plan

European Union foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday to discuss whether there is enough support for new measures to curb trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“Everybody agrees that the situation in the West Bank is really intolerable,”  EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said at the start of a meeting.

“What is happening in the West Bank is actually making it more and more impossible that the two-state solution ever can come into effect.”

Here is more about the ongoing EU discussions on Israeli settlements.

What options are the EU foreign ministers discussing?

The discussions are based on a confidential paper by the European Commission that floats three different options – an import licensing system, prohibitive tariffs, or a ban – an unnamed senior EU diplomat and a European official said, Reuters reported.

The EU has long struggled to take major decisions on Middle East policy because of deep and long-standing divisions among its 27 member countries, particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Diplomats said the debate at a meeting in Brussels on Monday was not expected to yield any concrete decisions, but would help to sound out if there is enough support to move forward.

Are Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank expanding?

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the territory, excluding east Jerusalem, among some three million Palestinians.

This month, Israel’s Security Cabinet has approved a plan to establish 13 new settlements in the central occupied West Bank.

The number of new settlements has soared recently, according to new data from the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR). After averaging approximately eight outposts annually between 2012 and 2022, the number jumped to 32 in 2023, then 62 in 2024, reaching 86 during 2025.

Nasser Khdour, Middle East assistant research manager at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), said that 2026 is the deadliest year for settler violence since ACLED began tracking incidents in Palestine a decade ago.

“Incidents have included attacks on Palestinians, property destruction, damage to farming equipment and facilities, tree uprooting, and grazing on Palestinian agricultural land. Other incidents have involved looting, including the theft of equipment, sheep, and crops,” Khdour was quoted as saying on the ACLED website in May.

What pressure has the EU faced to take measures about this?

Under pressure for the EU as a whole to take measures, the bloc’s executive last week laid out options to curb trade with settlements, including a ban.

“There have been a lot of asks and requests from the member states regarding the ban of the trade with illegal settlements,” Kallas said.

“Let’s see if these options that have been provided now will have a stronger push from member states.”

Belgium’s Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot said the options laid out appeared to be more “a bone to gnaw on than a genuine desire to move forward”.

“We are calling for concrete proposals,” he said.

There is disagreement in Brussels as to whether that move would need backing from all 27 member states or just a weighted majority.

Diplomats say that key players Germany and Italy are still undecided on the move.

What has the EU’s position been so far?

Several EU countries – including Spain, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Ireland – have already imposed their own trade restrictions on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, considered illegal under international law.

In May, the EU imposed sanctions on four entities and three individuals over what it described as serious and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank.

In a July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements in the West Bank are illegal and that states should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that help maintain the situation.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar last year described a push by some European governments to implement the advisory opinion as “shameful”.

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.

The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.

Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”

Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.

The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.

These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.

The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.

A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.

According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.

In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.

Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”

“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.

It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.

A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.

The Trump administration has signed off on a company’s plan to convert an oil and gas pipeline to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to thirsty California cities for the first time, a lucrative venture that critics say threatens natural springs and wildlife.

The federal Bureau of Land Management released documents Thursday saying that Cadiz Inc.’s plan to repurpose 162 miles of the pipeline to transport water “will not significantly affect” the environment.

“We’re excited to achieve this pivotal milestone. After many years of planning and environmental review, the project has now reached the construction stage,” said Susan Kennedy, chair and chief executive of Cadiz.

Environmental advocates and leaders of Native tribes, who have been fighting the project, criticized the decision.

“This groundwater mining proposal would drain the desert and rob the Mojave of its rare springs and wildlife habitat,” said Chance Wilcox, California desert associate director of the National Parks Conservation Assn. “It’s indefensible that the Trump administration would once again try to revive the pointless Cadiz project, by defying decades of scientific warnings and refusing to conduct an environmental review of the groundwater mining.”

The application for the federal authorization was filed by the Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co. The documents say the company plans to build seven pump stations, three of them located on federal land managed by the agency.

The 30-inch steel pipeline runs underground from Cadiz’s desert property, near the town of Amboy, northward to the town of Mojave.

The BLM said in its authorization that repurposing the pipeline for water “would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.” The agency said it has “reasonably determined that the impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with Cadiz’s groundwater extraction project are outside the scope of analysis.”

Cadiz’s attempts to export water from its property 200 miles east of Los Angeles have drawn controversy for decades.

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that requires the project to undergo scientific study and gain approval from the State Lands Commission before it can take water from the Mojave and sell it to California cities.

Activists opposing the company’s plans include civil rights leader Dolores Huerta.

“Cadiz spells destruction for water, sacred lands, and the desert economy,” Huerta said in a statement. “It is exactly this type of greed and injustice that I have dedicated my life to oppose.”

Leaders of nearby tribes have also objected to Cadiz’s plans to pump from the desert aquifer near the Mojave Trails National Monument and Mojave National Preserve.

“It is the living heart of the desert,” said Daniel Leivas, chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. “To drain it would be to drain the life out of the entire desert. No profit is worth such desecration.”

Chairman Timothy Williams of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe said the company’s plan “to pump and sell 25 times more groundwater each year than the aquifer can replenish would desecrate our traditional territories.”

“Pumping more groundwater than is sustainably replenished is not only negligent, but dangerous to the American Desert Southwest,” he said in the joint statement with other opponents of the project.

For years, while pursuing its plan to sell water far away, the company has been using wells on its property to irrigate nearly 2,000 acres of farmland growing lemons, grapes and other crops. It has drilled more wells in anticipation of being able to export water once the government approved its pipeline.

The company intends to pipe water to communities in San Bernardino County and says it’s “expected to provide one of the lowest-cost sources of new water in the drought-plagued Southwest.” It says the federal permit “marks a key milestone as we finalize project financing with prospective investors.”

Cadiz bought the 220-mile pipeline from El Paso Natural Gas in 2020. Once construction is completed, the company says the pipeline will be able to transport up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year — about 5% of what Los Angeles uses each year.

The Los Angeles-based corporation is also seeking to build a new pipeline along a railroad right-of-way to transport water to the south.

Environmental groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits challenging the project.

Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Trump administration’s decision “a green light for environmental destruction.”

She said six of the proposed pumping stations slated to be built are in the habitat of desert tortoises, a species in decline.

“We’ve successfully fended off this project before and we’ll continue to fight to stop this zombie from coming back,” Anderson said.

In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a Trump administration decision that had cleared the way for Cadiz to pipe water across public land. In 2022, a federal judge scrapped the pipeline permit that the Trump administration had issued.

But during President Trump’s second term, the company has again made headway on its plans. In February, Cadiz announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had invited it to submit an application for a $194-million low-interest loan for the northern pipeline project.

The company said in May that it reached an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide funding for a review of its potential role in “augmenting water supplies” along the shrinking Colorado River.

The company has also been lobbying the Trump administration. The group Public Citizen said in a recent report that Cadiz, through its nonprofit Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co., enlisted former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s new lobbying firm, the Bernhardt Group, and has spent at least $330,000 on lobbying in 2025 and 2026.

Records show lobbyist Luke Johnson has repeatedly accompanied Kennedy at meetings with Interior Department officials.

“The extensive influence of David Bernhardt’s boutique lobbying firm on the agency he formerly led highlights how insider firms staffed with former Trump officials have grown in recent years,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. He said Bernhardt and his lobbyists “have learned how to master influence-peddling in the anything-goes era of Trump 2.0.”

Earlier this month, an Arizona water agency announced it signed an initial “memorandum of understanding” agreement to buy up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year from Cadiz’s Mojave Groundwater Bank. The Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District provides water to farmlands in Pinal County, where growers are dealing with water cutbacks.

The company said that for this to happen, it would need to build pipelines and reach deals to exchange water across state lines.

Members of California’s congressional delegation have raised concerns. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla called for a thorough environmental review, saying that federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific analyses have “warned of the significant and irreversible impacts that Cadiz’s project could have on federal lands and surrounding communities.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) said in a letter to Burgum that he is concerned about the company’s long-standing effort to extract and export groundwater.

“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.

Coronation Street’s Ross Wilkes showed his true colours with Cassie Plummer on Friday ahead of her exit from the ITV soap, which is linked to Tyrone’s dad’s arrival

Ross in Coronation Street made his true feelings known on Friday as he blackmailed Cassie Plummer.

The new character, played by actor Ian Burfield, debuted on the ITV soap this week. He’s the long-lost father of Tyrone Dobbs, Cassie’s son.

Cassie failed to recognise Ross when she met him in the hotel bar, and drunkenly began flirting with him. It was Friday’s episode, after Cassie had recognised Ross’ name on his bar receipt, that we saw them come face-to-face again.

This time, it was the moment Ross met Tyrone, and Tyrone realised the newcomer was his father. Later in the episode, Tyrone had told Ross where to go as he did not need a father after 40 plus years without one.

Ross was gutted about this, but instead of trying harder, he turned nasty with Cassie. Bumping into her in the shop, Ross blackmailed her over their moment in the bar.

Threatening to tell Cassie’s partner Steve McDonald and Tyrone about Cassie making a pass at him, Ross told Cassie she needed to help him. He wanted Cassie to basically change Tyrone’s mind about not seeing him.

Obviously wanting a relationship with his son, instead of trying to get Tyrone onside he decided to force Cassie to convince Tyrone instead. Cassie was alarmed, and there’s possibly some stuff about Cassie and Ross’ past that we don’t know.

So with Cassie set to leave the soap this year, and it revealed Ross is linked to the exit, could be turn Tyrone against her? That’s not clear just yet, but what is clear is that Cassie is right to worry about Ross.

She was so rattled by him that she left the room when she and Tyrone were left alone with him. She couldn’t face it, and now on top of that she’s fearful Ross is going to expose her to Steve over the bar incident.

The way that Ross turned on her in the shop, threatening her, proves he’s not to be messed with. Spoilers for next week reveal that Cassie tries to warn people about Ross, saying he isn’t what he seems.

When Ross gets told about this, he takes action. Once again threatening her, it’s not long before Cassie has a decision to make as the blackmailing continues. So will Cassie confess to Steve, and will she be rejected by Tyrone if Ross continues to play games?

Coronation Street airs weeknights at 8:30pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok, Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads.

SCARBOROUGH, Maine — The Maine Democratic Party has voted to hold a convention now that Democrat Graham Platner has announced he’ll drop out of the state’s U.S. Senate race after a former girlfriend accused him of sexual assault.

Platner, who denies the allegation, faced considerable pressure from his own party to quit the race. The first-time candidate also was accused of trying to influence how his replacement is selected — a claim he also denied. He announced his decision to leave the race Wednesday.

His exit leaves a crucial U.S. Senate race unsettled just months before the November midterm elections. The Maine Democratic Party, which by law is responsible for naming a replacement, announced it’ll move forward with holding a nominating convention to choose a new nominee. Meanwhile, potential contenders have already begun teasing their interest.

Here’s what we know about the Maine Senate race and what could be next:

The clock was ticking

According to Maine law, there’s a narrow provision for replacing general election candidates. Platner needed to step aside voluntarily by 5 p.m. July 13 before other contenders could have been considered.

Once he formally withdraws, the law then says the Maine Democratic Party can choose a replacement, which must be done by July 27.

The state Democratic Party held an emergency meeting Wednesday, where more than 100 state committee members signed off on holding a nominating convention in the event of a vacancy.

“There is an unprecedented amount of energy and enthusiasm among Maine Democrats, driven in part by many of the dedicated volunteers and supporters who were inspired by Graham Platner’s campaign,” Maine Democratic leaders said in a joint statement.

It’s incredibly rare for a general election candidate to bow out of a race, in Maine or elsewhere.

Platner campaign denies trying to influence the process

A key question surrounding how Platner is replaced has come down to just how much leverage the oyster farmer and Marine veteran has in this situation.

Maine Democratic Party’s executive director, Devon Murphy-Anderson had previously released a statement accusing Platner’s campaign of repeatedly trying to “put their thumb on the scale” in determining the next Democratic nominee.

Platner’s team responded with a statement saying “at no point has the campaign tried to ‘put its finger on the scale’” but said they were trying to understand the process. Thousands of Maine residents voted and volunteered for Platner, a progressive who outlasted establishment-backed Gov. Janet Mills, which the campaign believes should count in the decision.

The sparring between Platner’s campaign and the party continued Wednesday. Murphy-Anderson said in a statement that Platner’s campaign “remains focused on distracting from the job of defeating Susan Collins in November with false accusations against us” and the party “remains hyper focused on developing a representative, transparent and inclusive process to select a new nominee when he chooses to withdraw from the race.”

Platner’s campaign sent a survey with a 48-hour deadline to supporters on Wednesday that asked recipients two questions: what message they have for the Maine Democratic Party, and what message they have for Platner.

Separately Wednesday, President Trump was asked if Democrats should be allowed to replace Platner on the Maine Senate ballot.

“So he won the primary. It’s very hard for them. So, you question whether you believe the woman. A lot of people say big falsehoods,” Trump said.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned from a NATO summit in Turkey, the president added of Platner: “He’s in a bind. But, should they be able to do it? Well I guess he’s gonna lose. I’d imagine he’s going to lose.”

List of possible replacements continues to grow

One possible contender, Nirav Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has said he was “evaluating” whether to join the race. Shah said he’s been in contact with the Maine Democratic Party about ensuring that a possible replacement process is based on “openness, transparency and robustness.”

Troy Jackson, Maine’s former state Senate president, announced Wednesday he was officially entering the race. Jackson unsuccessfully ran to be the Democratic nominee for governor earlier this year with the backing of Platner and Our Revolution, the political organization started by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Jackson had filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday to launch a Senate exploratory committee.

Jordan Wood, a former U.S. Senate candidate who then switched to run for Maine’s 2nd District and lost, posted Tuesday that he was “continuing conversations” with voters about joining the race.

Other names circulating include Shenna Bellows, the current Maine secretary of state; Dan Kleban, founder of Maine Beer Co.; and Hannah Pingree, now Maine’s Democratic nominee for governor.

One name that definitely won’t be on the ballot? Actor Patrick Dempsey. The “Grey’s Anatomy” star and Maine native wrote an editorial Wednesday saying despite being asked, he’s not interested.

Voters say they are disillusioned

Platner’s campaigned galvanized hundreds of volunteers around the state. This week, they’ve been expressing disappointment about the behavior Platner is accused of and pondering the right course of action.

Many called for him to drop out.

Paul Attardo, 64, of Scarborough, said he couldn’t continue supporting Platner after the allegation, though he still has a sign promoting the candidate at the end of his driveway. He called the accusation “disappointing” as well as “indisputably sincere,” and said the party needs to get to work finding a replacement.

The scenario reminded Attardo of the hasty replacement of Joe Biden during the 2024 election campaign.

“We rally behind somebody, and not unlike the Biden administration, when everybody rallied behind Joe Biden, at the eleventh hour that failed,” he said. “I sort of feel we’re in a similar boat.”

Kruesi and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Kruesi reported from Providence, R.I. AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report from Washington.

The LAPD is considering whether to shut down its police academy for part of 2028 in order to put hundreds of officers back to work on the streets in time for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, according to four department sources.

The sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal matters, said the proposal was floated at a senior staff meeting last week. The idea has sparked debate, the sources said, with some officials worried that a pause would set back the department’s efforts to hire more police officers and replenish its dwindling ranks.

The LAPD declined to make any official available for an interview about the proposal. In response to an inquiry from The Times, the department released a short statement that said: “The Olympic Games are two years away. The LAPD will be prepared as always to keep the citizens and visitors of Los Angeles safe. We look forward to a memorable event.”

Much could still change between now and the start of the Olympics. The size of recruit classes are dictated by the department’s annual budget, which is approved by the City Council before each fiscal year.

Recently, the council signed off on a $15-billion city budget for 2026-27, preserving Mayor Karen Bass’ plan to hire 510 officers — only enough cops to replace those who are expected to leave over the next fiscal year.

It’s not uncommon during large events for the department to mobilize officers from specialized units and others who don’t normally work in the field. But the potential cancellation of more than half of the 13 academy classes that the LAPD typically graduates in a given year came as a surprise to some.

Under the proposal, the academy could cease operations for roughly seven months after the January 2028 class, which would let the department temporarily reassign more than 300 officers from its training division. These include instructors who would normally be spending their days teaching the basics of how to handle firearms, pull over speeding motorists, collect evidence at a crime scene and interview victims and suspects.

Sources said the proposed plan calls for increasing academy class sizes before and after the Olympics and Paralympics in order to offset resignations and retirements.

The plan has still been met with deep skepticism in some quarters, with officials pointing to the department’s well-documented recruitment struggles in recent years. Any interruptions in recruiting officers could set the department back, the skeptics argue.

L.A. City Councilmember Tim McOsker said he understood the need for the department to continue its recruitment efforts, but said that putting training officers back to the field felt like a necessary “sacrifice to be able to host the Olympics.”

Late last month, L.A. officials reached a tentative deal with Olympic organizers laying out the process for reimbursing the city for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for public services, ranging from traffic control to trash pickup. But the question of how the city will pay for police protection remains largely unsettled.

The costs could theoretically be covered by the $1 billion in funding the federal government has allocated for the Games’ costs. However, some elected officials have expressed concern that the money might not materialize once the Games are over. Another funding option is a $270-million contingency fund maintained by LA28 that can be distributed as a surplus if the Games make money or be used to cover any losses in the event of a shortfall.

For months, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has warned that public safety will suffer if the city doesn’t hire more officers to not only safeguard Olympic venues, but also continue normal operations over the 66 days between the July 14 start of the Olympic Games and the end of the Paralympic Games. At a budget hearing last year, McDonnell called on the council to fund new hires — while arguing against creating any delays in recruiting and on-boarding more officers.

Some City Council members have pushed back, saying overspending at the LAPD could force city leaders to contemplate cuts to other city jobs, which they oppose.

The Olympics will also be staffed by thousands of officers from agencies from across the state. A bill currently under consideration in the California Legislature would pave the way for the hundreds of officers from other states to help police the 2028 Games. The proposed legislation is opposed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the state’s largest law enforcement labor organization, which has argued that bringing in officers who don’t meet statewide training standards could spell disaster.

On my way through Skid Row to meet up with Estela Lopez, things looked pretty much as they did when I spent time there more than 20 years ago and first heard the promises that things would be better soon.

Tents lined some of the sidewalks, making them unpassable. Some people wore the damage of physical or mental disease, addiction, poverty, or all of the above. Outreach workers with ID lanyards strode through the trash-strewn landscape like lifeguards working against endless tides of fresh emergencies.

When I arrived at Lopez’s office in the 700 block of Crocker Street, where she runs a business improvement district on behalf of 600 or so beleaguered merchants, she had just completed a tour of the neighborhood with John McKinney, a candidate for city attorney.

She held a note card in her hand and shared some numbers, telling McKinney that by her latest count, 131 of the 702 streetlights in the district were out, 27 children were living on Skid Row, and 72 RVs were parked in the area.

“I came out here because I think this symbolizes the greatest failure in government,” McKinney said. “I think it’s the result of bad law and bad policy. I think it’s the result of a lack of leadership and indifference to the way people are living out here. To me, it’s completely untenable.”

But will anything ever change?

It’s a question two people in particular need to address, and I’ll get to that in a minute.

A lot of people I trust and admire work tirelessly to make a difference on Skid Row, and they’re always eager to share the success stories of those who move through and move on. (I’ve got a column on that coming up soon.)

The long-standing problem is that Skid Row is both a social service center and a mecca of drugs and other vices, with traps on every block. And so it’s a neighborhood at war with itself, with some viewing Skid Row as one of the largest recovery centers in the country while others see a snapshot of social collapse.

Estela Lopez has reached out to me several times over the years. About illegal dumping. Typhus. Calls to City Hall that don’t get answered. About the relentless plague of fires, overdoses and assaults.

“Can you imagine, in 24 years, how many people I’ve seen dead on these streets?” Lopez asked me near her office last week.

Estela Lopez runs a business improvement district on behalf of 600 or so beleaguered merchants.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

When the local post office closed recently in part because of security issues, Lopez told The Times’ Melissa Gomez that “we have reached a point in this city where we are unable to address criminal activity. … It’s surrender.”

We walked to the corner of 8th Street, where paramedics had just pulled away from a medical emergency. Cars and pedestrians stopped at tents for brief transactions, leaving little doubt as to the nature of the business being conducted.

We passed a caged dog and saw a puppy on a short leash being loaded into a vehicle. There’s a lot of talk about dogs being bred and sold, and Lopez said she’s seen evidence of animals being mistreated.

On 7th Street we passed the charred residue of a recent fire. A half block east, four men were slumped on the sidewalk, hitting pipes. Lopez gets calls from exasperated merchants dealing with vandalism and with people blocking their storefronts.

“I’ve never seen so many people overdose right here,” said Sergio Moreno, who runs a check-cashing business and said his family has been in business going back to the ‘70s. He said he’s seen paramedics use naloxone to revive opioid users, only to see the same people go down again just days later.

“How can you run a business?” asked Moreno, who chairs the board of the business improvement district Lopez runs. “This business is our life. This is how we got through school, this is how we put our kids through school.”

And yet despite paying city taxes and BID fees, Moreno said, problems persist and his customers fear for their safety.

Dr. Susan Partovi, a street medic for 22 years, has been advocating for more proactive intervention for those in obvious distress. Partovi told me she recently saw a man rise from a gutter, pull down his pants and defecate in front of her. She called to get help for him but said neither paramedics nor police determined him to be gravely disabled.

Lopez walks past residents of Skid Row last week. By her latest count, 131 of the 702 streetlights in the district were out, 27 children were living on Skid Row, and 72 RVs were parked in the area.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“We have become complacent with having people lying in the gutter, having diarrhea, speaking nonsensically and putting their lives at risk,” said Partovi, whom I once accompanied as she administered long-acting anti-psychotic injections, arguing that people need clear heads to make better choices.

One sore point for Lopez is the Skid Row Care Campus in the 400 block of Crocker Street, which opened a little more than a year ago and offers all sorts of social services, meds that reduce drug cravings, and supplies that allow for safe use of drugs.

Lopez said she understands the theory of harm reduction: Engage people with a goal of getting them into treatment and back on track. But she wonders how successful such programs are, and argues that they become magnets for lawlessness.

As we talked, a young man approached and told Lopez he’d seen her airing her grievances on TV news.

“I’m wondering, what would be your solution?” he asked.

“I would hope that people could return to life in sobriety,” Lopez responded.

The man said he is “trying to elevate” himself, but that he’d been on a waiting list for housing for six months.

Lopez is tired of being on a waiting list, too.

“If something is working down here,” she told me, “you can’t prove it by me.”

Progress is undeniable, said Sieglinde von Deffner, a social worker and Skid Row coordinator for the Los Angeles County Department of Homeless Services and Housing. But given the “highly vulnerable” nature of the population, “the need is colossal,” she said.

A man stands among his belongings along 7th Street in Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“I have not yet met someone here who doesn’t want housing of some kind. We just don’t have enough affordable housing for everyone,” Von Deffner said, and long-term homelessness makes people harder to reach. “Now, if we could just stop the inflow.”

Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who researches homelessness and served as an L.A. County consultant, said there are other ways to get people indoors than investing billions of dollars in new housing that takes years to build. Culhane said single adults who are not veterans, including the elderly and disabled, constitute a majority of the homeless population. But assistance is scarce.

“It’s like you have a famine, and you’ve only got food for 15% of the people,” Culhane said.

Rapid rehousing is critical for the newly homeless, he said. But it can take two years for them to qualify for Social Security disability, and once they do, the $1,000 a month “is completely deficient in the face of rising rents.”

Culhane recommends faster approval of SSI benefits and supplementing that income with additional sources of rental assistance. He believes there are enough vacancies at the low end of the housing market to make a sizable dent in homelessness without new construction.

Judy Mauricio, 65, who has been homeless for nine years, rests inside her tent next to her walker. She says her drug addiction has kept her on the street. She receives state disability funds and says she has cancer.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

As campaign season warms up, I’d like to know if Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, Councilmember Nithya Raman, agree.

The mayor of L.A. is limited by a power split with the City Council, and the county oversees most addiction and mental health services. But Skid Row sits just a few blocks from the seat of city authority, and nobody has more power or responsibility to address the decades-long human catastrophe on Skid Row than the mayor.

Estela Lopez and the merchants deserve better. The people on the street deserve better. Thousands of housed residents deserve better.

Does Bass have a plan other than what’s currently in place? Does Raman have a better one?

If so, I’d like to hear the details, and I’m available.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

This World Cup has made unlikely international stars out of a plucky Cape Verde squad, further catapulted the status of gargantuan Norwegian striker Erling Haaland and firmly planted Lionel Messi as the greatest player of his generation.

But the players on the pitch haven’t been the only ones catching the eyes of soccer viewers.

Another legend among legends has also cemented his legacy during this run: Aurelio Casillas — the fictional drug kingpin and protagonist at the heart of the long-running Telemundo series “El Señor de los Cielos.”

The 10th season of the program finds Casillas reemerging to recover his narcotics empire after disappearing from his family’s radar. Familial drama ensues as betrayal runs rampant and Casillas embarks on a vengeful crusade against his enemies to regain and avenge the death of his love interest.

The image of Casillas, portrayed by veteran Mexican actor Rafael Amaya, has been plastered all across Telemundo’s World Cup coverage.

In the ads leading into games, Casillas is there. During most commercial rejoins, hosts spotlight the “El Señor de los Cielos” final season‘s Tuesday premiere.

The promotion has gone beyond what most U.S. audiences might be accustomed to as the network has cleverly implemented in-game ad reads that seem to flow freely into match coverage.

If Haaland coordinates a strike that helps Norway regain power in the game, a Telemundo game announcer might point out that decorated drug trafficker Casillas has also been known to schedule timely strikes to help him regain power in the dangerous world of narco warfare.

The incessant and cheeky ad reads served as more than just a gimmick as social media users have taken note of Telemundo’s marketing strategy. Many have joked about capitulating to the network’s advertising and giving the show a try. Others have humorously pondered about the contents of the program, while some have defiantly proclaimed that they will never fall for the series’ propaganda.

Hate it or love it, people can’t stop talking about it.

During halftime of Friday’s high-octane Argentina-Cape Verde Round of 32 match, Telemundo sportscaster Adriana Monsalve nodded to the online chatter the show has generated.

“We’ve read your messages on social media,” Monsalve said. “Between those who have said they’ve been convinced and those who admitted that they will be watching ‘El Señor de los Cielos,’ all we have to say is thank you. We await you all this Tuesday at 9 p.m./8 p.m. Central on Telemundo and Peacock.”

This type of over-the-top promotion model has long been used by the network as a way to convince advertisers that running commercials on its airways is worthwhile, noted University of Oregon advertising professor Christopher Chávez.

“They’ve really had to scrap it out over the years and so their product placement has always been overt, whereas in English-language media, there’s at least some attempt to make it creative or artistic,” Chávez, who also serves as the director of his school’s Center for Latina/o and Latin American Studies, told The Times. “There’s just this history of announcers and creatives really just going all in on marketing and almost not disciplining themselves, and because you have this global platform, people are just taking notice and they’re having fun with it.”

Telemundo’s executive vice president of marketing and creative strategy, Claudia Chagui, told The Times that the company had a game plan for how to approach the moment for “El Señor de los Cielos.”

“We had a very clear strategy going into the World Cup,” Chagui said. “We knew what we wanted to do in terms of how to protect our core fans and how to attract English-leaning Hispanics and maybe even general market fans to come and watch it in Spanish and all of that happened. We knew that this launchpad for ‘El Señor’ was going to be the strongest platform we could have.”

Chávez remarked that the Telemundo likely put a lot of stock in engaging Latinos online in the hopes that they would have fun with the marketing rollout.

“[Telemundo] knows that Latinos are younger and tend to be more proficient users of social media and more likely to share content,” Chávez said. “They’re very aware of that kind of market research, so whatever they put out there, hopefully it’s going to be meme-able or it’s going to be shareable. I think they’re pretty much banking on that.”

Chagui said that while much of the viral online chatter is beyond the control of the network, Telemundo’s social team has been locked in to the conversations regarding the show.

“We have our ‘El Señor’ account and even our Aurelio account — who is commenting on some of these conversations — and we’re making sure that our community feels like they’re being heard,” Chagui noted. “There is a real fan community around this IP and we take that very seriously. We want to take care of our fans.”

The show has been able to have such reach this World Cup cycle because more U.S. viewers are opting to tune in to Telemundo’s coverage than ever before.

In a recent social media post, Telemundo said that nearly half of all World Cup viewers stateside are watching its coverage.

NPR reported that 20% of Telemundo’s soccer audience speaks English as their primary language. Telemundo Deportes leadership told the outlet that the network’s telecast numbers have increased by 122% since the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

“It’s so much better when we’re watching it on Telemundo, because the announcers are not simply announcing the game, they’re engaging with the audiences themselves,” said Mari Castañeda, University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Commonwealth Honors College dean. “They’re really leaning into a more Latino aesthetic that is much more loose, open, joyful, kind of like a party atmosphere that changes the vibe and makes it become more celebratory, which it should be. The World Cup is meant to bring people together and it really seems to be doing that.”

That level of involvement from the commentators was something that Telemundo’s marketing team made sure to instill in its talent pool, Chagui noted.

“We work with our sports team and say, ‘These are the things that are top priorities for us from a promotional perspective,’ and our team creates all those mentions for those commentators and we work hand-in-hand with the sports team to make sure that there’s time within the games for them to be able to make those mentions,” she said.

“We tweak that messaging along the way to make sure that it doesn’t become too repetitive, that people don’t get tired of it. And now when the season starts, you’ll see that those mentions are going to be even more organic and will be more related to what’s happening on the show at the time.”

An unexpected added element that fell into Telemundo’s lap was the dream run of Mexico’s national team in the tournament.

“We prayed for that, but it’s been tremendous,” Chagui said. “[The Round of 32 game against Ecuador] had over 17 million viewers, so talk about a dream promotional platform. We really couldn’t ask for more.”

Chávez saw this current cultural moment as a great time for “El Señor de los Cielos” to potentially add a slew of new viewers, especially among English-first audiences.

“One of the things that streaming platforms like Netflix has done is that you’re starting to now see preferences change,” he said. “American audiences are starting to consume Korean dramas, for example, or Spanish-language dramas … [these] platforms have changed people’s comfort levels with consuming content that is not necessarily in English.”

Chagui also credited Telemundo’s streaming home, Peacock, as an important driver of popularity for “El Señor de los Cielos.”

“Now everybody watches content in any language, so I think the partnership with Peacock has been tremendous, because we know a lot of consumers don’t watch linear television anymore, and so if you’re not available on the streaming platforms, then you already hit a brick wall … we have to be available where our audiences are consuming content,” Chagui said.

If you’re one of the many people intrigued by the series, but find the idea of doing nine seasons of catch-up viewing daunting — there’s no need to fear, Telemundo has got you covered.

Seizing on the show’s newfound increase in popularity, the network created a special episode of “El Señor de los Cielos” that recaps all nine seasons of the series in under two hours.

“We needed a catch-up strategy because core fans are going to want to catch up before the premiere of the new season, but we’re going to bring in all these new eyeballs with the World Cup, and so we had to have something that is easy for them to understand what the series is about so they can hit the ground running,” Chagui said. “That’s where we had this idea to do this 90-minute recap of all nine seasons and so since we launched that on Peacock and the consumption has been off the charts.”

But the appeal of the “El Señor de los Cielos,” which began airing back in 2013 and is inspired by the real-life escapades of Mexican drug lord Amado Carrillo Fuentes, goes beyond just the viral marketing.

“I think for a lot of the folks that were not watching it, but that now are interested and fascinated by the show, [the appeal] is that it’s based loosely on a true story,” Castañeda said. “That’s one of the things that in talking to some of the elders in the community is what connects them to the story itself, it feels like it’s something relevant and contemporary because it’s based on the potential of a true story that’s taking place.”

Castañeda added that the program’s high production value and explosive action scenes make “El Señor de los Cielos” seem like “a fun show to watch.”

Amaya’s turn as the sinister yet family-focused Aurelio Casillas has drawn comparisons to James Gandolfini’s portrayal of mob boss Tony Soprano — a distinction the actor dubbed an “honor” as “The Sopranos” is one of his favorite series.

In a conversation with The Times, Amaya embodied the corporate synergy that has piqued interest in his show.

“Our World Cup are TV series and I think that we’ve scored a bunch of goals during the decade that we’ve been telling a story that always been buzz-worthy and that has passed from generation to generation,” Amaya said. “All that is thanks to the viewers and to the characters who have evolved and remained relevant.”

In addition to the plethora of ads, the “El Señor de los Cielos” lead actor contributed to Telemundo’s World Cup coverage through a special program titled “Diarios de Fútbol con Rafael Amaya.” The show follows Amaya around L.A. as he speaks with soccer legends about the transformative power of the sport.

When asked what new viewers of the show should expect, Amaya kept it simple.

“They’re obviously going to see a series filled with adrenaline, betrayal, unexpected turns,” Amaya said. “In this 10th season there are a lot of changes, and I think it’s the best season yet.”

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday narrowly approved President Reagan’s request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas–the first affirmative vote by Congress in three years on an aid package for the rebels that includes military assistance.

The 53-47 vote was a significant victory for the President, who conducted a tireless lobbying drive for his request and saw it narrowly rejected only a week ago by the Democratic-controlled House. The White House hopes that the Senate vote will help stimulate a reversal in the House, where the proposal will be reconsidered in mid-April.

Not since 1983, when Congress approved covert aid as part of the fiscal 1984 defense budget, has either chamber voted for military aid to the contras, as the rebels are called. Sentiment against such assistance rose sharply in early 1984 after it was learned that the CIA had secretly mined Nicaraguan harbors.

A Reassuring Signal

En route to his mountaintop retreat near Santa Barbara at the time of the vote, the President declared that the Senate action would “send a profoundly reassuring signal to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and to Nicaragua’s threatened neighbors.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, hailed Thursday’s vote as a “good victory” for the President. “This is a very important issue for him–having spent two weeks turning heaven and earth to get this result,” he said.

But Democrats insisted that the narrow margin did not constitute an endorsement of Reagan’s Central American policy. “The vote was so close you can’t call it a victory for the Administration’s policy here in a body that his party controls,” Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) said.

Eleven Senate Democrats voted with Reagan, but he lost 11 Republicans. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) voted with the majority; Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted against the measure. Among the Democrats supporting Reagan was Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who earlier had opposed contra aid and is believed to be preparing to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.

Senate Democrats failed in their effort to withhold military aid for a brief period while forcing Reagan to seek bilateral negotiations with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. A Democratic alternative authored by Sasser failed by a 67-33 vote, and another proposal by Cranston calling for bilateral talks was rejected, 66 to 34.

Warnings of Another Vietnam

Advocates of bilateral talks frequently warned that Reagan’s more belligerent approach was leading the nation into another Vietnam.

“It’s time to know where we are going in Central America before we find ourselves with U.S. troops on the battlefield and body bags coming home once again,” Sasser said. “We say negotiate first. This Administration owes that to the American people. This Administration owes that to our brave young men who will be called upon to fight and die in Nicaragua unless peace is achieved.”

Although the President was forced to make a few additional concessions to gain a majority, the package approved by the Senate was not significantly different from the compromise that Reagan offered voluntarily a week ago as an executive order in his unsuccessful effort to win House approval.

The measure would provide $25 million to the contras immediately and release $15 million every 90 days thereafter with the understanding that the President would search for a diplomatic solution during that period. With the first allotment of money, the contras would be permitted to buy surface-to-air missiles to use against Nicaraguan helicopters.

No offensive weapons for the contras would be funded until July 1, and then only after the President determines that the conflict cannot be solved by diplomacy. At least $30 million of the money would be used for humanitarian purposes, $3 million of it for human rights programs.

Direct Talks Not Required

Under the Senate plan, the President is not required to seek direct bilateral talks unless the Sandinistas are willing to negotiate with the contras as well–something the Nicaraguan government has declined to do. Reagan staunchly refused to agree to talks without contras involvement, even though it would have won him broad bipartisan support for the aid package.

Despite Reagan’s opposition, Lugar insisted that the Administration’s special envoy, Philip C. Habib, eventually would go to Managua seeking talks. But Democrats noted that Reagan never kept a pledge for bilateral negotiations that he made to the Senate in a letter last year to win approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras.

The rejected Democratic alternative proposed by Sasser would have withheld all military aid for six months to encourage negotiations. The President would have been required to enter into the talks if the Nicaraguans first agreed to a cease-fire.

Republicans said that Sasser’s proposal might have gained some GOP support if he had limited the waiting period to 90 days and provided some assistance for defensive weaponry during that period. “He went too far out to the left,” a top GOP aide said.

Cranston’s amendment would have withheld the money for only 90 days but, like Sasser’s proposal, it provided nothing but humanitarian aid during that period.

Amendments Defeated

The Senate also defeated amendments from the far left and far right. The vote was 74 to 24 against a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to eliminate all aid. A proposal by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)–what he described as a “put up or shut up” provision–which would have released all aid on May 15 if the Sandinistas refused to adhere to democratic principles by then, was defeated by a 60-39 vote.

The only amendment that succeeded was one offered by Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.) that would prohibit American trainers and advisers inside Nicaragua. It passed by voice vote.

Although the Administration seized upon the recent incursion of Nicaraguan troops into Honduras as evidence of the need for contras aid, Lugar insisted that the fighting along Nicaragua’s northern border had no impact on the outcome in the Senate. However, the Administration hopes that House Democrats will be swayed by the incursion.

Despite the narrow vote, it was apparent that the mood of Congress had changed significantly since last year when the President had to fight almost as hard to get congressional approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras. Many Democrats who opposed all aid last year voted for the Sasser proposal this time.

As a result, it was frequently compared during floor debate to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that opened the way for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) predicted that the amount would continue to increase in the years ahead as it has since 1981 when the Administration first provided covert aid to the contras.

‘Tinkering With $100 Million’

“I don’t believe $100 million is going to do the trick, and I don’t think anybody does,” Bumpers said. “If Nicaragua represents a serious security threat to this hemisphere, why are we tinkering with $100 million?”

Wilson insisted that it was not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution for Central America. “We are asked not to send our sons, but to send a pittance,” the California Republican said.

But Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which has access to Administration intelligence reports from Central America, charged that Reagan had overstated the threat posed by the Sandinistas.

As it did in the House last week, Reagan’s highly partisan campaign on behalf of his contras aid request succeeded only in angering many senators, who resented White House efforts to portray their opponents as supporters of the Marxist regime in Managua.

“No one is more anti-Communist than I am,” Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said. “I deeply resent the President’s sickening display of neo-McCarthyism in this debate.”

The trader-turned-campaigner argues that drastic steps need to be taken to close the UK’s huge wealth gap

Millionaire trader-turned-inequality campaigner Gary Stevenson is proposing a 2% annual tax on all those who have wealth above £10million in the UK.

The TV presenter will set out his argument in a Channel 4 programme in which he explores the growing concentration of wealth in Britain. He says that the UK’s poorest billionaire, with a wealth of just £1billion, makes £50 million a year in passive income at a rate of just 5%. That is nearly £1million every week, without getting out of bed.

And Gary, 40, argues that if nothing changes, the concentration of wealth at the top will only accelerate. “If this continues, it is inevitable that the billionaires and the super-rich will own a larger and larger share of the real wealth of this country, meaning other groups in society, the working class, the middle class, and the government will progressively own less and less.

“If we do not do anything about this system then very, very quickly the billionaires will own everything, and you will own nothing.”

In the UK, the richest 56 people have equal wealth to 27million people. In 2025 alone, the average billionaire grew their wealth by £231million. Meanwhile wages, in real terms, are lower than they were almost 20 years ago and the average student debt in England has soared from £3,200 in 2000 to £53,000 today.

Taxing wealth rather than income is not a new idea – Norway, Switzerland and Spain already have wealth taxes. Under his proposal, a person worth £11 million would pay £20,000 in tax a year, while some one worth one billion would pay £20 million.

Some estimates suggest that this system could raise £24billion annually, enough to fund the NHS, build affordable housing or cut taxes for workers who are on lower incomes.

A poll of 4,142 British adults found that 75% of the public support a wealth tax along with many experts. Gabriel Zucman, Professor of Economics, tells Gary: “There is a problem in our tax systems which is that the very rich have lower effective tax rates than the rest of the population.”

But there are plenty of billionaires, aristocrats, tax experts and finance influencers who argue against it. In the programme Reform party donor and billionaire entrepreneur Bassim Haidar – whose wealth is growing at around 12% a year, says that if it happened, he’d sell his businesses and quit Britain. “I would exit completely. Yeah, even if I sell them at a loss, I don’t care, cause it becomes a matter of principle. Wealth is mobile, so I’ll walk away. And listen, I’ll take a hit for one year, that’s fine. But then I’ll go, and I’ll never come back.”

Gary, who grew up in Ilford, east London, the son of a postman, thinks Haidar is scaremongering. “Rich people generate the majority of their income from owning assets. Your house, your supermarket, the farms that grow your food, the power plants that create your energy,” he argues. “Many wealthy people own assets which are fundamentally fixed to this country.”

He also discovers wealthy people who are quite happy to give a bit more. Julia Davies, who made her fortune building an accessories business and is a member of a group called Patriotic Millionaires, is one of them: “We’ve got to stop normalising this idea that it is normal to try and avoid contributing to public services and infrastructure, if you can massively afford to do that. I’m a millionaire, I’m not going anywhere. Why would I uproot myself and my family just to avoid contributing a bit more?”

– How to Get Filthy Rich with Gary Stevenson, Wednesday 8 July, 9pm, Channel 4

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

It was a traumatic moment for much of Southern California, as federal immigration agents snatched undocumented workers from car washes, garment factories and Home Depot parking lots.

Angelica Salas, who heads one of Los Angeles’ most influential immigrant rights groups, met regularly last summer with City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez — himself the son of Mexican immigrants — as they formulated a response. The two kept circling back to a singular issue: the lack of political power wielded by noncitizens.

“A lot of this is happening because immigrants don’t have the right to vote,” said Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

Those conversations helped fuel Soto-Martínez’s decision in late April to push for a ballot proposal aimed at giving noncitizens the right to vote in city and school district elections. The proposal quickly gained momentum, with two-thirds of the council voting in mid-June to draft a measure for the Nov. 3 ballot.

Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martínez attends a City Council meeting following elections at City Hall June 3.

(Etienne Laurent / For the Times)

But the effort collapsed on Tuesday, with the council reversing course and sending the proposal to a committee for more study. Before the vote, Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not performed sufficient outreach, particularly to the city’s Black community leaders.

By then, critics were accusing the council of failing to do its homework, leaving voters to fill in the blanks on such questions as whether undocumented immigrants would be covered by the expanded franchise. Some worried the proposal would endanger the very people it was designed to help, making them a fresh target for the Trump administration.

Even community leaders who have worked on civil rights issues were urging the council to slow down.

Mobilizing Preachers and Communities, a national nonprofit that represents clergy and civil rights advocates, asked for a delay, citing concerns about President Trump. Rev. K.W. Tulloss, the group’s western regional director, said he was also hearing concerns from Black residents and their religious leaders about the potential for weakening Black voting representation.

That, in turn, could reduce the overall number of Black elected officials in Los Angeles, he said.

“That’s a major concern among our community,” Tulloss said. “And we can’t be afraid to have that dialogue.”

In L.A., Black residents make up about 8% of registered voters, according to the Sacramento-based firm Political Data, Inc. That figure has been gradually declining over the past few decades. An influx of noncitizen voters — Latinos, Asians and others — could cause it to shrink even more.

At the end of the year, L.A.’s 15-member City Council will have two Black representatives, down from three, all in South L.A.-based districts. Two Latinos are running in this year’s election to replace Councilmember Curren Price, who is Black and retiring after serving the maximum three terms.

The county’s five-member Board of Supervisors has one Black member. Voters have given the go-ahead to add four more members, which some fear could leave the board with one Black member out of nine.

Tulloss said his organization supports creating a pathway to citizenship for the city’s undocumented immigrants. At the same time, he worried that Soto-Martínez’s proposal could in the short term divide Black and brown residents, who share a common struggle on a wide range of issues.

“At the end of the day, we don’t want any type of deal that will be divisive in the community,” he said.

Soto-Martínez, who represents an Echo Park-to-Hollywood district, said in an interview Wednesday that noncitizen voting was part of his platform when he first ran for City Council in 2022. He said he first thought about the issue seriously a decade ago, when San Francisco voters passed a measure allowing noncitizen parents to cast ballots in school board elections.

Since its formation, the United States has repeatedly redefined the right to vote, broadening it to include women, Black people and other groups, he said.

“To me, it just seemed very natural to expand it,” he said. “It’s part of our history.”

The idea of noncitizen voting has been circulating in L.A. for years. School board member Kelly Gonez persuaded her colleagues to begin exploring it in 2019. But the effort was set aside after the onset of COVID-19, which caused massive disruptions across the Los Angeles Unified School District, said Michael Trujillo, a political strategist for Gonez.

Last summer, as the Trump administration was launching immigration raids across Southern California, the city was convening a 13-member citizens commission to come up with proposals for rewriting the City Charter, L.A.’s governing document.

The commission took up noncitizen voting in March, narrowly rejecting it. Several commissioners said they were worried about unintended consequences, like the Trump administration taking aim at newly registered voters, said Raymond Meza, who served as the commission’s chair.

“I thought those concerns were not fully addressed,” Meza said, “so I actually switched my vote” and opposed the proposal.

A month later, with the deadline for placing items on the Nov. 3 ballot fast approaching, Soto-Martínez introduced a motion calling for a two-step process for expanding voting rights. First, voters would be asked to give the City Council the authority to grant noncitizens the right to vote.

The council would then examine the details surrounding the change before passing an ordinance expanding those voting rights.

Soto-Martínez said his motion was based on a simple idea: Those who live in the city, raise their families there and pay taxes “deserve to have a voice” in local decision-making. He did not offer many specifics, saying those would be worked out at a later date.

Critics, and even some supporters, said Soto-Martínez was making his move at the wrong time. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who voted against the proposal in mid-June, voiced fears that the list of noncitizen voters would immediately be seized by federal immigration authorities.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he opposes noncitizen voting in city elections. He does favor it for L.A. Unified — but only for parents of children attending those schools.

Villaraigosa, who led the city from 2005-13 and recently ran for governor, argued that this is not the right time to make even that change.

“With Trump ferreting through every record he can find looking for undocumented people, I just think it’s the wrong time,” he said. “I think these people would be exposing themselves to deportation, and the well-intentioned would be exposing them as well.”

Soto-Martínez portrayed such arguments as “fear mongering,” saying undocumented immigrants take risks every day in their quest to create a better future for their families.

Salas, the head of CHIRLA, echoed that idea.

“At end of day, we are already targets,” she said. “This is not going to make it worse. Don’t tell me voting against this was for the protection of immigrants.”

The Trump threat was not the only reason council members hesitated.

Rodriguez, who has expressed some interest in the proposal, said city leaders had not determined how county election officials would issue separate ballots for voters who would be barred from state and national contests. They also had not determined the cost of such a service, she said.

Twenty-two local jurisdictions across the country have approved and implemented noncitizen voting, according to Megan Dias, who is co-author of “Immigrant Voting and the Movement for Inclusion in San Francisco,” a report examining that city’s push to allow immigrants to vote in school board elections.

Dias said that backers of noncitizen voting need to build a broad coalition — grassroots organizations, election officials, lawyers for the city — before taking the proposal to voters.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said he is confident that noncitizen voting will get a much more extensive review in the coming months, and make the ballot in 2028. First, he said, the council will need to provide voters with specifics on how the changes would work.

Harris-Dawson said he heard from people who wanted more time to understand the proposal, to “make sure that it was done in a way that protected Black voting districts in particular.”

During the deliberations on the proposal, it also was not clear whether the change would apply to green card holders, recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals or other categories of noncitizens.

“When something goes to the ballot, we need the details to be figured out — like how much something is going to cost, exactly how it’s going to work, and what the parameters are,” Harris-Dawson said. “All of that needs to be defined.”

PHOENIX — For decades, all that separated the U.S. from Mexico was barbed wire.

Now, after a massive infusion of cash from Congress, President Trump’s administration is swiftly building what it has dubbed a “smart wall,” a combination of 30-foot-tall steel fencing and an array of sophisticated technology like sensors, cameras and towers allowing Border Patrol to surveil the territory.

The wall is under heavy scrutiny for the billions of dollars being dedicated to it when border crossings are at their lowest in decades. Critics say the U.S. is militarizing the border as it increasingly deploys sophisticated surveillance technology to the area, impacting local communities.

“We are seeing a massive expansion of surveillance and surveillance technology across the borderlands,” said Ricky Garza, border policy counsel at the Southern Border Communities Coalition, an advocacy group. “The wall in all its forms is harmful to communities.”

Officials say the technology is complementary to the physical wall and frees up agents for other tasks.

“It’s a smart wall. It’s not just a barrier,” Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said during recent congressional testimony. “It maximizes the use of our most valuable resource, which is our agents.”

Contracts for hundreds of miles of wall already inked

The wall has been a top priority for Trump, a Republican, since he first ran for president.

During the administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, the border emerged as a flashpoint, with thousands of people seeking to cross into the country each day. Those numbers started to taper off shortly before Trump returned to office last year and then slowed to a trickle, with his broader immigration crackdown serving as a deterrent for would-be migrants.

Flush with $46 billion to finish the wall after an infusion by Congress for immigration enforcement, CBP is inking tens of billions of dollars in contracts to build the wall and push along the president’s signature project.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said recently that a preliminary part of the wall will be finished by “this time next year.” Scott said his agency is putting up 6 miles of wall a week.

Hundreds of miles had already been built before Trump returned to office. As of mid-June 2026, CBP has erected another 74 miles and aims to build hundreds more. There is no wall planned for roughly 535 miles of the roughly 2,000-mile-long border, because rugged terrain already serves as a barrier. Ground sensors and towers will be used instead.

CBP is also going back to hundreds of miles of already built wall and adding more technology, lights and roads. Along the long stretches of river in Texas that mark the border with Mexico, they’re deploying 12- to 15-foot-long cylinder-shaped buoys meant to keep migrants or smugglers from crossing the border.

More technology being deployed on the border

Technology is playing a greater role in the Trump administration’s effort to make illegal crossings along the border more difficult, part of a broader transformation of CBP in the years since Sept. 11, 2001, into an intelligence operation with a mass surveillance network whose reach extends far beyond the nation’s frontiers, according to reporting by The Associated Press.

And critics say the border technology poses a threat.

The Southern Border Communities Coalition says surveillance technologies can push migrants into more dangerous routes to avoid being detected.

Garza, the group’s policy counsel, warned that surveillance technology infringes on the privacy rights of border residents and that locals have found ground sensors used to detect smuggler or migrant traffic placed on their property without their consent.

Nayda Alvarez and her relatives own land along the Rio Grande roughly 125 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. She has found cameras placed on her family’s land, and just last week she spotted a surveillance tower about a quarter of a mile down the river from her house.

“Are we expecting a war or something?” she said. “It doesn’t make me feel safer.”

Dave Maass, director of investigations for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that focuses on civil liberties related to digital technology, said the technology has made the border area “a hostile environment” for locals and would-be migrants.

The foundation has published a guide on the various types of surveillance towers in use along the southern border designed to help local residents.

These can range from fixed towers with video, infrared and radar technologies that have a range of roughly 8 miles to remote video surveillance systems that have cameras and a spotlight fixed on top. Some are mounted on the backs of trucks so agents can drive them to different parts of the border.

Increasingly, these towers are autonomous. They can scan an area, analyze what they’re seeing using artificial intelligence and alert Border Patrol agents to something suspicious. Proponents say this helps keep Border Patrol agents out in the field instead of sitting in front of computer screens watching for activity. But it also increases AI decision-making along the border when experts have warned about the technology’s potential for bias or other problems.

The big GOP tax cuts and spending bill passed by Congress last summer requires that CBP buys only the autonomous towers, and the department is deploying an additional 95.

Underground, buried fiberoptic cables can sense movement, capturing data that is also then analyzed by AI.

“We follow the contour of the land. We go through trees. We go down into the river banks. We can go absolutely everywhere,” said Magnus McEwen-King, CEO of Sintela, which has a contract with CBP to install the cables. He spoke at a recent border security expo in Phoenix, where some of the technology was on display.

CBP also uses ground sensors and trail cameras to detect smuggling routes.

Concerns over cost and future plans

The nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has questioned both the huge amounts of money for the wall-building and whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.

In 2011, under Democratic President Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano pulled the plug on a project to build a “virtual wall” of integrated technology like radars, sensors and cameras across the entire border after it ran over budget, faced technological glitches and was behind schedule.

Josh Sewell, director of research and policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the organization would like to see more “robust evaluation” of the technologies being used to avoid similar scenarios. And he criticized the Trump administration for lack of oversight on how the money is being spent, a charge CBP has denied, citing “oversight mechanism.”

In the Big Bend area of southern Texas, opposition to the department’s wall-building plans gathered strong bipartisan support especially in the most sensitive areas that run through a state and national park and a wildlife area.

CBP now says it is not planning to build a 30-foot-high bollard wall in those areas. Its recently announced plans include installing patrol roads and some barriers designed to stop cars and using detection technologies.

Clara Benson, who is one of the founders of the No Big Bend Wall coalition, says bright lights in the area designed to illuminate the border could pollute the skies in an area renowned for having some of the best views of the stars. Even without a 30-foot-tall steel wall running through the land, there is concern about CBP’s plans.

“There’s still a lot of fear and dread that the plan is still going to be quite damaging,” she said.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a 100% state tax on money any Californians receive from Trump’s $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Newsom unveiled his proposal in May, after Trump’s Justice Department said it would create a fund to compensate Trump’s allies who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under Biden’s Justice Department.

The settlement fund was criticized by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who described it as a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.”

The fund remains in legal limbo. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia extended a court-ordered block on the plan, which critics warned could be used to pay pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.

Fast-tracked into law as part of Senate Bill 122, Newsom’s plan imposes “a tax on any settlement fund payment from the federal Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any subsequent fund, settlement, or agreement, as provided, at a rate of 100%,” according to the bill text. The tax applies to all tax years between 2026 and 2030.

Newsom signed the bill Tuesday. In a statement, his office said the tax is meant to ensure that, should Trump’s fund proceed, California recipients won’t “receive favorable state treatment on those payments.”

“We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims—not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms,” Newsom said in the statement.

University of Southern California law professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman, an expert on tax law and policy, said that while Newsom’s tax is a “novel legal strategy,” she believes there is “no categorical legal restriction” preventing California from implementing it.

States have a “wide degree of discretion” to design their tax systems — including how they define income — so long as they do not violate their constitutions, Jurow Kleiman said.

If a California resident wanted to challenge the tax in court, they would need to show they were harmed by it to have standing to sue, according to Jurow Kleiman. That would mean receiving a payment from Trump’s settlement fund and then paying the 100% California tax. Unless the settlement fund is established and distributes payments, that scenario is unlikely.

While there have been proposals to levy a 100% tax on income above certain thresholds — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2023 said he supports a 100% tax on income exceeding $1 billion — Jurow Kleiman said she is not aware of any governments that have adopted such a policy.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born here are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were here illegally or temporarily.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.

But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.

The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.

In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.

In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.

He left after an hour having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.

It was the rare Supreme Court case which was decided based simply on the words of the Constitution.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, say they look to what the Constitution says and how its words were originally understood.

The 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that Black persons could not become U.S. citizens.

In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.

In the 19th Century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in this country.

The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark who born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.

But in his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote, and in the future, it will not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visa, he said.

His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.

In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”

By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.

Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws. Instead, he chose to try to change the law and revise the Constitution by executive order.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney pointed to the surge of illegal immigration in recent decades.

“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” responded Roberts.

Plan includes more than 5 billion pounds for drones and autonomous systems over four years, Ministry of Defence says.

Outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that Britain will spend almost 300 billion pounds ($397bn) over the next four years to modernise its armed forces amid rising threats.

Starmer, expected to leave office next month after losing the support of Labour MPs, announced on Tuesday that the overall defence budget would increase by 15 billion pounds ($20bn) over the next four years to almost 300 billion pounds as he launched his long-awaited defence investment plan.

“Last year I made the decision in the national interest to reprioritise aid spending towards defence and achieved the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War,” Starmer said.

“That was the right choice because the world has changed. National security is economic security.

“Today we uplift defence spending further – an additional 15 billion pounds worth of funding – by … reprioritising spending across government.”

The plan includes more than 5 billion pounds ($6.6bn) for drones and autonomous systems over the next four years, the Ministry of Defence said in a news release.

The announcement followed months of wrangling within Starmer’s Labour government over the resources required to modernise the United Kingdom’s armed forces in the face of rising threats, including from Russia.

Two defence ministers quit this month in a row over the spending proposals, including Defence Secretary John Healey, who said the plans risked making Britain “less safe”.

Starmer’s pledge came as United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged NATO allies to spend more on defence and become less reliant on Washington for security.

Starmer will take the plan, which foresees spending nearly 80 billion pounds ($105.7bn) a year by 2029, to Ankara for a NATO summit on July 7-8. He wants to signal Britain is on track to spend 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product on defence by 2035.

With likely successor Andy Burnham due to take power as early as July 20, Starmer acknowledged new governments could “build” on his blueprint.

Critics said the plan, delayed for more than nine months, was too little, too late.

Volkswagen (VWAGY)(VLKAF)(VWAPY) is preparing to end its partnership with automotive supplier Bosch on automated driving technology, according to a report by Germany’s Bild newspaper, as the carmaker intensifies efforts to reduce costs and improve competitiveness.

The collaboration, launched in 2022 between

California Forever, the tech billionaire-backed group that hopes to build a city from scratch on farmland in the outer San Francisco Bay Area, is lobbying state leaders to fast-track a massive shipbuilding deal that would kick-start its development after years of local opposition.

The billionaires behind the project are seeking a deal to expedite environmental reviews of the development and, if necessary, bypass county restrictions on building by being absorbed into Suisun City boundaries. They’ve hired former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg — Democratic architects of landmark environmental laws — to make their case, and are using the prospect of luring a major shipbuilder to California to accelerate the dealmaking.

California Forever has pursued its project for nearly a decade, though the vision has shifted: At first pitched as a walkable city with cottages, bike lanes and even a water park, the plan then added a major shipbuilding operation and, last summer, a significant manufacturing hub.
California Forever’s proponents, led by the state’s powerful building trades union along with Realtors, peace officers and pro-housing groups, argue the latest proposal would boost the state’s economy and bring an estimated half a million jobs to California. And now, a prospective tenant has emerged: Defense company Saronic Technologies Inc., which builds autonomous vessels for use in national security, is deciding between California and Texas for its next factory. The state must fast-track the development or lose the deal, supporters argue.

The developers are seeking the state’s permission to use an 18-year-old environmental impact report for the shipyard development, limit any legal challenges to the project to 270 days, and allow Suisun City to annex their land if needed, according to Steinberg and Hertzberg.

“In short, if legislation is not approved, California will lose billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs this summer to Texas and other states,” proponents wrote in a joint letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders this week.

But some locals and lawmakers are skeptical, arguing that details about the project remain scarce. The proposed development would convert vast farmlands into factories and risk harming the surrounding ecosystem, they said, which deserves rigorous environmental review under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act that proponents are seeking to expedite.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento) is shown during a Senate floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Feb. 20, 2025.

(Fred Greaves / CalMatters)

“For a project this scale in this location, it is what the [law] was designed for,” said Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), who represents the area. “A central question for the people of Solano County is: Is this going to be for the community or is this a conversion project that leaves them behind?”

Opponents also slammed California Forever for pursuing relief behind closed doors with state leaders and circumventing local opposition. Since 2018, the group has secretly bought up agricultural land, shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to court local residents and spent at least $330,000 lobbying the governor and legislative leaders for favorable legislation.

“I think they know that the only way this actually happens is under cover of darkness, by trying to essentially get the governor to work this plan for them,” said Jordan Grimes, legislative director at Greenbelt Alliance, which has advocated for streamlined environmental reviews for housing projects.

Secretive beginnings foment distrust

For residents of Solano County, an agricultural community on the outskirts of the Bay Area that includes coastal areas next to a deep-water shipping lane, the suspicion around California Forever has been hard to shake.

The group’s subsidiary, Flannery Associates, started buying up farmland in 2018, eventually acquiring 62,000 acres while routinely refusing to answer questions about its backers. Some farmers later alleged the company used strong-arm tactics to get them to sell.

In 2023, Flannery’s backers were unmasked as a group of wealthy venture capitalists, including the founders of LinkedIn and Netscape, all led by former Goldman Sachs trader and real estate developer Jan Sramek. Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, holds investments in both California Forever and Saronic, the defense company eyeing California. Andreessen’s firm did not immediately return a CalMatters inquiry for comment.

Despite rocky beginnings, California Forever needed the majority of Solano County voters on its side due to a 1984 “orderly growth” law that requires voters to approve development on unincorporated land.

In 2024, the company debuted the East Solano Plan to rezone 17,500 acres of agricultural land for a dense, 400,000-person city. The proposal was set to go before voters that year, but its backers pulled it following powerful grassroots opposition, poor polling and a county assessment that found holes in the plan. Sramek acknowledged the group likely moved too fast and said the initiative would go back before voters in 2026.

Instead, the group has pivoted. The East Solano Plan has become the Suisun Expansion Plan and the Solano Shipyard. In January 2025, Suisun City’s city council directed its manager to explore expanding the city’s limits through annexation, which is now underway, although it could take years.

State Route 113 runs through land where California Forever plans to put its new city in Solano County.

(Loren Elliott / CalMatters)

“The annexation and the shipbuilding have been a clear way to work around the need for voter support in Solano County,” said Nate Huntington, a member of the grassroots group Solano Together, which formed in response to the secretive land purchases. Huntington pointed out that California Forever hasn’t even submitted a proposal for a shipbuilding facility to the county.

“All of this has been happening in backrooms of Sacramento, and it’s not been publicly available.”

Seeking state environmental relief

California Forever is now selling the development to the state as a major incentive to lure manufacturers and shipbuilders to California — and the subsequent need for housing to accommodate the promised jobs.

The company wants the governor and state lawmakers to cut red tape for the development and require enough housing for the new jobs. Steinberg and Hertzberg told CalMatters they are contemplating legislation to that end, but only after California Forever signs a lease with a manufacturer or shipbuilder.

Their plan would allow the governor to designate construction on company land as “environmental leadership development projects,” which would effectively require any litigation to be resolved within 270 days. Steinberg authored the state law streamlining that process in 2013.

State law requires government agencies to prepare a report for any project that might have a significant impact on the environment. Instead of assessing the impact of the proposed shipyard, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s proposal would use a 2008 report, which designated the area where the shipyard would go as “water-dependent industrial usage.” Most of California Forever’s 7,500-acre planned footprint does not have that designation.

Steinberg told CalMatters the report is sufficient since the site has changed little.

“The state and county need the ability to say yes now to these numerous opportunities,” he said in a text. A new report, he said, “would require years of additional delay and lost opportunities.”

But the report is outdated, Cabaldon argues.

“This is completely different,” he said. “Just the notion that you would just say, ‘We are not going to do any assessments at all and we’ll just rely on this old one’ — that is not consistent with what the public interest is.”

Steinberg and Hertzberg also want the state to require enough housing in the area, but to allow surrounding cities and Solano County to permit local housing developers to build first.

But if local governments aren’t willing to or cannot build enough housing within the timeline the manufacturer or the shipbuilder wants, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s proposal would allow Suisun City to annex adjacent California Forever-owned county land into its city boundaries — a controversial idea that has drawn fierce local opposition. The move would be a “last resort,” Steinberg and Hertzberg stressed repeatedly.

The annexation would effectively bypass the county’s orderly growth initiative, which requires voters to have a say in development.

“The shipbuilders and manufacturers need certainty on a much faster timeline,” Steinberg said.

Cabaldon said the pitch to build new housing to accommodate theoretical jobs is “fantastical,” noting that Saronic, the proposed shipbuilder, is a leader in automation.

“There’s no indication that this is going to generate on an ongoing basis that many jobs, and certainly not more jobs than we have housing for even today without building a single additional unit,” he said.

Historic union agreement prompts support

In January, California Forever announced it had signed a 40-year deal with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and Northern California Carpenters Union to use union labor to build its development. The agreement was an important political alliance for Chief Executive Sramek, bringing more influential advocates to the table.

According to Digital Democracy, both the Building Trades Council and the Carpenters Union have given roughly $10 million in direct donations to legislative candidates since 2000.

Those advocates made themselves heard over the last few weeks, following a Texas county court approving significant tax incentives to lure Saronic to Brownsville. In a statement, Saronic said its nationwide search is still “active and ongoing.”

The California Alliance for Jobs, an alliance of influential construction companies and workers, drafted two letters in quick succession calling for legislative leaders to streamline the California Forever expansion and shipyard.

“We champed at the bit to go all in to get this project moving, and to get legislation through Sacramento this session,” said Joshua Arce, executive director of the alliance.

Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington, who has consistently been the sole vote on the council against the annexation plan, said she feels organized labor is being used as “political pressure” to win approval.

“Processes are slow, but they’re done that way through government to ensure that it’s being done correctly, that all parties of interest are being treated fairly, and there’s checks and balances,” Washington said.

“It’s unheard of for a project to be done as quickly as they want it to be done.”

In a statement, California Forever spokesperson Jim Wunderman said any shipyard project will comply with all California environmental and land-use laws. He said county supervisors already approved using the 2008 impact report, and that legislation would allow the group to “meet prospective employers’ timelines.”

He said by pursuing expansion within Suisun City, California Forever is following the community’s preferences by channeling new growth into existing cities.

An ongoing presence in the Capitol

Since 2024, California Forever has spent at least $330,000 lobbying the Legislature and governor’s office on bills and other actions, according to campaign finance records.

Steinberg and Hertzberg told CalMatters they were hired in April as “special counsel,” not lobbyists, meaning they are spending less than a third of their time talking with public officials.

Grimes, who said he respects Steinberg for leading landmark environmental land-use reforms in the Legislature, said he’s disappointed in his advocacy for California Forever, “a project that is antithetical to all of this.”

Sheep graze on land where California Forever plans to build its new city in Solano County.

(Loren Elliott / CalMatters)

California Forever reported spending $90,000 lobbying the governor’s office and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, called GO-Biz, last year on “federal shipbuilding activities and California business attraction and retention activities.”

“GO-Biz has discussed relevant state incentive programs with Saronic and explained how they operate,” said GO-Biz spokesperson Willie Rudman. He said the agency does not offer incentive packages to specific companies.

Last fall though, GO-Biz helped organize a bid for Saronic to settle in Solano County. County staff reported during a board meeting that GO-Biz supported a legislative effort to override the county’s “orderly growth” law.

County supervisors rushed through a proposal to change the boundaries of the Solano Shipyard to comply, but with just days remaining before the end of the legislative session, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, said there wasn’t time to introduce legislation.

Since then, Wilson said, the proposal has been on the table, but “nothing’s been requested” of her office by California Forever.

The company also urged lawmakers to act fast or risk losing the shipbuilder to Texas last year — a negotiating tactic common in economic development, Cabaldon said.

But Cabaldon argued that Saronic will decide where to place its shipyard based on “defense needs of the United States of America” instead of state incentives.

“We have to negotiate with our eyes open,” he said.

Wolffe and Yu write for CalMatters.

TELLY favourites Stacey Solomon and Joe Swash are set to upgrade their Pickle Cottage home for a sprawling mansion set in 30 acres.

The couple have set their sights on an impressive eight-bedroom Victorian mansion, which is said to be central to DIY influencer Stacey’s next renovation project.

A source said the pair “fell in love” with the Essex property after viewing it as a potential new home for their family of eight.

And the news should help quash rumours that their relationship is on the rocks.

Stacey, 36, will have her work cut out transforming the already-impressive gaff, which costs almost double the £1.3million price of their current home and is more than 7,500 sq ft — complete with a pool and a lake.

Our source said the couple would be sad to leave Pickle Cottage, but are grateful to have the chance to make “new memories” with their brood.

They said: “They viewed the house and fell in love with it. It’s got extra space for the kids.

“Pickle Cottage only has five bedrooms. They have six children and then they need a room for themselves. It gives Stacey a chance to do more of her amazing DIY work as well.

“She has a great eye for interiors. This house needs a bit of love and work to make it the absolute dream home where they can make new memories.”

The family’s current Tudor-style Pickle Cottage, also in Essex, is the setting for their reality TV show, which launched to 4.2million viewers in April last year, with a second series last September.

The BBC has commissioned a third series of the show, despite scrutiny after The Sun’s revelation that the couple’s lavish 2022 wedding was never made legal.

Following the news, Stacey took to social media to tell her six million followers the pair had always been clear it was a “religious ceremony and blessing” in their garden.

She added that the couple plan to get “legally married at a later point”.

Stacey and Joe, 44, have three kids together — Rex, seven, Rose, four, and three-year-old Belle — while Stacey also has teenage sons Zachary, 18, and Leighton, 14, and Joe has son Harry, 19.

In March, after being pictured multiple times with and without her wedding ring, Stacey addressed speculation about “issues going on” in her marriage on ITV’s This Morning.

She told presenter Ben ­Shephard: “There’s a new rumour each week. Have I not been wearing my ring? I probably took it off to go to the toilet or something.”

Stacey and ex-EastEnders star Joe have built lucrative careers on their family image after first meeting on ITV’s I’m a Celebrity show in 2010.

Brent crude rises after cargo ship comes under attack in key waterway.

Oil prices have jumped after the United Nations maritime agency called off its planned evacuation of ships stranded around the Strait of Hormuz following an attack on a cargo vessel in the waterway.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose as much as 4 percent on Thursday after the International Maritime Organization paused its evacuation plan amid renewed violence in the strait.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $74.89 per barrel as of 02:00 GMT, after earlier dropping below $72.48, their closing price the day before the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran.

After dropping sharply following the US and Iran’s signing of a memorandum of understanding on ending the war last week, the price of Brent currently stands at about 3 percent above its pre-war level.

Asian markets opened lower on Friday, with key indices in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan seeing steep losses.

Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 and Seoul’s Kospi both fell more than 3 percent in morning trading, while the Taiex dropped about 1 percent.

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index was down about 1 percent.

The latest attack in the strait, through which about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas supplies transit in peacetime, dealt a blow to hopes for a return to normal shipping in the region after a recent resurgence in traffic.

On Wednesday, 70 vessels transited the waterway, a more than twofold increase from the previous day and the highest daily figure since March 1, according to ship tracking platforms MarineTraffic and Kpler.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said on Thursday that a cargo vessel reported being struck by an “unknown projectile” on its starboard side while attempting to cross the strait near the Omani coast.

Multiple media outlets, including The New York Times, CBS News and the Reuters news agency, cited unnamed US officials as saying the attack had been carried out by Iran.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority, which claims the right to regulate shipping in the strait, said after the attack that any vessel attempting to use routes outside its designated “framework” would not be guaranteed safe passage.

“The consequences arising from passage through unauthorized routes shall be the responsibility of the owner, operator, and vessel commander,” the authority said on X.

June Goh, a senior oil market analyst at Sparta in Singapore, said the attack was a reminder to markets of the fragility of peace in the strait amid the tenuous US-Iran ceasefire.

“There is a pressing need for tankers to enter and offload the high crude stocks from onshore tanks in order for normal production to resume again,” Goh told Al Jazeera.

“Thus, security of the passageway is paramount to recover the lost supply.”

The U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) paused its plan to evacuate hundreds of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf after a vessel was attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. A U.S. official told us the attack was carried out by an Iranian drone, which was confirmed by Iranian officials.

The evacuation plan, which IMO developed with Oman, was designed to provide safe passage to vessels in the Persian Gulf that are still unable to transit the Strait, which has been largely closed since Iran was attacked by the U.S. and Israel. The announcement came as traffic was beginning to move through the Strait again amid ongoing, albeit tense peace talks between the U.S. and Iran. However, these transits represent a tiny fraction of what took place before the war.

The IMO decision today also came after a warning earlier on Thursday by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) that safe passage through the Strait was limited to routes designated by Tehran and that other routes were “unacceptable and completely dangerous,” according to The Washington Post. The publication cited Iranian state-run media. The IRGC-N also claimed it turned back several ships trying to transit the Strait through the southern route suggested by IMO. There is also a northern route, near the Iranian coastline while concerns remain about mines in the main route, down the middle of the Strait.

IMO said it is pausing its evacuation plan even though the ship that was attacked was not taking part in that nascent effort.

“Following the launch of the IMO’s evacuation plan, through which several vessels have already been successfully evacuated, I have decided to temporarily pause its implementation in order to reconfirm that the necessary safety guarantees continue to be in place for the ships on our evacuation list and all those in the region,” IMO Secretary-General Mr. Arsenio Dominguez said in a statement. “I have been informed of an attack today in the Gulf of Oman on a vessel which passed through the Strait of Hormuz. This vessel did not transit under IMO’s evacuation framework. I have always reiterated that the safety of the seafarers remains paramount. Therefore, to ensure a coordinated approach and navigational safety, the evacuation plan will be paused until further clarity is obtained.”

“Today marks the Day of the Seafarer, underlining the importance of ensuring that the continued evacuation of the thousands of seafarers stranded in the Persian Gulf can proceed without the risk of them becoming collateral victims in this geopolitical conflict,” Dominguez added.

A maritime security official told us the ship that was attacked was the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged cargo ship, according to MarineTraffic. The incident occurred about 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center.

“A cargo vessel has been hit on the starboard side by an unknown projectile, causing damage to the bridge,” UKMTO stated on X. “Master has reported no casualties and no environmental impact. Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”

POP superstars Madonna and Kylie Minogue get into the groove as they film a comedy bar sketch for Madge’s special with Graham Norton.

Madonna, 67, invited Kylie, 58, to take part in the top-secret filming last month, having admired her career for over a decade, the Sun can reveal.

A source said: “Madonna and Kylie have long been fans of each other, so when Kylie got the call to make a cameo in the BBC special, it was a no-brainer. Rather than a performance, Kylie actually appears in the show in a light-hearted skit.

“She plays a barmaid, though, awkwardly, Madonna doesn’t like the drink Kylie gives her. It’s all very light-hearted.”

The Sun understands the pair have discussed hitting the studio together in the future.

The TV special, Madonna & Graham, airs tonight at 10.40pm on BBC One.

in vogue

Madonna, 67, looks half her age as she goes braless in sheer blue minidress at PFW

HUG UP ON YOU

Madonna & Charli XCX END feud with hug weeks after ‘dancefloor is dead’ swipe

It was filmed in Camden at Koko, where Madonna performed for the first time in the UK for just 200 people in 1983 when it was called the Camden Palace.

Graham said: “As a lifelong fan it is always a thrill to interview Madonna. But to meet her on the dance floor where she first performed in London over 40 years ago felt incredibly special.”

Kylie made a surprise guest appearance at Madonna’s The Celebration Tour in LA in 2024.

They performed Gloria Gaynor’s 1978 hit I Will Survive in a nod to Kylie’s 2005 breast cancer battle.

WASHINGTON — A Democratic U.S. senator warns the Trump administration is getting ready to round up 500 immigrant children in a hasty effort to remove them from the country, bypassing legal protections. It would be their second attempt after a federal court intervened last year in an overnight plan to fly out hundreds of children on Labor Day weekend.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon wrote in a letter Wednesday to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement caring for unaccompanied migrant children, that he had “credible information” that the Trump administration had a list of more than 500 migrant children it was targeting for a fast-track removal process and that the department was racing to act in days. He warned that the administration was abdicating “core humanitarian and child welfare mandates” and demanded an immediate halt to any plans to remove the children.

Wyden, who is the ranking member and senior Democrat of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over ORR, did not detail how he came by his information. His office declined to provide further details. ORR falls under the Department of Health and Human Services.

An HHS spokesperson denied any such plans.

“The new information I obtained leads me to believe that the Department is laying the groundwork for another lawless deportation effort, this time on a greater scale, across more countries of origin,” Wyden wrote.

“You have been entrusted with the care and safety of the children placed within the ORR network. Proceeding with this plan knowingly endangers their lives and violates your duty to these vulnerable children.”

Wyden also issued an early warning last August ahead of what eventually became a chaotic weekend of efforts by the Trump administration to remove Guatemalan children in its care and send them home.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in “there are no plans to target these children,” calling Wyden’s claims ”irresponsible fearmongering.”

“The Trump Administration is working to identify the parents or legal guardians of unaccompanied alien children in our care because ensuring every child is placed with a properly vetted sponsor is our top priority,” she said.

Over the Labor Day weekend, dozens of migrant children either staying in government-supervised shelters or with foster families were taken from their homes and bused to airfields in Texas bound for Guatemala. A federal judge woken up in the middle of the night eventually stopped the planes. Lawyers for the children — many who had fled violence at home to come to the U.S. — later described how traumatic the middle-of-the-night removal effort was for them.

The administration insisted it was reuniting the Guatemalan children — at the Central American nation’s request — with parents or guardians who sought their return. Lawyers for at least some of the children said that wasn’t true and argued that in any event, authorities still would have to follow a legal process that they did not.

Migrant children traveling alone are usually entrusted to U.S. government care, and there are various legal protections designed to protect them once they’re in the U.S. and navigating the immigration system.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 is one of the key pieces of legislation designed to protect them. With some limited exceptions, it requires that children be placed in the “least restrictive setting possible,” which generally means that they can be released to a sponsor such as a relative in the U.S. while their immigration proceedings play out.

The children can apply for a specially protected status if they can’t return to their home country because of abuse or neglect and they can also apply for asylum.

The Trump administration has made it increasingly difficult for those children to be released to sponsors though. The administration says that they are doing due diligence to make sure that sponsors are thoroughly vetted and that in the past, children were released into dangerous situations.

But advocates say that the result has been children lingering for months in government shelters.

This time, Wyden said the children at risk of being removed come from various countries, potentially including Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Afghanistan, and have been in U.S. custody — mainly in foster care — for at least 180 days. He said they were described as not having any “viable sponsor” who could come forward and take care of them in the U.S.

Not having an identified sponsor could mean the child’s parents are in their home countries, are deceased or are too afraid to claim their children after ICE started arresting some parents who are not in the country legally during their reunification efforts.

Gonzalez and Santana write for the Associated Press.