, came ready with a question about the Affordable Care Act. Her cousin’s disabled son is at risk of losing the insurance he gained under that law, the caller said.

“Now she’s looking at two or three times the premium that she’s been paying for the insurance,” said the woman, identified as Lisa from Harford County, Md. “I’d love for you to elucidate what the Republicans’ plan is for health insurance?”

Harris, a seven-term Republican, didn’t have a clear answer. “We think the solution is to try to do something to make sure all the premiums go down,” he said, predicting Congress would “probably negotiate some off-ramp” later.

His uncertainty reflected a familiar Republican dilemma: Fifteen years after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, the party remains united in criticizing the law but divided on how to move forward. That tension has come into sharp focus during the government shutdown as Democrats seize on rising premiums to pressure Republicans into extending expiring subsidies for the law, often referred to as Obamacare.

President Trump and GOP leaders say they’ll consider extending the enhanced tax credits that otherwise expire at year’s end — but only after Democrats vote to reopen the government. In the meantime, people enrolled in the plans are already being notified of hefty premium increases for 2026.

As town halls fill with frustrated voters and no clear Republican plan emerges, the issue appears to be gaining political strength heading into next year’s midterm elections.

“Premiums are going up whether it gets extended or not,” said GOP Sen. Rick Scott. “Premiums are going up because healthcare costs are going up. Because Obamacare is a disaster.”

‘Concepts of a plan’

At the center of the shutdown — now in its fourth week with no end in sight — is a Democratic demand that Affordable Care Act subsidies passed in 2021 be extended.

Trump has long promised an alternative. “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare,” he wrote on Truth Social in November 2023. “I’m seriously looking at alternatives.”

Pressed on healthcare during a September 2024 presidential debate, Trump said he had “concepts of a plan.”

But nearly 10 months into his presidency, that plan has yet to come. Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told NBC on Wednesday, “I fully believe the president has a plan,” but didn’t go into details.

Republicans say they want a broader overhaul of the healthcare system, though such a plan would be difficult to advance before next year. Party leaders have not outlined how they’ll handle the expiring tax credits, insisting they won’t negotiate on the issue until Democrats agree to end the shutdown.

A September analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that permanently extending the tax credits would increase the deficit by $350 billion from 2026 to 2035. The number of people with health insurance would rise by 3.8 million in 2035 if the credits are kept, CBO projected.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told a news conference Monday that the tax credits are “subsidizing bad policy.” Republicans “have a long list of ideas” to address healthcare costs, he said, and are “grabbing the best ideas that we’ve had for years to put it on paper and make it work.”

“We believe in the private sector and the free market and individual providers,” he added.

A growing political issue

With notices of premium spikes landing in mailboxes now and the open enrollment period for Affordable Care Act health plans beginning Nov. 1, the political pressure has been evident in Republican town halls.

In Idaho, Rep. Russ Fulcher told concerned callers that “government-provided healthcare is the wrong path” and that “private healthcare is the right path.” In Texas, freshman Rep. Brandon Gill responded to a caller facing a sharp premium increase by saying Republicans are focused on cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

Harris echoed a message shared by many in his party during his Maryland town hall, saying costs are “just going back to what it was like before COVID.”

But the number of people who rely on Affordable Care Act health insurance has increased markedly since before the pandemic. More than 24 million people were enrolled in the marketplace plans in 2025, up from about 11 million in 2020, according to an analysis from the health care research nonprofit KFF.

Sara from Middleville, Mich., told Rep. John Moolenaar during his town hall that if health insurance premiums go up by as much as 75%, most people will probably go without healthcare. “So how do you address that?” she asked.

Moolenaar, who represents a district he handily won last year, responded: “We have time to negotiate, figure out a plan going forward and I think that’s something that could occur.”

Some Republicans have shown urgent concern. In a letter sent to Johnson, a group of 13 battleground House Republicans wrote that the party must “immediately turn our focus to the growing crisis of health care affordability” once the shutdown ends.

“While we did not create this crisis, we now have both the responsibility and the opportunity to address it,” the lawmakers wrote.

Some Republicans dismiss projections that ACA premiums will more than double without the subsidies, calling them exaggerated and arguing the law has fueled fraud and abuse that must be curbed.

Many Democrats credited their ability to flip the House in 2018 during Trump’s first term to the GOP’s attempt at repealing Obamacare, and they’re forecasting a similar outcome this time.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say they trust the Democrats to do a better job handling healthcare, compared with about one-quarter who trust the Republicans more, a recent AP-NORC poll found. About one-quarter trust neither party, and about 1 in 10 trust both equally, according to the poll.

A looming internal GOP fight

Even as GOP leaders pledge to discuss ending the subsidies when the government opens, it’s clear that many Republican lawmakers are adamantly opposed to an extension.

“At least among Republicans, there’s a growing sense that just maintaining the status quo is very destructive,” said Brian Blase, the president of Paragon Health Institute and a former health policy advisor to Trump during his first term.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said he’s working with multiple congressional offices on alternatives that would let the subsidies end. For example, he wants to expand the Affordable Care Act exemption given to U.S. territories to all 50 states and reintroduce a first-term Trump policy that gave Americans access to short-term health insurance plans outside the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Cannon declined to name the lawmakers he’s working with, but said he hopes they act on his ideas “sooner than later.”

David McIntosh, president of the influential conservative group Club For Growth, told reporters Thursday that the group has “urged the Republicans not to extend those COVID-era subsidies.”

“We have a big spending problem,” McIntosh said.

“I think most people are going to say, OK, I had a great deal during COVID,” he said. “But now it’s back to business as usual, and I should be paying for healthcare.”

Cappelletti and Swenson write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York.

President Trump urged California voters on Sunday not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early in the California election about redistricting — the direct opposite of the message from state GOP leaders.

Repeating his false claim that former President Biden beat him in 2020 because the election was rigged, Trump argued that the November special election about redistricting in California would be rigged, as would the 2026 midterm election to determine control of Congress.

“No mail-in or ‘Early’ Voting, Yes to Voter ID! Watch how totally dishonest the California Prop Vote is! Millions of Ballots being ‘shipped,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “GET SMART REPUBLICANS, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!”

Proposition 50, a ballot measure proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts to boost their party’s ranks in the U.S. House of Representatives, is on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The rare mid-decade redistricting effort was in response to Trump urging GOP-led states, initially Texas, to increase the number of Republicans in the House in the 2026 midterm election to allow him to continue implementing his agenda in his final two years in the White House.

Newsom responded to Trump on X: “Ramblings of an old man that knows he’s going to LOSE.”

Trump has not weighed in on the merits of Proposition 50, while prominent Democrats who support it have, including former President Obama.

More than 4 million mail-in ballots — 18% of the ballots sent to California’s 23 million voters — had been returned as of Friday, according to a vote tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed maps on the ballot. Democrats continue to outpace Republicans in returning ballots, 51% to 28%. Voters registered without a party preference or with other political parties have returned 21% of the ballots.

Early-voting centers also opened in 29 counties on Saturday.

Turnout figures were alarming Republicans leaders before Trump’s message.

“It’s simple. Republicans need to stop complaining and vote. We ask and ask and ask and yet turnout still lags,” the San Diego GOP posted on X. “To win this one GOP turnout needs to be materially better than average. It’s very doable but won’t just happen. Work it.”

Republicans historically voted early while Democrats were more likely to cast ballots on election day. Trump upended this dynamic, creating dissonance with GOP leaders across the nation who recognized the value of banking early votes. And it completely contradicts the messaging by the opponents of Proposition 50.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the state GOP and leader of the “No on Prop. 50 — Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab” committee, has been a longtime proponent of urging Republican voters to cast ballots as early and conveniently as possible.

“Sacramento politicians rushed this costly election for partisan gain, and mistakes have been made,” she said Sunday evening. “If Californians want change from our state’s failed one-party rule, it starts by turning out to vote no on Proposition 50.”