The New England Patriots coach knows that much of the chatter around his team in recent weeks has nothing to do with the reigning AFC champions’ offseason workouts or their plans for the NFL draft later this week.
Instead, it’s been about a “personal and private matter” that Vrabel decided to address at the top of his news conference Tuesday in Foxborough, Mass. Although he didn’t specify, the second-year Patriots coach seemed to be referring to photos recently published by the New York Post’s Page Six of him and Dianna Russini, who was at the time a reporter for the Athletic, interacting at an Arizona resort.
The photos appear to show Russini and Vrabel — both married to other people — holding hands, hugging and sitting in a hot tub and a swimming pool. In the April 7 article that accompanied the photos, Russini and Vrabel gave statements denying that anything inappropriate was happening between them.
In his first public comments since the article was published, Vrabel did not mention Russini or the photos. Instead, Vrabel spoke about how he has handled the situation and what his family, the team and the fan base can expect from him “going forward.”
“I’ve had some difficult conversations with people that I care about — my family, the organization, the coaches, the players,” Vrabel said. “Those have been positive and productive. We believe in order to be successful on and off the field, you have to make good decisions. That includes me; that starts with me.
“We never want our actions to negatively affect the team. We never want to be the cause of the distraction. These are comments and questions that I’ve answered for the team and with the team. We’ll keep those private and to ourselves.
“I care deeply about this football team and am excited to coach it. I also know that I’m going to attack each day with humility and focus. And what I can promise you is that my family, this organization, the team, the staff, the coaches, everybody, our fans, most importantly, will get the best version of me going forward.”
A Patriots spokesman said team officials have no plans to address the issue further. The NFL has indicated it is not investigating the matter.
In the Page Six article, Athletic executive editor Steven Ginsberg expressed full support for Russini and said the photos “are misleading and lack essential context.” Days later, however, the New York Times, owner of the Athletic, reported that the digital sports outlet would conduct an investigation.
On April 14, Russini submitted her letter of resignation to the Athletic, then posted it on X. In it, Russini states she has “no interest in submitting to a public inquiry that has already caused far more damage than I am willing to accept.”
“This media frenzy is hurtling forward without regard for the review process The Athletic is trying to complete,” Russini wrote. “It continues to escalate, fueled by repeated leaks. … Rather than allowing this to continue, I have decided to step aside now — before my current contract expires on June 30. I do so not because I accept the narrative that has been constructed around this episode, but because I refuse to lend it further oxygen or to let it define me or my career.”
Virginia voters on Tuesday are deciding whether to ratify an unusual mid-decade redrawing of U.S. House districts that could boost Democrats’ chances of flipping control of the closely divided chamber, as the state becomes the latest front in a national redistricting battle.
A proposed constitutional amendment backed by Democratic officials would bypass the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission to allow use of new congressional districts approved by state lawmakers in this year’s midterm elections.
The referendum, which needs a simple majority to pass, tests Democrats’ ability to push back against President Trump, who started the gerrymandering competition between states after successfully urging Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts in their favor last year. Virginia is the second state, after California last fall, to put the question to voters.
It also tests voters’ willingness to accept districts gerrymandered for political advantage — coming just six years after Virginia voters approved an amendment meant to diminish such partisan gamesmanship by shifting redistricting away from the legislature.
Even if Democrats are successful Tuesday, the public vote may not be the final word. The state Supreme Court is considering whether the redistricting plan is illegal in a case that could make the referendum results meaningless.
Virginia Democrats are following California’s lead
Congressional redistricting typically is done once a decade after each U.S. census. But Trump urged Texas Republicans to redistrict ahead of the November elections in hopes of winning several additional seats and maintaining the GOP’s narrow House majority in the face of political headwinds that typically favor the party that is out of power during midterms.
The Texas gambit led to a burst of redistricting nationwide. So far, Republicans believe they can win up to nine more House seats in newly redrawn districts in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio.
Democrats think they can win up to five more seats in California, where voters approved a mid-decade redistricting effort last November, and one more seat under new court-imposed districts in Utah. Democrats hope to offset the rest of that gap in Virginia, where they decisively flipped 13 seats in the state House and won back the governor’s office last year.
Voters focus on fairness, with different perspectives
The stream of voters was steady Tuesday at a recreation center in the Old Town area of Alexandria, Virginia.
Matt Wallace, 31, said he votes regularly but this election has additional emphasis.
“I think the redistricting issue across the country is unfortunate, that we’ve had to resort to temporary redistricting in order to sort of alter our elections across the country,” Wallace said. He said he voted for the Democratic redistricting amendment “to help balance the scales a bit until things get back to normal.”
Joanna Miller, 29, said she voted against the redistricting measure, “because I want my vote to count in a fair way.” Miller said she was more concerned about representation in Virginia than trying to offset actions in other states.
“I want my vote and my representation to matter this fall,” she said.
Political parties made a big push in Virginia
Leaders of both major parties see Tuesday’s vote as crucial to their chances to win a House majority in the fall. Trump weighed in via social media Tuesday morning, telling Virginians to “vote ‘no’ to save your country!”
Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, rallied with opponents of the measure Monday night, calling the redistricting plan “dishonest” and “brazenly deceptive.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters at the Capitol earlier in the day that a vote to approve the redraw “will serve as a check and balance on this out-of-control Trump administration.”
A committee supporting the Democratic redistricting effort had raised more than $64 million — three times as much as the roughly $20 million raised by opponents, according to finance reports filed less than two weeks before the election.
The back-and-forth battle over congressional districts is expected to continue in Florida, where the Republican-led legislature is scheduled to convene April 28 for a special session that could result in a more favorable map for Republicans.
A lobster-like district could aid Democratic efforts
In Virginia, Democrats currently hold six of the 11 U.S. House seats under districts that were imposed by the state Supreme Court in 2021 after a bipartisan commission failed to agree on a map based on the latest census data.
The new plan could help Democrats win as many as 10 seats. Five are anchored in Democratic-heavy northern Virginia, including one shaped like a lobster that stretches into Republican-leaning rural areas.
Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia and Hampton Roads dilute the voting power of conservative blocs in those areas. And a reshaped district in parts of western Virginia lumps together three Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.
The Virginia redistricting plan is “pushing back against what other states have done in trying to stack the deck for Donald Trump in those congressional elections,” Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger said during an online rally last week.
Ads for the “yes to redistricting” campaign featuring former President Barack Obama have flooded the airwaves.
Opponents have distributed campaign materials citing past statements from Obama and Spanberger criticizing gerrymandering, but those were before Trump pushed Republican states to redraw their congressional maps in advance of this year’s midterms.
Democrats “were all against gerrymandering before they were for it,” Virginia Republican Party Chairman Jeff Ryer said.
Virginia court weighs whether lawmakers acted illegally
Virginia lawmakers endorsed a constitutional amendment allowing their mid-decade redistricting last fall, then passed it again in January as part of a two-step process that requires an intervening election for an amendment to be placed on the ballot. The measure allows lawmakers to redistrict until returning the task to a bipartisan commission after the 2030 census.
In February, they passed a new U.S. House map to take effect pending the outcome of the redistricting referendum. Republicans have filed multiple legal challenges against the effort.
A Tazewell County judge ruled that the redistricting push was illegal for several reasons. Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. said lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session.
He ruled that their initial vote failed to occur before the public began casting ballots in last year’s general election and thus didn’t count toward the two-step process. He also ruled that the state failed to publish the amendment three months before that election, as required by law.
If the state Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, the results from Tuesday’s vote could be rendered moot.
Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Gary Fields in Virginia and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — NASA recaptured the world’s attention with Artemis II, which took astronauts to the moon and back for the first time in half a century. But the agency’s scientific projects could again be under threat as the Trump administration makes a renewed push to drastically cut their funding — including at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The cuts, proposed in the Trump administration’s 2027 budget request to Congress, would pose further challenges to the already weakened Caltech-managed lab and could be broadly damaging to American efforts to bring back new discoveries from space. They echo last year’s attempt by the administration to slash NASA funding, which Congress rejected.
Though the Artemis project is billed as laying a foundation for a crewed NASA mission to Mars, exploration of the Red Planet is among the endeavors that could be slashed. The rover currently exploring Mars’ ancient river delta and a mission to orbit Venus are among projects with JPL involvement targeted for spending cuts, according to an analysis of the NASA budget proposal by the nonprofit Planetary Society.
“This isn’t [because] they’re not producing good science anymore. There’s no rhyme or reason to it,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, which led opposition to the administration’s similar effort to cut NASA funding last year.
Storm clouds hang over the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on Feb. 7, 2024.
(David McNew / Getty Images)
This time, the administration is asking Congress to cut NASA funding by 23% — including a 46% cut to its science programs, which are responsible for developing spacecraft, sending them into outer space to observe and analyzing the data they send back.
The proposal would cancel 53 science missions and reduce funding for others, according to the Planetary Society analysis. The effort to pare down NASA Science comes amid the Trump administration’s broader effort to cut scientific research across federal agencies.
The plan swiftly drew bipartisan criticism from members of Congress, who rejected the administration’s similar 2026 proposal in January. Republican Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA, indicated last week that he would work to fund NASA similarly for 2027, saying it would be “a mistake” not to fund science missions.
Moran plans to hold a hearing with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman before the end of April to review the budget request, a spokesperson for his office said. The president’s budget request is an ask to Congress, which ultimately holds the power to allocate funding.
But until Congress creates its own budget, NASA will use the plan as its road map, which could slow grants and contracts. The proposal “still creates enormous chaos and uncertainty in the meantime for critical missions, the scientific workforce, and long-term research planning,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), whose district includes JPL.
A NASA spokesperson declined to comment Friday. In the budget request, Isaacman wrote that NASA was “pursuing a focused and right-sized portfolio” for its space science missions in order to align with Trump’s federal cost-cutting goals.
The budget “reinforces U.S. leadership in space science through groundbreaking missions, completed research, and next-generation observatories,” Isaacman wrote.
Jared Isaacman testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the NASA administrator in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Dec. 3, 2025.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
At JPL — which has for decades led innovation in space science and technology from its La Cañada Flintridge campus — questions had already swirled about the lab’s role in the future of NASA work.
Multiple rounds of layoffs over the last two years, the defunding of its embattled Mars Sample Return mission and a shift by the Trump administration toward lunar exploration and away from the type of scientific work that JPL executes had pushed the lab into a challenging stretch.
It has had a steady stream of employee departures in recent months, and those left have been scrambling to court outside funding from private investors, sell JPL technology to companies and increase productivity in hopes of keeping the lab afloat, according to two former staffers, who requested anonymity to describe the mood inside the lab.
“If we’re not doing science, then what are we doing?” asked one former employee, who recently left JPL after more than a decade there.
A spokesperson for the lab declined to comment, referring The Times to the budget proposal.
The NASA programs marked for cancellation or cutbacks support thousands of jobs at JPL and other centers, said Chu, who has led a push for increased funding for NASA Science. After last year’s layoffs, JPL “cannot afford to lose more of this expertise,” she said in a statement.
Among the JPL projects that appear to be slated for cancellation are two involving Venus, Dreier said. One, Veritas, is early in development and would give work to the lab for the next several years, he said.
The project would be the first U.S. mission to Venus in more than 30 years, Dreier said, and aims to make a high-resolution mapping of the planet’s surface and observe its atmosphere.
The Perseverance rover, which is on Mars collecting rock and soil samples, could face spending reductions. The budget request proposes pulling some funding from Perseverance to fund other planetary science missions and reducing “the pace of operations” for the rover.
Though how the Mars samples might get back to Earth is uncertain, the rover is still being used to explore the planet and search for evidence of whether it could have ever been habitable to life.
Researchers hope the tubes of Martian rock, soil and sediment can eventually be brought back to Earth for study. The team has about a half a dozen more sample tubes to fill and the rover is in good shape, said Jim Bell, a planetary scientist and Arizona State University professor who leads the camera team on Perseverance, which works daily with JPL.
He said NASA’s spending proposal put forth “no plan” for the future of the agency’s work.
“Are people just supposed to walk away from their consoles,” Bell asked, “and let these orbiters around other planets or rovers on other worlds — just let them die?”
The NASA document did not clearly show which programs were targeted for cuts and did not list which projects were targeted for cancellation. The Planetary Society and the American Astronomical Society each analyzed the proposal and found that dozens of projects appeared to be canceled without being named in the document.
Across NASA, other projects slated for cancellation according to the Planetary Society’s analysis include New Horizons, a spacecraft exploring the outer edge of the solar system; the Atmosphere Observing System, a planned project to collect weather, air quality and climate data; and Juno, a spacecraft studying Jupiter.
The administration’s plan also doesn’t prioritize new scientific projects, Bell said, which further jeopardizes long-term job stability and space discovery at centers like JPL.
“We’re going through this long stretch now with very few opportunities to build these spacecrafts,” Bell said. “All of the NASA centers are suffering from the lack of opportunities.”
Last year, the Trump administration proposed to slash NASA’s 2026 funding by nearly half. Instead, Congress approved funding in January that provided $24.4 billion for the agency — a cut of about 29% rather than the proposed 46%. The 2027 budget request asks for $18.8 billion.
Congress kept funding for science missions nearly steady, allocating $7.25 billion for science missions, about a 1% decrease from 2025. The administration had proposed cutting the science investment down to $3.91 billion. This time, the budget requests $3.89 billion.
Under the Trump administration, NASA has put an emphasis on moon exploration, including this month’s successful Artemis II mission. Isaacman, who defended the proposed cuts on CNN last week, touted the agency’s lunar plans, including a project to build a base on the moon.
The agency has indicated commitment to some existing science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope, the to-be-launched Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the Dragonfly spacecraft set to launch for Saturn’s moon in 2028, and other projects.
“NASA doesn’t have a topline problem, we just need to focus on executing and delivering world-changing outcomes,” Isaacman said on CNN.
Scientists have urged the government not to choose between funding science and exploration but to keep up investment in both.
“It’s ultimately kind of confusing, especially on the heels of the Artemis II mission,” said Roohi Dalal, deputy director for public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “The scientific community … is providing critical services to ensure that the astronauts are able to carry out their mission safely, and yet at the same time, they’re facing this significant cut.”
SACRAMENTO — — After nearly a year of often tortuous negotiations, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez have settled on a plan to extend health insurance to 3.6 million Californians who lack it through a new tax on all employers and tobacco sales, officials said Friday.
The leaders have agreed to ask voters in November to require employers to spend between 1% and 6.5% of their payroll costs on healthcare. The measure would also levy a tax on tobacco sales of at least $1.50 a pack, although it could be as high as $2 a pack, the aides said.
“It’s an incredible plan,” Nunez (D-Los Angeles) said in an interview. “I couldn’t tell you there is one single outstanding issue that is a make-or-break issue.”
Daniel Zingale, a senior advisor to Schwarzenegger, said the leaders “have agreed on the framework of the healthcare reform that will go before voters.”
Nunez’s office on Friday filed a companion bill that contains the details of how the plan would work and scheduled an afternoon vote in the Assembly on Monday, presuming a few details will be resolved over the weekend.
That bill does not contain the taxes or other measures that would provide the $14 billion a year needed to finance the ambitious overhaul and would not take effect unless the ballot measure passes. That puts Democratic lawmakers in the highly unusual position of voting on the plan without being able to assess whether the intricate financing scheme will be adequate. Republicans have already vowed to vote against the measure.
The moves came as Schwarzenegger promised to call an emergency session of the Legislature for early January to make cuts to the state’s budget. The governor’s office estimates the projected gap may reach as high as $14 billion by July 2009, which is threatening to sap political momentum from the healthcare plan.
On Thursday, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) said that while he supported most of the Nunez-Schwarzenegger plan, he intends to delay a Senate vote on the measure until the governor outlines how his proposed budget cuts will affect existing healthcare programs for the poor and disabled
The Nunez-Schwarzenegger plan would require almost all Californians to obtain private medical insurance. Those earning below 2 1/2 times the poverty level — or $51,625 for a family of four — would receive state subsidies to pay for most of their premiums.
Families earning more than that but no more than four times the poverty level — $82,600 for a family of four — would be able to fully deduct any premium costs that exceed 5.5% of their incomes, which translates to $4,543 for a family at the top of that range. There would also be tax credits for people who retire before they qualify for Medicare at age 65 so that they would not spend more than 10% of their savings on insurance.
Under the plan, California employers with payrolls of up to $250,000 a year would have to spend at least 1% on healthcare for their workers. Those that didn’t would pay into a state-run health insurance pool that would help secure coverage for the employees. Companies with payrolls up to $1 million would have to pay 4% and those with payrolls up to $15 million would have to pay 6%. All larger companies would pay 6.5%.
The plan would extend coverage to 800,000 low-income children and many impoverished adults who currently do not qualify for public programs. It would omit about 1 million illegal immigrants as well as another 500,000 people who are poor but either refuse public coverage or cannot document that they are legal residents.
The bill the Assembly will consider Monday would upend the way California’s insurance market works. Insurers would be barred from denying coverage to people because of existing medical ailments and would have to spend at least 85% of premiums on medical care.
Many insurers, including Kaiser Permanente and Blue Shield of California, have supported this approach for months, but the state’s largest insurer, Blue Cross of California, is preparing to fight the ballot measure.
The plan also contains a $2.3-billion tax on hospitals, supported by the industry, that would pay for increased MediCal payments to doctors and institutions that treat the poor. That tax would also qualify California to draw another $2.3 billion from the federal government.
Those involved in the negotiations said the only major piece still to be ironed out is the tax on tobacco. Schwarzenegger and Nunez have been negotiating with the tobacco companies to see if they can craft the provision in a way that will win their acquiescence, if not their support. But aides said they are also still discussing whether $1.50 a pack will be enough to fund the plan, or whether they will need $2 a pack — an amount tobacco industry leaders say they will oppose.
We “don’t think funding expanding programs with a declining revenue source makes sense,” said David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA in Richmond, Va.
Perata also expressed major reservations about the tobacco tax, and said that provisions being insisted upon by the tobacco industry, including immunity from civil and criminal lawsuits, would doom the deal.
The California Nurses Assn., which has favored replacing private insurers with a state-run provider of medical coverage, said the bill was being pushed through the Legislature. “Just as with the energy deregulation fiasco, legislators are being rushed into voting in the dark on a sweeping bill with massive loopholes and serious financial ramifications that no one has adequately reviewed,” said Donna Gerber, the union’s chief lobbyist.
Even some supporters of lawmakers’ efforts were worried that the broader political climate would be insurmountable.
Bob Ross, president of the California Endowment, a Los Angeles-based foundation that favors expanded healthcare, cited as obstacles the state’s weakening economy, the budget gap and the continued standoff between President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress about expanding federal health insurance for children.
“When you do the math on that set of realities, it doesn’t bode well,” Ross said. “So it comes as welcome news that the governor and the speaker are fighting and trying to get something done.”
