pay

The looming impact of federal Medicaid cuts has reignited a long-simmering, costly battle between California’s medical industry and one of its largest health worker unions.

SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, with about 120,000 members, has put forward two ballot initiatives to cap the pay of medical executives and require community clinics to spend the bulk of their revenues on patient care.

The California Hospital Assn. has responded with its own ballot proposal that would make it tougher for unions to spend money on political initiatives in the future. It would require approval by a union’s rank-and-file membership for any spending of $1 million or more on statewide measures, or $100,000 or more on local ones.

The competing measures, which have drawn enough verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot, come at a time when the rising cost of healthcare is emerging as a top voter concern.

The Service Employees International Union affiliate has seized upon affordability angst to resurrect a proposal for a cap on healthcare executive compensation, which it has failed to achieve multiple times before. The proposed measure garnered more than 1 million petition signatures.

“This initiative reflects the serious crisis we face and that affordability is a real thing,” said Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based healthcare think tank. “I think it also reflects grassroots anger and a desire to do something.”

Mikey Vaughn, a certified nursing assistant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said the hospital often lacks supplies and staffing levels that he and his colleagues need in order to do their jobs effectively and without undue stress, despite its reputation as the go-to place for the rich and famous.

“The executive pay initiative would, I hope, be used to hire staff and to actually provide better resources for our patients,” he said. Vaughn is also a member of SEIU-UHW’s executive board and political committee.

Thomas Priselac, then-president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, made $8.8 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filing. Kaiser Permanente’s CEO, Gregory Adams, made nearly $13 million in 2024. Warner Thomas, head of Sutter Health, made just under $12 million.

Cedars-Sinai spokesperson Duke Helfand said the hospital would be unable to recruit and retain physicians, nurses, and specialists if the measure passed, dramatically impairing its ability to provide healthcare.

“Such a scenario would be disastrous not only for Cedars-Sinai but for hospitals across Los Angeles and California,” Helfand said.

The union wants to cap compensation at $450,000 a year for senior hospital and medical group executives, as well as other administrative and managerial staff. However, the initiative does not stipulate how dollars diverted from payroll must be spent.

The union has dubbed the latest proposal the Health Care Executive Compensation Act of 2026. A coalition of medical industry heavyweights opposing it — hospitals, physicians, and clinics, among others — has rebranded it the Health Care Endangerment Act.

Carmela Coyle, CEO of the hospital association, called the measure a cynical political ploy.

“It’s bad policy and it’s going to have bad consequences across California,” she said.

Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California, said even if the initiative were fully implemented and pay cuts enacted, he doubts it would reduce the cost of healthcare for patients.

SEIU-UHW does not have an estimated total amount the initiative would claw back from pay packages that exceed the limit.

Opponents of the initiative note that it doesn’t just target executive pay; it would affect medical practitioners who are also managers. That could include chief medical officers and chief nursing officers, as well as heads of surgery, emergency rooms, oncology, obstetrics, cardiology and other specialties, they say.

It would be up to each hospital, health system and physician group to report which staff members exceed the cap and by how much.

Ultimately, who is subject to the pay cap “probably will have to be battled out in court,” Coyle said . “That’s why we are throwing everything we can at it.”

The second SEIU-UHW ballot initiative, on community clinics, is already in court. The California Primary Care Assn., which represents clinics, filed a federal lawsuit in April seeking to invalidate it before it reaches the November ballot.

The proposed measure would require federally designated community clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenues on activities directly related to their mission of providing care for low-income populations. If it were to pass, more than 90% of those clinic organizations would be on the hook for penalties totaling $1.7 billion in the first year alone and “would face similarly crippling penalties every year,” according to a report commissioned by the primary care association and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, an international consulting company.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County, said many pivotal services the clinics provide — such as translation and transportation — would likely not be counted toward the spending requirement.

“They are targeting a group of what they see as employers and we see as the safety net,” she said.

The lawsuit cites the harm to clinics and claims the proposed spending requirement would interfere with federal authority.

Renée Saldaña, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, characterized the lawsuit against the initiative as “a really desperate attempt by the clinic industry to try and avoid accountability.”

SEIU-UHW, proud of its political activism, is also behind a controversial billionaire tax proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on California residents with fortunes over $1 billion to backfill the funding gap created by federal cuts coming down the pike under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law, passed last July and signed by President Trump, is projected to squeeze nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid health coverage program for low-income people by 2034, including as much as $30 billion annually in California.

The hospital association, the community clinic group and the California Medical Assn., which represents physicians, are neutral on the wealth tax proposal thus far. But Saldaña said all three of the union’s ballot proposals tie into an overarching strategy to counter the widening healthcare disparities caused by the federal law.

“We believe the primary concern of healthcare providers, including executives, should be to serve the community, heal patients, and not be in healthcare just to enrich themselves,” she said on the proposed pay cap.

Over the years, the union has submitted dozens of local and statewide ballot initiatives, including ones to cap the pay of hospital executives, regulate dialysis clinics, and raise the minimum wage of healthcare workers.

The hospital association calculates that SEIU-UHW has spent nearly $125 million on local and statewide initiatives since 2012. But healthcare industry groups have spent far more opposing them. The hospital association data shows that the union spent nearly $36 million on three ballot proposals to regulate the dialysis industry, but dialysis companies poured in $302 million to defeat them, according to state campaign finance records.

The union’s ongoing political efforts “threaten patient access to quality health care,” according to the hospital association’s ballot initiative, which could limit how much unions spend on future ballot measures.

Saldaña hinted at a possible lawsuit should that measure pass, saying “we don’t see the legal viability” of it. The proposal, she said, is an attempt “to silence the front-line healthcare workers.”

Ultimately, a ballot initiative won’t cure the ills that plague healthcare in the United States, said the Lown Institute’s Saini. What’s needed, he said, is “an evaluation and reimagination of healthcare.”

Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

The new season of Clarkson’s Farm revealed the Top Gear star is losing money from his Diddly Squat project, but how much did he pay for it initially?

He famously only made £144 profit in his first year of farming.

Jeremy Clarkson is back on screens with a fifth season of Clarkson’s Farm, which premiered last week and will return with two more episodes on Wednesday, 10th June.

In the latest instalment of Prime Video’s hit series, Jeremy takes farming to the next level with an awe-inspiring self-driving tractor which even Kaleb Cooper reluctantly admitted was rather impressive.

However, despite his pub The Farmer’s Dog being fully booked every day, Jeremy is still struggling to turn a profit and recorded a loss of more than £8000.

But how much money is the entire project bringing in and how much did Jeremy pay for the farm initially?

Let’s take a look at fans’ burning financial questions ahead of Clarkson’s Farm returning for episodes five and six later this week.

How much did Jeremy Clarkson pay for Diddly Squat?

Although the series started in 2021, Jeremy has actually owned Diddly Squat Farm since 2008.

According to the Daily Mail, he bought it for an eye-watering sum of £4.45 million.

The 1000-acre Cotswolds farm was originally known as Curdle Hill Farm before Jeremy renamed it to reflect his prediction for how much his latest project would earn.

He told The Times about his surprising purchase: “Land is a better investment than any bank can offer. The Government doesn’t get any of my money when I die. And the price of the food that I grow can only go up.”

Jeremy didn’t go full-time on the farm until 2019, however, after former manager Howard Pauling had retired.

How much is Diddly Squat worth now?

Diddly Squat Farm has steadily increased in value since its original purchase in 2008, partly thanks to the luxurious six-bedroom mansion built on the site of the demolished previous home.

All in all, the farm is currently estimated to be worth a staggering £12.5 million, which also includes the land, the farm shop and the café.

Meanwhile, The Farmer’s Dog pub was bought by Jeremy in 2023 for £1 million.

Although it’s unclear how much Jeremy’s refurbishments have increased the pub’s worth, they sadly reported a loss of £8,486 in its first four months of trading.

Jeremy and the cast and crew earn most of their money from their salaries for producing the show, which are kept under wraps.

Reports from 2024 indicated the farm’s assets are worth around £1.43 million, though its profits are usually in the low hundreds if they make any at all.

Get 30 days of Prime Video totally free

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£8.99

£0

Amazon

Get Prime Video here

TV lovers can get 30 days’ free access to binge great shows like Clarkson’s Farm by signing up to Amazon Prime. Just remember to cancel at the end and you won’t be charged.

“I could sell the farm and earn far more from the interest than I do from growing bread and beer and vegetable oil,” Jeremy admitted.

“But I like having it and for very good reasons, there are no death duties on farmland. So my children like me having it too.”

Clarkson’s Farm season 5 continues Wednesday on Prime Video.

The Japanese government will pay you £14,000 to move to its beautiful countryside as part of a relocation scheme aimed at repopulating remote areas of the country

Everyone needs a change every now and then, and for some, this could be the perfect opportunity. The Japanese government has announced a relocation scheme under which families could be paid up to ¥3,000,000 (around £14,000) to move to the countryside.

The scheme has been created to repopulate more remote areas of the country, as more than 37% of the population live in the three major metropolitan areas of Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya. A statement from Akiya Japan reads: “The Ministry of Internal Affairs projects that nearly half of Japan’s 1,700+ municipalities could become ‘functionally extinct’ by 2040. The subsidy is the carrot. The stick is demographic reality.”

The eligibility criteria are the same for both Brits and Japanese citizens and are based on where an applicant has lived and worked, rather than their nationality.

A statement adds: “A foreign national who has lived and commuted in the Greater Tokyo Area for 5+ years and holds an appropriate visa (work visa, spouse visa, permanent residency) qualifies on the same terms as a Japanese citizen.”

Sharing news of the scheme on social media, TikTok user @quinn__jp said: “This isn’t a joke. Japan is actually paying people to move to the countryside.

“Here’s how foreigners can benefit too. In many rural towns, you can get up to 600,000 yen if you move solo and up to 1 million per child, plus relocation grants if you’re moving as a family.

“That makes a big dent in your moving and settling costs. Across over 1,300 towns, around 80% of local districts, you’ll find the Akiya Bank, with empty houses listed for zero yen or at very low prices.

“Some free houses need lots of renovation, but many municipalities offer subsidies and renovation support through programmes like Chiiki Okoshi and the Regional Vitalization Cooperator programme.

“You can get placed in local roles, anything from running a guest house to agri-tech positions, with housing and visa guidance included.

“Japan needs people, and fast. With urban migration and population decline, local governments are desperate to attract newcomers with homes, jobs and cash.”

However, there are some practical barriers, including an expectation that applicants understand the Japanese language.

Visa implications can also be complex, while renovation loans and mortgage products may be harder to access for non-permanent residents. However, the subsidies help offset these challenges by reducing the amount that needs financing.

Commenting on the post, one user said: “I’d definitely move to Japan if I had some sort of online income (a safety net) like most influencers have.”

Another user added: “I want to move there so bad but I’m scared and I don’t have my passport.”

A third said: “My dream is to get an old house in Japan and trust me it’s not that easy. Currently looking for any place who’d hire me so I can move there on a work visa.”

Three weeks on from when Lee went ‘missing’ after failing to arrive in the UK for a joint interview with Katie, here is what we know.

Last night Katie shared a video filmed inside a car where she discussed the effects of CBD oil. The view from the car appeared to show that the star was warmer climes in a foreign country, which would line up with the recent snaps taken of Katie at Gatwick Airport with a huge suitcase and her engagement ring firmly on her finger.

She revealed on Facebook that she is set to travel to Dubai to try and visit him in prison, but added: “I don’t know if I’m going to see Lee or I’m not when I get there and it’s a really weird feeling.”

Lee told Katie he was in Al Awir prison, also known as “Dubai Alcatraz” in a brief phone call last week, as he claims he was detained after being mistaken for a spy. It has not been confirmed by Dubai authorities that he is in prison, or was in fact charged with espionage.

While he has allegedly been in prison, he has unfollowed and followed Katie – the only person he follows on Instagram. His account also followed a woman dubbed “biker babe” who used to be on a millionaire matchmaker site, but she appears to have ultimately blocked his account.

The phone call about Lee’s whereabouts came after he’d been “missing” for almost two weeks, with Katie telling fans that her husband had been “kidnapped” and she had to get Interpol involved after as he was being taken to a “black site”.

Since this ordeal began in May, Katie has faced criticism for using Lee’s alleged arrest as a PR stunt to promote her CBD oil collaboration and her music. She has also been met with sympathy from fans who believe she had no involvement and is being “conned” by her husband.

Muhammad Ali’s legacy extends far beyond his world titles and Olympic gold, his widow has said, as his hometown prepares to mark 10 years since the boxing icon’s death with a global “Day of Compassion”.

Ali, who died on June 3, 2016, after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease, is being honored this week at the Muhammad Ali Center in Louisville, which is encouraging people worldwide to mark Wednesday’s anniversary with acts of service and care.

“He transcended boxing into every space you can imagine,” Lonnie Ali said in an interview at the centre. “Muhammad lived by this mantra: Service to others is the rent we pay for our room here on Earth.

“He showed up every day with kindness and empathy in his heart for people who are in need.”

Known in his hometown as the “Louisville Lip”, Ali rose from a modest background to become a three-time heavyweight champion and 1960 Olympic gold medallist.

As his fame grew in the 1960s, he became an outspoken voice on civil rights and the Vietnam War, cementing his status as one of the most influential athletes of all time.

The Ali Center, where Lonnie Ali serves as lifetime director, hopes the “Day of Compassion” will grow into an annual event highlighting volunteerism and service.

“The day will focus on one of the core values that made up Muhammad Ali,” she said, warning that the United States is “losing touch with our humanity and with each other”.

“We’re becoming increasingly polarised and separated, and sort of retreating to people who think like us, look like us – and not really reaching out,” she added.

Lonnie Ali also challenged political leaders to “lead with compassion”, criticising moves that have weakened the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. “We should always be thinking about how we can uplift a community, not how we can make it harder for them.

“You can’t have equal representation when you’re denying people voting rights,” she said.

She said she still draws hope from how Louisville came together during a weeklong celebration of Ali’s life in 2016, when thousands lined the streets as his funeral procession passed his childhood home and millions watched the service online.

A decade later, Ali’s face now appears on a US postage stamp – another sign, she said, that his message of courage, faith, and service still resonates “from kings and princes to ordinary fans who never met him, but felt they knew his heart”.

BLAKE Lively has demanded that Justin Baldoni pay her “significant” damages – with the pair now facing a potential mini-trial despite reaching a settlement earlier this month.

The actress claimed in court docs that Baldoni, her co-star and director on the movie It Ends With Us, should be covering her legal fees after suing her.

The star also said she was owed legal fees, costs, treble damages – with punitive damages on top, according to court docs.

Lively had previously sued Baldoni for £119million in damages in 2024 for alleged sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us – which he denied.

In April this year, a judge dismissed most of her case and weeks later both sides reached a settlement with no money changing hands.

Now, Lively wants Baldoni to pay her for his own failed counter-lawsuit, in which he demanded £300million for defaming him.

MET MADNESS

Beyonce steals show at Met Gala but Blake Lively makes shock return

IT ENDS WITH THEM

Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni ‘settle bitter legal battle’ after 2 years

A judge dismissed his case last year and Lively says in court docs that because she won, Baldoni has to pay up.

During a hearing at a court in New York on Monday, Judge Lewis Liman told Lively’s lawyers to consider dropping their claims.

He said: “Your client does have the ability to end this.”

But Lively’s lawyer said she was entitled to the money and said he would be calling experts to testify in what could be a mini-trial.

Neither Lively, who is married to Deadpool star Ryan Reynolds, nor Baldoni were in court for the hearing.

Speaking after the session, Lively’s lawyer Sigrid McCawley said her film star client would be seeking “very significant” damages.

The actress’ “reputation was harmed” as was her livelihood, McCawley said.

Lively’s trial would have been taking place this week – had the case not been thrown out.

Her former BFF, Taylor Swift, was set to be one of the big names likely involved in the trial.

Lively had alleged in court docs that Baldoni added unscripted kisses to a dance scene in the movie It Ends With Us.

Lively plays a florist in the movie, while Baldoni portrays her character’s abusive neurosurgeon boyfriend.

Baldoni denied Lively’s claims, and the court dismissed most of them – including conspiracy, sexual harassment, and defamation.

Lively’s complaint allegations included the film producer being accused of going into Lively’s trailer while she was topless and breastfeeding her baby.

Lively, 38, initially filed her complaint against It Ends With Us director Baldoni, 42, in December 2024.

The star claimed in the filings that she had lost $161million as a result of the fallout.

Philadelphia’s Edmundo Sosa sauntered out of the box, motioning with one hand in a pump-wave in front of 51,794 Dodgers fans. The left fielder, who had taken over for Brandon Marsh in the top of the sixth, connected on a four-seam fastball that Dodgers reliever Tanner Scott left too far over the plate for a two-run home run that put the Phillies ahead.

The Dodgers had been playing with fire all night, but they couldn’t regain momentum after Scott’s struggles, losing to the Phillies 4-3 to set up a Sunday series rubber match.

The Dodgers (37-21) started strong, with pitcher Roki Sasaki giving up just three hits and one earned run over 5⅓ innings.

Sasaki’s elevated velocity posed early concerns for the Dodgers as he struggled more with his command. The right-hander crossed the 100-mph threshold for the first time this season on two pitches: a 100.4mph four-seam to J.T. Realmuto and another fastball, this time 100.1mph, to Kyle Schwarber.

Three of his four pitches — the four-seam, slider and splitter — averaged at least 1.2 mph faster than his yearly average. As a result, he struggled with location. Neither his slider and splitter hit the zone more than 45% of the time. Even his fastball hit the strike zone a mere 55%.

Dodgers manager Dave Roberts warned about this scenario when Sasaki’s fastball had only reached an upper limit of 99.5 mph.

“I think now the velo is certainly in a good spot,” Roberts said before the game. “I do believe that if he wanted to throw 100 miles an hour, he could do that, but it wouldn’t be where he needed to throw it.”

Dodgers starting pitcher Roki Sasaki delivers during the first inning Saturday against the Phillies.

(Mark J. Terrill / Associated Press)

Still, the Phillies (30-28) struggled to generate consistent momentum despite Sasaki’s location problems. Phillies third baseman Alec Bohm hammered a four-seam fastball that skimmed the top of the strike zone over the center field wall. The rest of the Phillies lineup ended most of their at-bats with little luck, striking out seven times and walking only once.

Roberts pulled Sasaki with runners on first and second in the sixth. Left-hander Alex Vesia walked Bryce Harper but escaped a one-out, bases-loaded jam by striking out Sosa and forcing Alec Bohm into a ground out to third.

By then, the Dodgers had already established a lead. Alex Call put them on the board in the second on a poked single through the gap between second and short. In the fourth, Call reached third on a double and throwing error from Adolis García. Santiago Espinal hit a sacrifice fly to deep center field, driving in Call.

Mookie Betts also found his footing after he went 0 for 3 on Friday. The shortstop struggled in the first four games of the Dodgers’ homestand, batting .200 across 15 plate appearances. Against the Phillies on Saturday night, Betts laced two singles and a double.

Andy Pages scored on a close play at the plate after Betts singled to shallow right field in the seventh. Although catcher J.T. Realmuto missed tagging Pages’ foot, the Dodgers center fielder’s cleat didn’t appear to touch the plate. After a long review, the safe at home call stood.

But the Dodgers’ good fortune didn’t last. Scott gave up an RBI single to Bryce Harper, and it was like the Phillies could sense exactly when the reliever’s pitches crossed over the zone. Scott (1-2) then gave up the home run to Soto before going down in order on three groundouts in the ninth.

Anyone trying to avoid the payment may face much higher fees

Millions of people face the prospect of having to pay an extra £1,000 if they want to take a holiday abroad in 2026.

One in five people on NHS waiting lists plan to holiday abroad without travel insurance, according to a recent survey, risking falling ill overseas and incurring hefty healthcare fees. There are currently more than 7.1million adults waiting for consultant-led treatment – and a further 1.7million waiting for a diagnosis – with many unable to take out insurance policies due to the high cost.

Of the 95% who are on, or have been on, a waiting list in the last three years and refuse to miss their holiday, 15% have paid up to £1,000 extra to ensure they’re protected. Many insurers keep their premiums low by not covering existing medical conditions, meaning patients on waiting lists with potentially serious conditions will need to take out specialist cover.

Those waiting for a condition to be diagnosed will find it particularly difficult to find appropriate travel insurance – and one in four plan to holiday without the correct cover. One in 20 currently waiting to be seen by the NHS have found accessing specialist travel insurance so difficult, or so expensive, they haven’t holidayed abroad because of it.

The poll of 2,034 adults commissioned by Wellsoon from Practice Plus Group found adults with hernias are the most likely to holiday without the correct cover, followed by those with cancer. The hardest conditions to find insurance for are heart or blood pressure issues followed by musculoskeletal issues including arthritis, hip or knee pain, back pain, neck or shoulder pain.

A spokesperson for Practice Plus Group said: “It’s a story we hear regularly from people who have a health issue they want to be addressed before they go on holiday, but they’re on a waiting list. They’re worried about going away when they’re in limbo, potentially needing to seek medical help a long way from home and not knowing how much it might cost.

In April 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new requirements to help consumers with more serious pre-existing medical conditions (PEMCs) better navigate the travel insurance market. Firms that sell travel insurance are required to signpost consumers to one of two directories of specialist firms that provide this type of insurance – one of which is the MoneyHelper directory, provided by the Money and Pensions Service.

A spokesperson from the Money and Pensions Service, which provides a directory of specialist firms that offer travel insurance for pre-existing conditions, said: “If you have a pre-existing health condition you must disclose this to your insurer. Otherwise, when you come to make a claim, it could be rejected.

“Depending on your circumstances, you may be asked to complete a medical exam. This will allow insurance providers to tailor your travel insurance policy to cover your needs. Taking specialist medical travel insurance will give you peace of mind that your medical condition is covered in the event of a claim.

“Our MoneyHelper service provides contact details of companies which specialise in this.”

To combat rising fuel prices, a UK holiday park is offering to reimburse guests through its newly launched ‘Fuel Cover’ scheme this summer

One of Britain’s largest holiday park operators is offering to reimburse fuel costs for guests travelling to their locations, as prices keep climbing. With oil prices at their highest level since 2022 because of tensions in the Middle East, petrol, diesel, and aviation fuel prices are being transferred to consumers.

As a results, Hoseasons is offering to refund the money spent getting to their sites this summer, through its recently introduced ‘Fuel Cover’. It comes after research revealed 15.4 million Brits (28%) have altered holiday plans this year because of increasing costs.

Nearly six in 10 of the 2,000 adults surveyed said the expense of going away, including travel, fuel, and spending while there, are deterring them from booking a trip this summer.

“UK breaks remain a hugely popular option for families looking for flexibility, value and quality time together, giving people the chance to properly switch off and reconnect closer to home,” Simon Altham, chief operating officer for the brand said.

“We know rising travel costs are becoming a bigger consideration for many holidaymakers this summer. Fuel, in particular, can quickly add to the overall cost of a trip, especially for families travelling during peak holiday periods.

“That’s why we wanted to help ease some of that pressure and support people continuing to take the UK breaks they were already planning this summer.”

The research, carried out on behalf of the brand, revealed that 7.6 million (27%) of those planning a UK holiday admitted they will cover shorter distances for a domestic getaway this year, with those driving expecting to spend an average of £68 on fuel.

Amongst those still intending to take a break, 26% have set a reduced overall budget for their trip, while 23% are seeking self-catering accommodation. Similarly, many stated they are actively hunting for cashback or money-saving deals prior to booking.

Two thirds believe holiday firms need to do more to encourage people to book trips in the current climate.

Hoseasons customers can claim back up to £75 in fuel costs through its new Fuel Cover initiative per booking between 20 May and 30 August for travel before 30 September. Bookings must be made by phone and quoting the code “FUEL75”.

Simon Altham from Hoseasons said: “Travel costs are one of the biggest considerations for holidaymakers at the moment. Fuel, in particular, can quickly become one of the biggest extra costs for families travelling during peak holiday periods.

“That’s why we’ve designed the offer to ease some of the pressure and help families make the most of their summer breaks.”

The players’ campaign, which began in late 2025, is being spearheaded by former WTA chairman and chief executive Larry Scott.

The American will be in Paris on Friday for a meeting with French Open tournament director Amelie Mauresmo and FFT president Gilles Moretton.

Meetings are also planned with representatives of the All England Club (AELTC) and the US Tennis Association later in the fortnight.

The players’ action is designed to put pressure on the AELTC, with prize money for Wimbledon not due to be announced for another three weeks.

Last year, the Wimbledon prize fund rose by 7% to £53.5m – double the amount on offer a decade earlier.

Players look enviously, however, at the revenues generated by the Grand Slams and feel entitled to a larger slice of the cake.

The AELTC’s financial statement for the year to July 2025 showed revenue of £427m and profit after tax of £39.7m.

Players have asked the Slams to pay 22% of their revenue in prize money by 2030.

They are also asking that tens of millions of dollars are paid towards pension, healthcare and maternity benefits, and that they are consulted more widely on scheduling and other key decisions.

At this month’s Italian Open, world number one Aryna Sabalenka said she believes players will “at some point” boycott one of the majors.

World number three Iga Swiatek felt that would be a “bit extreme”, but defending French Open champion Coco Gauff said she would support strike action “if everyone were to move as one and collaborate”.

Men’s world number one Jannik Sinner also claimed players are not getting the respect they deserve when it comes to prize money at the majors.

An FFT statement on Wednesday read: “We regret the players’ decision, which impacts all of the tournament’s stakeholders: the media, broadcasters, the FFT and the entire tennis community, all of whom follow each edition of Roland Garros with great enthusiasm.

“The French Tennis Federation recognises the importance of the players’ contribution to the tournament’s success, and wishes to maintain close ties with them.”

The French Open takes place from 24 May to 7 June.

WASHINGTON — In the latest escalation of a fight over the use of paid social media creators, Tom Steyer’s campaign for governor filed a complaint Tuesday accusing influencers who posted content supportive of Xavier Becerra’s campaign of failing to disclose that they had been paid, which is required by California law.

The complaint, filed with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, accuses Jay Gonzalez of producing at least 14 pro-Becerra posts on Instagram and Facebook in late April and early May, after he was hired by the campaign, and only belatedly editing the posts to acknowledge they had been sponsored by the campaign.

The complaint also said that a social media creator named Maggie Reed, who posts under the username mermaidmamamaggie, created four pro-Becerra posts on Instagram and had previously offered to create paid posts for another gubernatorial campaign, though the complaint doesn’t specify how the campaign knows Reed was paid.

Reed and a talent agency that represents her did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Becerra campaign maintained that it has not paid influencers who have created posts in support of the campaign.

“All of the content you see online is entirely and purely organic,” said Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland.

Becerra and Steyer have been the top two Democratic candidates in recent polling for the governor’s race, with Becerra consistently maintaining a slight edge in those polls.

The complaint by Steyer’s campaign comes after two influencers who support Becerra filed a complaint last week accusing social media creators hired by the Steyer campaign of failing to disclose that they had been paid to produce their posts.

The campaign of the billionaire candidate for governor had previously disclosed payments to some influencers with large audiences, including one creator with the user name zayydante, who has 1.8 million followers on TikTok, and another with the user name littleyeg, who has nearly 350,000 followers on TikTok. The complaint filed last week said that both of these influencers failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign to produce content.

The complaint also highlighted several accounts created by user who don’t appear to live in California who created posts promoting Steyer and, in at least one case, posted elsewhere that they had been paid by the campaign.

The influencers who filed the original complaint said they saw the newly filed complaint as an attempt by Steyer’s campaign to deflect criticism.

“All he’s done is attack his opponent instead of taking accountability for violating the law,” said Kaitlyn Hennessy, one of the two influencers who filed the complaint against Steyer’s campaign. Hennessy and the other influencer who filed the complaint both said they have not been paid by the Becerra campaign.

In a post on Substack, Steyer defended his campaign’s use of paid social media influencers and said that it had been transparent about their use.

“Every creator we compensate has been and will be publicly disclosed as required by law,” he wrote.

Under a California law passed in 2023, social media creators who create paid content on behalf of a political campaign are required to disclose in their post that the material was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on creators to provide the disclosure, but campaigns are required to notify influencers they hire of the requirement.

Violation of the rules doesn’t trigger criminal, civil or administrative penalties but the FPPC can take alleged offenders to court and ask a judge to force compliance with the law.

WASHINGTON — Senators unanimously approved a resolution Thursday to withhold their pay during government shutdowns, an attempt to make federal closures financially painful for lawmakers after a string of record-breaking impasses in the past year.

The bipartisan support for the measure comes at a time when federal closures have become longer and more frequent, frustrating lawmakers who say there should be punishment when Congress fails at its most basic legislative duty.

Under the resolution, senators’ pay would be withheld by the secretary of the Senate whenever a government shutdown affects one or more agencies, then released once funding is restored. It will take effect the day after the Nov. 3 general election.

“Shutting down government should not be our default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences,” said Sen. John Kennedy, the bill’s sponsor, in a floor speech Wednesday.

“This is about putting our money where our mouth is,” said Kennedy, R-La.

Two shutdowns in the past year created significant financial hardship for tens of thousands of federal workers, particularly at the Department of Homeland Security. The department reopened last month after a 76-day partial shutdown, the longest agency funding lapse in history.

The Homeland Security shutdown came just a few months after a 43-day lapse of the entire federal government, which was the longest such closure on record.

The Constitution stipulates that lawmakers must be paid so they have received salaries during shutdowns even as federal workers went without paychecks. When the full government shutdown began in October amid a dispute over health care subsidies, Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a constitutional amendment to require members to forfeit their paychecks when the government is closed.

“If members of Congress had to forfeit their pay during government shutdowns, there would be fewer shutdowns and they would end quicker,” Graham, R-S.C., said at the time.

Graham said his legislation was the most “constitutionally sound” way to deal with the problem, but the process would have been much more laborious as three-fourths of states must ratify an amendment.

Lawmakers in previous shutdowns have often pledged to forgo their paychecks while federal workers went unpaid.

Kennedy told reporters Wednesday that he pushed his measure to ensure there is “shared sacrifice” during shutdowns. He added that it does not go as far as he would like, but that it’s a start.

Asked why it does not extend to the other chamber of Congress, Kennedy said “the House’s business is the House’s business” while also touching on the tensions between the Senate and House.

“There’s a very strong undercurrent of animosity among some of my friends in the House,” Kennedy said.

“It’s quickly becoming like two kids fighting in the back of a minivan,” he said.

Cappelletti and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO —  Here’s what the Democratic candidates for governor aren’t telling us: While promising the moon, they’ve avoided saying how they would keep paying for all of Sacramento’s current costly programs.

Termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have dug the state into a deep financial hole, and it faces severe deficit spending through the next governor’s first term.

The only honest solution is an unpopular mix of program cuts and tax increases, plus a focused, earnest and unlikely effort at making government more cost-effective and efficient.

The worst option would be the easy one that got Sacramento into its current mess: gimmicky budgeting that includes excessive borrowing, program delays rather than outright eliminations and fudged numbers.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek recently estimated “the state faces structural deficits running from $20 billion to $35 billion annually.”

He warned the state’s financial commitments funded by its revenue “[are] not sustainable” and added that mopping up the red ink “will likely require at least some — if not significant — spending reductions.”

The analyst pointed out that since 2019, under Newsom, state general fund spending has risen by $100 billion to $248 billion in the governor’s latest budget proposal in January. About 70% of the growth went to maintaining existing services and 30% was for expanding or creating new programs.

“In retrospect,” Petek continued, “the state could not afford to sustain its existing services while funding … expansions and new programs.”

Last week, the analyst reported some good news coupled with bad. He estimated a $25-billion boost in unanticipated revenue, driven by artificial intelligence enthusiasm and “the related stock market boom.” But, he added, “these surging revenues likely are not sustainable.”

The analyst said the stock market appears to be “in a speculative bubble, rivaled only by the dot-com boom” (that led to the Great Recession) “and the Roaring ‘20s” (that ushered in the Great Depression).

“The state should be prepared for revenues to be tens of billions lower within one or two years.”

Newsom will get another crack at legitimately balancing a budget on Thursday when he revises his spending proposal for the next fiscal year.

You can’t really blame the governor’s wannabe Democratic successors for dodging this fiscal thicket. Program cuts and higher taxes don’t attract voters. Moreover, the subject is weedy and boring. For that reason, I suspect, moderators didn’t even delve into it during three recent televised gubernatorial debates.

Regardless, budget-crafting is a governor’s most sacred duty and the source of much of their power. It would help voters to know where the candidates stand. Right now, they’re in hiding.

Former state Senate leader Don Perata, a Democrat, posted this last week about the chronic deficits:

“Apparently, candidates find this untroubling or maybe someone else’s worry. None … even mentioned it during those juvenile television ‘debates’ and the hundreds of millions spent on campaign commercials.”

Instead, various contenders have been promising voters a Santa’s sleigh of goodies: state-run single-payer healthcare, free childcare, partial no-tuition college, suspension of the gas tax, no state income tax for people earning under $100,000 and generous subsidies for Hollywood filmmaking.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and former Orange County congresswoman Katie Porter have been touting single-payer healthcare, an idea pushed by politically potent nurses unions and Democratic progressives. Private insurance would be eliminated and, under most proposals, so would the popular Medicare. The state would manage all medical insurance — more efficiently and at less consumer expense, advocates insist.

But this concept seems far beyond the state’s financial reach and operational capability. Its cost could exceed twice the current state budget. And I shudder to think of our state bureaucracy trying to handle healthcare for 39 million people. First, get the DMV working right and the botched bullet train rolling.

For many years, underdog gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa — a former Los Angeles mayor — has called the single-payer notion “snake oil.” In a CNN debate last week, he termed it “pie in the sky.”

Centrist San José Mayor Matt Mahan chimed in, asserting: “The candidates who are fighting for single-payer don’t know how to pay for it, and they’re not being honest about it.”

Practically everyone jumped on new Democratic frontrunner Xavier Becerra — former state attorney general and U.S. health secretary — for seemingly being unable to specify whether he’s for or against single-payer.

“I’ve been consistent for over 30 years,” he said, trying to explain that he favors Medicare-for-all as “the most efficient way that we can do healthcare.”

It was a silly waste of debate time. They were arguing over oranges and lemons — both citrus, but different. Becerra should have just made clear that he’s opposed to single-payer and supports a separate version of universal healthcare: Medicare-type coverage with a supplemental private insurance option for all Californians. If that’s indeed what he favors.

Mahan bragged that he’s “the only candidate in this race who is calling for a suspension of the gas tax.” It’s a highlighted Republican talking point. But no other Democratic candidate advocates suspending the tax because it’s a screwy idea.

The roughly 60-cent-per-gallon state gas tax pays for filling potholes and more serious road repairs and improvements. Moreover, the next governor won’t take office until January. Suspending the tax then — even if the Legislature approved — wouldn’t reduce today’s soaring pump prices.

My take on the debates:

Becerra survived. He’s refreshingly calm but needs to be more crisp.

Steyer was articulate and may have attracted Bernie Sanders fans.

Porter is a talented debater, but seemed overly defensive about her past hot temper.

Mahan was fine, but he just got off the bench and it’s late in the game.

Villaraigosa was straightforward as usual, and finally had a broad audience.

All should bone up on budget-balancing and tell us their thinking.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How MAGA Sheriff Chad Bianco is shaking up the 2026 California gubernatorial primary
The other must-read: Tom Steyer tries to sell voters on his own personal change
The L.A. Times Special: Abortion access just took another blow. California wasn’t spared

Until next week,
George Skelton

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