Politics

The battle to replace storied, 80-year-old union chief Jack Henning as head of the California Labor Federation appears to have been wrapped up with a deal calling for the two leading candidates to join forces and run on a combined slate.

The quietly negotiated pact, averting a potentially divisive battle among California’s unions in a pivotal election year, calls for 43-year-old Art Pulaski, head of the San Mateo County Central Labor Council, to move into Henning’s job as executive secretary-treasurer.

Slated to take the No. 2 job of president is Tom Rankin, 54, who for nearly 13 years has served as Henning’s top legislative aide. As president, Rankin would continue handling similar legislative duties.

Left out of the coalition ticket was the only other declared candidate for the helm of the labor federation, Dan Curtin, director of the California Council of Carpenters. Curtin, considered previously to be a distant third in the running and now believed to hold virtually no chance of derailing the Pulaski-Rankin ticket, could not be reached for comment.

The job of executive secretary-treasurer would catapult Pulaski into a hugely influential role as chief spokesman for the state’s unionized workers. The federation represents 1,200 AFL-CIO local unions covering 1.5-million workers in California.

If elected at the federation’s upcoming convention, which is scheduled for the last week of July in Los Angeles, Pulaski said his main goal would be to promote grass-roots union political campaigning throughout the state.

To that end, Pulaski said he would try to hire as many as 10 political staffers to help labor organizations throughout the state to push union-friendly candidates and issues. “We’ll be targeting districts where we can put in people more responsive to worker interests,” he said.

Leading the Pulaski-Rankin agenda is a proposition expected to be on California’s November ballot to raise the minimum wage, which has been $4.25 an hour since 1988, up to $5.75 an hour as of March 1998.

Both Pulaski and Rankin said they recently were persuaded to team up by union supporters around the state who wanted to avoid a punishing election struggle.

Rankin would replace Albin J. Gruhn, 81, as president. Gruhn, widely expected to retire this year after 36 years as the federation’s No. 2 official, said Monday that he will officially announce his plans next month.

Currently, the executive secretary-treasurer’s job pays $82,500 a year, while the president’s post pays $71,500.

Henning, who has played no public role in the contest to determine his successor, could not be reached for comment.

Starting Saturday, NBCUniversal’s cable news channel MSNBC will be called MS NOW, a makeover that may come as a shock to its loyal audience.

It’s why every MSNBC host has been sending the same message in promotional spots, on their programs and in press interviews about the new moniker. They say: We’re not going anywhere and we’re not changing.

“ ‘Morning Joe’ will still be ‘Morning Joe,’ ” said the program’s co-host Joe Scarborough in a recent Zoom conversation. “Chris Hayes will still be Chris Hayes. Rachel Maddow will still be Rachel. Lawrence O’Donnell will still be Lawrence.”

“We’re just going to keep doing what we do,” added Scarborough’s wife and co-host, Mika Brzezinski.

While no programming changes are planned, the rebranding will be a test in an age when brand awareness is difficult to achieve as the media marketplace is highly fractured. MSNBC kept its name for 29 years even after its founding partner Microsoft gave up its stake in the network.

Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe.”

(MSNBC)

MS NOW — an acronym for “My Source for News, Opinion and the World” — is the result of the politically progressive network being spun off into a company called Versant. Parent company Comcast announced the move last year as it no longer wants the slow, steady decline of the cable business holding back its stock price. Versant, which also includes CNBC, USA Network, Oxygen, E! and Golf Channel, will be its own publicly traded company starting in January.

The new ownership for MSNBC led to a separation from NBC News, which operated MSNBC since its launch in 1996. Although Versant leadership initially said the name would remain, NBCUniversal wanted to avoid having the network’s brand attached to a channel it no longer controlled.

Versant executives will likely be nervous when they look at the Nielsen ratings the first few weeks after the name change. But Julie Doughty, regional executive director of naming and verbal identity for the global brand consulting firm Landor, believes the shift is minor enough for consumers to get used to quickly.

“I’m sure they were concerned about disrupting the brand awareness they’ve built and losing the legitimacy and gravitas of the NBC name,” Doughty said. “This new name closely tracks the original. It has the same number of letters. MS is still in the front, which is a nice bit of continuity for those customers who already just shorten the name to MS.”

Doughty added, “The real test will come in the content. Will it continue to have high standards and deserve their trust as a mainstream new source?”

The network appeared to pass its first big test as a freestanding news organization with coverage of the Nov. 4 off-year election that saw a strong showing for the Democrats and the passage of the congressional redistricting proposition in California.

Nielsen data showed MSNBC finished well ahead of CNN on the night and just slightly behind perennial cable news ratings leader Fox News.

MSNBC becomes MS NOW on Nov. 15.

(MSNBC)

MS NOW executives say they remain committed to covering breaking news, staffing the channel’s own Washington bureau and entering news-gathering agreements with Sky for international coverage and AccuWeather. A number of NBC News journalists, including White House correspondent Vaughn Hillyard, justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian and national correspondent Jacob Soboroff, moved to MS NOW with the belief there will be more opportunities for expansive reporting.

“I won’t say their names, but some of the best reporters at NBC are far more disappointed with this than we are,” Scarborough said. “Their window just went from having 30 minutes on ‘Morning Joe,’ where influencers are, to 35 seconds on a morning show or maybe a sound bite on ‘NBC Nightly News.’”

The network is leaning heavily into promoting its lineup of personalities who in the current era of divided politics serve as tribal leaders for the audience.

“One of the things that so impressed me three years ago when I joined MS was the depth of the relationship with the fans,” MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler said at a recent press breakfast at the network’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan once occupied by the New York Times. “Eight hours a week — that is a ton of time and that is how much people watch us.”

The only signature MSNBC talent who chose to go with NBC News is political analyst Steve Kornacki. Willie Geist will remain host of NBC’s “Sunday Today” in addition to his duties on “Morning Joe.”

MSNBC on-air personalities believe the lack of a large corporate owner will be freeing at a time when journalism organizations and their parent companies are fearing the wrath of President Trump and his threats of business-related retribution over coverage he doesn’t like.

Last month at an MSNBC fan event in Manhattan, Maddow stirred up the crowd by touting the network’s editorial independence. She called the network a “nontoxic workplace” that is “at no risk of right-wing bloggers who are some billionaire’s friend.”

The comment was a reference to Bari Weiss, founder of anti-”woke” website the Free Press, who was hired to be editor in chief of CBS News and is a clear favorite of parent company Paramount’s chief executive, David Ellison.

Scarborough and Brzezinski said they have noticed how fans greet them with a bit more intensity since Trump has returned to the White House.

“When people see us on the street or the airport, they hug us a little longer and they thank us a little more,” Scarborough said. “They ask if everything is going to be OK.”

Scarborough said the new corporate setup will allow more entrepreneurial opportunities for the on-air talent in other platforms such as newsletters, podcasts and live events.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is heading for a sweep in the legislative assembly elections in the eastern state of Bihar.

The election in India’s third-most populous state, with 74 million registered voters across 243 assembly constituencies, has been viewed as a key test of Modi’s popularity, especially among Gen Z: Bihar is India’s youngest state.

Vote counting concluded on Friday after two phases of voting on November 6 and November 11.

Here is more about the election results and what they mean.

What was the result of the Bihar election?

As of 5:30pm (1200 GMT) on Friday, the NDA had won two seats and was leading in 204 out of 243, while the opposition Mahagathabandhan, or the Grand Alliance, with the Indian National Congress and the regional Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) as the main parties, was leading in just 33 seats, according to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which is currently not part of either alliance, was leading in one seat. The All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), another party that does not belong in either major alliance, had won or was leading in the remaining five seats.

BJP and allies

• Within the NDA, the BJP had won or was leading in 93 seats with a 20.5 percent overall vote share. 
• The regional Janata Dal (United) or JD(U), a key NDA constituent, had won or was leading  in 83 seats, with 19 percent votes overall.
• Another local NDA ally, the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) or LJPRV, had won or was ahead in 19 seats.
• The Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RSHTLKM) was leading in four seats.
• The Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular), or HAMS, had won or was leading in five seats.

Opposition alliance

• The Congress, India’s main opposition party, had won or was leading in five seats with 8.7 percent of the overall vote.
• The Grand Alliance’s biggest party, RJD, had or was leading in 26 seats with 22.8 percent of the vote.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), or CPI(ML)(L), was leading in one seat.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), was ahead in one seat.

How are Tejashwi Yadav and Maithili Thakur doing?

As votes were being counted, two of the most watched constituencies were Raghopur and Alinagar.

Raghopur has long been an RJD stronghold. But for some time during counting, Tejashwi Yadav, the son of RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav and the party’s de facto chief now, was trailing behind BJP candidate Satish Kumar in the Yadav family bastion. This had switched to a 13,000 vote lead for Yadav by 1200 GMT, with most votes counted. If Yadav were to still lose, it will be a historic defeat for what was, many years, the first family of Bihar. He previously won the seat in 2015 and 2020. His father has also won from Raghopur twice in the past, while his mother, Rabri Devi, has won it three times.

Popular folk singer, Maithili Thakur, representing the BJP, was leading in the Alinagar seat, with the RJD’s Binod Mishra trailing by 8,588 votes — another close contest.

What is driving the results?

Female voters

Political analysts attribute the gains for the key governing party in this election to the appeals Modi’s party has made to female voters.

In September, the BJP transferred about $880m to 7.5 million women – with 10,000 rupees ($112.70) paid directly into their bank accounts – under a seed investment programme called the Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme. Modi’s office said: “The assistance can be utilised in areas of the choice of the beneficiary, including agriculture, animal husbandry, handicrafts, tailoring, weaving, and other small-scale enterprises.”

Women make up nearly half of all eligible voters in Bihar, where women’s political participation is on the rise. Female representation in the state has historically been low. But in 2006, Bihar reserved 50 percent of seats on local bodies for women, which has boosted their political representation.

Female voter turnout in the state has often surpassed that of men since 2010. The turnout among women this time was 71.6 percent, compared with 62.8 percent for men.

Voter ID checks

The opposition has also accused the ECI of deliberately revising the official voter list to benefit the BJP via a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls over the past few months. Registered voters were required to present documents proving they were Indian nationals and legal residents of the constituency in which they voted.

As Al Jazeera reported in July, however, many of the poorest people in Bihar do not hold any of the several documents that the ECI listed as proof of identity.

The opposition argues, therefore, that this new requirement could disenfranchise poor and vulnerable groups, including disadvantaged castes and Muslims, who typically vote for the RJD-Congress alliance.

In September, the ECI removed 4.7 million names from Bihar’s rolls, leaving 74.2 million voters. In Seemanchal, a Muslim-majority area, voter removals exceeded the state average.

What is the significance of these results?

Bihar is India’s third most populous state, home to 130 million people. It sends the fifth-highest number of legislators to parliament.

The latest vote has been viewed as a key popularity test for Modi, who was sworn in for his third premiership after he won the national elections in June 2024.

But the BJP failed to secure a majority in the national election on its own, forcing it to rely on regional allies such as the JD(U) to form the government.

Since the national election, the BJP has won most major state elections, and the streak seems to be continuing in Bihar.

She’s a little bit country; he’s a little bit rock ‘n’ roll.

And me? I’m a little bit stunned. Two politicians have emerged, against all odds, to surprise and impress us this year: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

You’d be hard-pressed to find two Americans less similar — politically, culturally, geographically, maybe even molecularly. These two occupy opposite poles. She’s NASCAR and CrossFit. He’s electric vehicles and Pinot Noir. They shouldn’t have much in common, but lately, both have done the unthinkable: They’ve taken on President Trump and lived (politically) to tell about it.

Let’s start with Greene because, honestly, she’s more fun.

For years, MTG was seen as an embarrassment. The QAnon congresswoman. The “Jewish space laser” lady. The lawmaker who, just two years prior to winning her House seat, questioned whether a plane really hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

She harassed a then-teenage Parkland survivor and coined the immortal phrase “gazpacho police,” apparently confusing the soup with Nazi secret police.

But then, something strange happened: Greene started making sense. Not “agree with her at dinner” sense, but the “wait, that’s not totally insane” kind.

She blasted Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, which — if you take the “America First” philosophy literally and not just as performance art — is consistent with her beliefs. And in a time when selling out is perceived as being shrewder than standing for something, the mere act of holding a consistent position is a virtue.

MTG also called out her own party for blocking the Epstein files, and volunteered to walk “on the House floor and say every damn name that abused these women.”

And in an act of shocking populist coherence, she ripped into Republicans for letting Obamacare subsidies expire: “Health insurance premiums will DOUBLE,” she thundered on X, adding: “Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!”

Trump, naturally, took all this personally. “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie,” he said, recently. “Nice woman, but she’s lost her way.” To which Greene, never one to back down, fired back: “I haven’t lost my way. I’m 100% America First and only!”

The thing I’m liking about Greene isn’t just that she’s standing up to Trump — although, I admit, it’s fun to watch. But what’s really refreshing is that she’s a true believer who got elected, got famous and yet continues to believe.

Which brings us to Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has always been the poster boy for everything people hate about California — a man who looks like he was genetically engineered by a Napa Valley venture capitalist to play a slick politician.

The “important” coiffed hair. The smug grin. The French Laundry dinner during COVID-19, while the rest of us were holed up in our houses microwaving Lean Cuisines.

Once upon a time, he and his then-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, posed on a rug for a Harper’s Bazaar spread where they were dubbed “The New Kennedys.”

Enough said.

If Greene is the quintessential MAGA mama, Newsom is the slick bro you want to throat punch. But somehow he has had a banner year.

Newsom stood firm against ICE raids and troop deployments in Los Angeles. Then, he trolled Trump with online memes that actually landed.

After Texas Republicans tried to grab five congressional seats for the GOP, Newsom shepherded Prop. 50 through California — an amendment to the state constitution aimed at mitigating Texas’ gerrymandering by redrawing maps to help Democrats even the score.

Then, he waltzed into Houston for a celebratory rally — some political end zone dancing on the opponents’ home turf, just to twist the knife.

Like Greene, the guy has moxie.

And here’s the thing I’m learning from the Trump era: Guts come from the most unlikely places, and looks can be deceiving.

You never know when some heroic-looking leader will fold like a cheap suit, just like you never know when some “heel” out of central casting for villains will turn “face” and rise to the occasion.

I don’t mean to sound naive. I’m not proposing a Newsom-Greene 2028 unity ticket. (Although … tell me you wouldn’t watch that convention.)

The odds are, both of these figures will disappoint me again, probably by next Thursday. Life is complicated, and it’s sometimes hard to disentangle heroism from opportunism.

Indeed, some have speculated that MTG’s sudden streak of independence is the result of Trump putting the kibosh on a “Greene for U.S. Senate” bid in Georgia. And as for Newsom — is his show of toughness an act of patriotism, or a prelude to his own presidential campaign?

Frankly, that’s a difference without a distinction.

For now, here’s what is clear: These two political figures have shown a flash — a glimmer — of something like backbone.

And in the year of our Lord 2025, that’s rarer, and more valuable, than almost any commodity in politics.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing California over its recently voter-approved congressional maps, alleging they are an unconstitutional “power grab.”

Earlier this month, Californians approved Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s redistricting initiative, introduced in direct response to Texas’ effort to create new congressional maps that favor Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

While Texas Republican lawmakers pursued an unprecedented mid-cycle redraw without voter approval, President Donald Trump and his allies have been critical of the California move. Democrats counter that they are trying to protect the state’s representation in Congress, accusing Trump — who pressured Texas to pursue the new maps — of undermining democratic norms.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday filed the lawsuit against Newsom over California’s redistricting plan, alleging that it racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Gov. Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

According to the lawsuit, federal prosecutors accuse California’s Democratic leaders of manipulating congressional maps to bolster “the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

“Our Constitution does not tolerate this racial gerrymander,” the 17-page court document states.

“No one, let alone California, contends that its pre-existing map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of Race. Because the Proposition 50 map does, the United States respectfully requests this court enjoin defendants from using it in the 2026 election and future elections.”

Texas’ GOP-controlled legislature in August passed its new maps that are projected to give Republicans as many as five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats have criticized this move as Trump trying to create more red seats to keep control of the House, which the GOP now narrowly holds.

Texas has 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 25 of which are filled by Republicans.

California, which has 52 House districts — 43 of them held by Democrats — responded with Proposition 50.

Republicans hold a 219-214 majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, with two seats vacant.

Several states — led by both Republicans and Democrats — have since announced efforts to redraw their maps, setting off a gerrymandering arms race ahead of 2026.

“These losers lost at the ballot box, and soon they will also lose in court,” Newsom’s office said in a statement in response to the Trump administration lawsuit.

A newly released batch of correspondence involving disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has prompted new speculation about ties between the deceased financier and United States President Donald Trump, but experts say its significance stretches beyond the White House.

The never-before-seen emails have added to pressure on the Trump administration to release files about Epstein in the US government’s possession, with a vote in Congress now expected as early as next week. Trump has rejected suggestions that he has anything to hide, and insists that while he knew Epstein, they broke ties in the early 2000s.

But the newly released emails also raise ethical questions about the role played by acclaimed author Michael Wolff as he appeared to provide advice to Epstein on how to handle his dealings with Trump.

In the exchanges published by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, Wolff – best known for his bestselling books on the first Trump presidency – appeared to share confidential information before a presidential debate on CNN in December 2015 with Epstein, advising him on how to exploit his connection with Trump.

“I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you – either on air or in scrum afterwards,” Wolff wrote.

“If we were to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” Epstein replied.

“I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” Wolff told Epstein.

“You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime,” Wolff added, in his response to Epstein.

Al Jazeera reached out to Wolff for comment, but has not received a response.

In a conversation on a podcast with the news outlet The Daily Beast, Wolff said he was seeking to build a relationship with Epstein at the time to better understand Trump, but acknowledged that in “hindsight”, his comments could be seen as “embarrassing”.

Wolff, 72, is best known for his four books exposing the inner workings of the first Trump presidency, including Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said any judgement on whether behaviour like Wolff’s with Epstein was appropriate would depend on how the writer’s role is understood.

“Some people are reporters, some are commentators, and some are book authors, and there are some differences in the way that those different people operate,” Kirtley told Al Jazeera.

“If you want to be a public relations person, or if you want to be an agent, those are perfectly valid career choices. But I think that they are unfortunately incompatible with journalism because the public has a right to assume and to believe that you are acting independently,” she continued.

“You can’t serve two masters, as the saying goes, and your interest has to either be the public interest or serving some other interests.”

Insider reporting

Experts note that reporters often face ethical and professional dilemmas while cultivating relationships with sources, especially in areas where insider information is highly sought after, such as Wolff’s research on relations between various figures in the first Trump administration.

But the prerogative to build rapport with sources, especially those with influence, can also raise difficult questions about a reporter’s proximity to the very centres of power they are supposed to be scrutinising.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, said such relationships have to maintain certain boundaries and be balanced with the usefulness of the information being brought to the public’s attention.

“I think that the public has the right to be sceptical of this kind of cosy relationship with sources,” Wasserman told Al Jazeera. “But the answer the journalist has is that this is in the interest of the public, that there’s a redemptive dimension to this. It enables the kind of relationships that will allow people to confide in a reporter, who can then share that information with the public.”

Still, such relationships can also have a troubling inversion, where a journalist might be tempted to offer a source preferential treatment if they believe they might be rewarded with information.

Another journalist who corresponded with Epstein in emails released on Wednesday, a former New York Times finance reporter named Landon Thomas Jr, also appeared to have a close relationship with the convicted sex offender, whom he informed about a writer named John Connelly who was researching him.

“Keep getting calls from that guy doing a book on you – John Connolly. He seems very interested in your relationship with the news media. I told him you were a hell of a guy :)” Thomas Jr said in an email dated June 1, 2016.

“He is digging around again,” Thomas Jr said in another email to Epstein on September 27, 2017. “I think he is doing some Trump-related digging too. Anyway, for what it’s worth…” he added.

The public broadcaster NPR reported that Thomas Jr was no longer working for the Times by January 2019, and it had come to light that the reporter had asked Epstein for a $30,000 donation to a cultural centre in New York City. The New York Times has previously stated that the behaviour was a clear violation of its ethics policies and that it took action as soon as it learned of the incident.

In the case of Wolff, Wasserman also noted that his direct participation in matters relating to Trump, Epstein, and the media raised doubts about the writer’s ability to credibly report on those issues. Those questions may be especially poignant in a scandal that, for many people in the US, has become a symbol of close relationships among figures at the highest levels of power.

“The problem is that Wolff was offering advice on how to engineer, how to play this situation, in a way that’s advantageous to Epstein. And the problem that I have with that is that he then would presumably preserve the right to report on the consequences,” he said.

It also remains unclear whether Wolff’s relationship with Epstein resulted in the kind of public revelations that journalists typically point to when justifying close ties with sources.

“It occurs to me as important that in this exchange, Wolff doesn’t do anything to illuminate the core mystery, which is whether Trump was a sexual participant in what was going on with Epstein and these young women,” said Wasserman.

“And there’s nothing in this where I’m seeing Wolff even asking that,” he added.

Nov. 14 (UPI) — Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell, a career politician who aspired to a second term as the conservative leader of Washington’s largest city, conceded defeated in this week’s mayoral election to Katie Wilson on Thursday night.

The race was officially over Wednesday night when the number of remaining outstanding ballots was smaller than Wilson’s lead. Polling results showed that Wilson, 43, won by 2,000 votes, the thinnest margin for a mayoral race in recent Seattle history.

Harrell said he talked to Wilson on Thursday morning to offer his congratulations, and offered assistance with a transition to her administration.

“The Wilson administration will have new ideas,” Harrell said. “It will have a new vision. By winning the election, they have earned that right. We must listen to the young voters.”

Wilson held her own news conference shortly after Harrell finished speaking and acknowledged the “anxiety and fear” she said some people feel, but pledged to work to ease the uncertainty.

“I am delighted, beyond delighted, to be your next mayor,” Wilson said to a crowd of supporters at Seattle Labor Temple in Sodo. “It is an honor and a privilege that I will do my very best to be worthy of.”

Wilson congratulated Harrell for nearly two decades in public service.

“I know that we are in this together,” she continued. “And we cannot tackle the major challenges facing our city unless we do it together.”

Wilson’s razor thin victory margin belied her 10% victory in the primary election, and made Harrell’s performance somewhat of a surprise.

She is a self-described socialist and has a scant political resume, The New York Times reported. Analysts said voters had a distinct choice between two very different candidates.

“They are almost opposite sides of the same coin in terms of personalities,” said Joe Mizrahi, a Seattle school board member and secretary general of the United Food and Commercial Workers 3000, among the largest unions in the area.

Wilson has pledged to find “progressive” ways to pay for housing and other basic services the city needs, and has said that Seattle has been a “kind of laboratory for progressive policy,” and inferred that her administration will pursue similar ideas in the future.

She has pledged to pursue a $1 million bond to pay for home construction and establish new protections for renters, who make up 56% of people living in the city.

Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

Agree & Continue

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has codified the most ambitious restructure of its military and judiciary in decades after President Asif Ali Zardari signed his assent to ratify the country’s 27th Constitutional Amendment on Thursday.

The amendment, which passed in both houses of parliament earlier in the week amid opposition protests and criticism from a range of civil society activists and sitting judges, makes major changes to Pakistan’s higher judiciary.

But many analysts believe that its most consequential feature is a sweeping overhaul of Article 243, the constitutional clause defining the relationship between Pakistan’s civilian government and the military.

The changes grant lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution to the country’s top military leaders, significantly reshape the military’s command structure, and further tilt the balance of the tri-services – the army, navy and air force – heavily in the army’s favour.

Analysts warn that this contentious reform risks colliding with entrenched institutional cultures and could rock the country’s fragile civilian–military equilibrium.

Al Jazeera has sought comment from the military’s media wing on the changes and the debate over them, but has received no response.

A new command structure

The revised Article 243 establishes a new post, the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), to be held concurrently by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS). This effectively gives the army chief command authority over the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Pakistan Navy (PN).

The incumbent COAS is Field Marshal Asim Munir, who assumed command in November 2022 and was elevated to a five-star rank on May 20 this year, just 10 days after Pakistan ended its four-day conflict with India.

Munir became only the second Pakistani military officer – after Field Marshal Ayub Khan in the 1960s – to receive the five-star designation. The air force and navy have never had a five-star official so far.

The amendment also abolishes the office of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) at the end of this month. The role is currently held by four-star General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, who retires on November 27. Another major change is the creation of the Commander of the National Strategic Command (CNSC), a post overseeing Pakistan’s nuclear command. The position will be limited to only an army officer, appointed in consultation with the CDF, with a three-year term extendable by another three years.

The amendment effectively transforms five-star titles from what were honorary recognitions into constitutionally recognised offices with expansive privileges.

Under the new arrangement, five-star officers will enjoy lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution and will “retain rank, privileges and remain in uniform for life.”

Removing a five-star officer will require a two-thirds parliamentary majority, whereas an elected government can be dismissed by a simple majority.

“While government spokespersons refer to these titles as ‘honorary’, given to ‘national heroes’ to celebrate their services,” Reema Omer, a constitutional law expert, said, the amendment “implies actual power, not just honorary significance”.

Omer told Al Jazeera that lifelong immunity from criminal proceedings was “concerning from a rule of law perspective”.

A former three-star general, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the changes appeared to be “meant to consolidate” the army chief’s power.

Hours after the president’s ratification on Thursday evening, Pakistan’s government brought amendments to the laws governing the three services.

Under the revised Army Act, the clock on the tenure of the army chief will now restart from the date of his notification as CDF.

Last year, parliament had increased the tenure of the service chiefs from three to five years, which meant Munir’s term would run until 2027. Following the new changes, it will now extend even further. Once the revised rules take effect at the end of this month, Munir will hold both posts – COAS and CDF – at least until November 2030.

Military dominance – and the role of the India conflict

Since independence in 1947, Pakistan’s military, especially the army, has been the most powerful institution in national life.

Four coups and decades of direct rule have been accompanied by significant influence, even when civilian governments have been in power. The army chief has long been widely viewed as the country’s most powerful figure.

No prime minister has ever completed a full five-year term, while three of four military rulers have governed for more than nine years each.

General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Munir’s predecessor, acknowledged this history in his farewell address in November 2022, conceding that the military had interfered in politics for decades, and promising to break with that legacy.

But three years later, rights groups and opposition parties allege that little has changed, and some claim that the military has further strengthened its grip over state institutions.

The military restructure under the 27th Amendment also comes six months after Pakistan’s brief conflict with India in May, raising questions over whether the reforms were linked to that fight.

Aqil Shah, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, argued that the confrontation with India created the opening for this “unprecedented role expansion” for the army chief.

The changes “formalise the army’s de facto hegemony over the other two wings of armed forces in the guise of the ‘unity of command’ as a necessity for war fighting,” Shah told Al Jazeera.

But supporters of the amendment disagree. Aqeel Malik, state minister for law and justice, said that the amendment aims to “plug holes” in Pakistan’s national security architecture.

“The amendment granted constitutional cover to defence integration and improved coordination. We have also provided a constitutional cover to the honour bestowed upon our national heroes and have addressed a long overdue cohesive and better coordination within the forces for a swift response,” Malik said.

Ahmed Saeed, a former vice admiral, similarly described the reform as a “forward-looking institutional change”.

He said the conflict with India exposed that Pakistan’s command model was rooted in a 1970s framework, unsuitable for “multi-domain, hybrid warfare of the 21st century”.

“The amendment is not about ‘fixing what is broken’ but about modernising what is functioning to ensure sustained effectiveness in future contingencies,” Saeed told Al Jazeera.

Fears of imbalance

Other critics, including former senior officials and security analysts, believe the amendment is less about modernisation and more about institutional consolidation.

They argue that creating the CDF post cements the army’s dominance over the other branches.

Many question why the command structure should be overhauled when, by the government’s own narrative, the existing system delivered what Pakistan claims was an “outright victory” against India.

A retired three-star general who served in senior roles before retiring in 2019 said the abolished CJCSC role, despite being largely symbolic, provided a mechanism for balancing perspectives across the army, navy and air force.

“The PAF and PN may lose autonomy in strategic planning and most probably senior promotions, which has the potential to breed resentment,” he said.

“These risks institutional imbalance, undermining the very cohesion the amendment claims to enhance,” the former general added.

The CJCSC – a four-star post and the principal military adviser to the prime minister – can theoretically be filled by any service, but the last non-army officer to hold the position was Air Chief Marshal Feroz Khan in 1997.

Security analyst Majid Nizami said that while the amendment aims to codify five-star ranks, it may create challenges for “cohesion and synergy” among the services.

If the goal was to modernise warfare strategy, he argued, there should have been a dedicated officer focused solely on integration, not the army chief assuming dual authority.

“There is a lack of clarity on rules and terms of reference for the CDF,” Nizami said.

Shah, the Georgetown academic and author of The Army and Democracy, said the amendment “formalises the de facto power” of the COAS over the other branches.

Saeed, the former navy official who retired in 2022, however, disagreed with critics, arguing that the amendment simply clarifies the CDF’s strategic coordination role.

“The amendment retains the PAF and PN’s distinct command structures within their domains of responsibility, and the CDF’s function is limited to integration at the strategic level, not administrative control or operational interference,” he said.

He added that claims of “army dominance” stem from “legacy perceptions, not from constitutional reality.”

Control of nuclear command

The amendment also codifies the army’s control of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, including research, development and deployment, responsibilities that fall under the strategic command structure.

The former three-star general who spoke to Al Jazeera said the new system’s operational details remain unclear. Under the current model, the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) manages Pakistan’s ballistic and cruise missile programmes and nuclear assets.

Nizami said that although the CJCSC nominally oversaw the SPD, operational authority has long rested with the army. The amendment now formalises this reality.

Saeed, however, countered by arguing that in effect, even with the changes, “the entire nuclear enterprise operates under civilian-led oversight with constitutional clarity”.

Political fallout

Critics have described the amendment as a “constitutional surrender” by political parties to the military, and an attempt to institutionalise the “supremacy of the uniform over the ballot”.

It also comes at a time when Field Marshal Munir’s public profile has risen significantly. He has undertaken multiple foreign trips, including several to the United States, and has been described by President Donald Trump as his “favourite field marshal”.

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, jailed for the past two years, accuses Munir of orchestrating the crackdown on him and his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), since their ouster in 2022 through a no-confidence vote – a charge that the military has rejected outright.

In Pakistan’s February 2024 election, the PTI was barred from contesting as a party. But its candidates, contesting independently, secured the most seats even though they failed to secure a majority. Instead, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formed the government with allies. The government and military rejected widespread accusations of election rigging.

Shah argued that the political class supported the amendment out of necessity.

“Lacking democratic legitimacy and faced with the political challenge posed by the PTI and Khan, the ruling PML-N government sees Munir as the key guarantor of their power and political interests,” he said.

Nizami, the Lahore-based analyst, meanwhile, said that separate appointments to the posts of the CDF and the army chief would have made more sense if the intent was to strengthen the military structure and balance. The amendment, he warned, could lead to “institutional imbalance instead of institutional synergy”.

With the longest U.S. government shutdown over, state officials said Thursday that they are working quickly to get full SNAP food benefits to millions of people, though it could still take up to a week for some to receive their delayed aid.

A back-and-forth series of court rulings and shifting policies from President Trump’s administration has led to a patchwork distribution of November benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While some states had already issued full SNAP benefits, about two-thirds of states had issued only partial benefits or none at all before the government shutdown ended late Wednesday, according to an Associated Press tally.

The federal food program serves about 42 million people, or about 1 in 8 Americans, in lower-income households. They receive an average of about $190 monthly per person, though that doesn’t necessarily cover the full cost of groceries for a regular month.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, said in an email Wednesday that funds could be available “upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most states.” But the agency didn’t say whether that timeline indicates when the money will be available to states or when it could be loaded onto the electronic cards used by beneficiaries.

West Virginia, which hadn’t issued SNAP benefits, should have full November benefits for all recipients by Friday, Gov. Patrick Morrisey said Thursday.

The Illinois Department of Human Services, which previously issued partial November benefits, said Thursday that it is “working to restore full SNAP benefits.” But it won’t happen instantly.

“We anticipate that the remaining benefit payments will be made over several days, starting tomorrow,” the department said in a statement, and that “all SNAP recipients will receive their full November benefits by November 20th.”

Colorado officials said late Wednesday that they are switching from delivering partial to full SNAP benefits, which could be loaded onto electronic cards starting as soon as Thursday.

Missouri’s Department of Social Services, which issued partial SNAP payments Tuesday, said Thursday that it is waiting for USDA guidance on how to issue the remaining November SNAP benefits but would move quickly once that guidance is received.

Paused SNAP payments stirred stress for some families

The delayed SNAP payments posed a new complication for Lee Harris’ family since his spouse was laid off a few months ago.

Harris, 34, said his North Little Rock, Ark., family got help from his temple and received food left by someone who was moving. With that assistance — and the knowledge that other families have greater needs — they skipped stopping by the food pantry they have sometimes used.

Harris’ family, including his three daughters, hasbeen able to keep meals fairly close to normal despite missing a SNAP payment this week. But they have still experienced stress and uncertainty.

“Not knowing a definite end,” Harris said, “I don’t know how much I need to stretch what I have in our pantry.”

Federal legislation funds SNAP for a year

The USDA told states Oct. 24 that it would not fund SNAP benefits for November amid the government shutdown. Many Democratic-led states sued to have the funding restored.

After judges ruled the Trump administration must tap into reserves to fund SNAP, the administration said it would fund up to 65% of its regular allocations. When a judge subsequently ordered full benefits, some states scrambled to quickly load SNAP benefits onto participants’ cards during a one-day window before the Supreme Court put that order on hold Friday.

Meanwhile, other states went forward with partial benefits, and still others issued nothing while waiting for further USDA guidance on the situation.

Amid the uncertainty over federal SNAP funding, some states tapped into their own funds to provide direct aid to SNAP recipients or additional money for nonprofit food banks.

The legislation to reopen the U.S. government provides full SNAP benefits not only for November but also for the remainder of the federal fiscal year, which runs through next September. Citing that legislation, the Justice Department on Thursday dropped its request for the Supreme Court to continue blocking a judicial order to pay full SNAP benefits.

Mulvihill and Lieb write for the Associated Press. AP writers John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill.; John Raby in Charleston, W.Va.; and Colleen Slevin in Denver contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Now that the government shutdown is over, House and Senate Republicans say they will negotiate with Democrats on whether to extend COVID-era tax credits that help tens of millions of Americans afford their healthcare premiums. But finding bipartisan agreement could be difficult, if not impossible, before the subsidies expire at the end of the year.

The shutdown ended this week after a small group of Democrats made a deal with Republicans senators who promised a vote by mid-December on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies. But there is no guaranteed outcome, and many Republicans have made clear they want the credits to expire.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the subsidies a “boondoggle” immediately after the House voted Wednesday to end the shutdown, and President Trump said the Obama-era healthcare overhaul was “disaster” as he signed the reopening bill into law.

It is far from the outcome that Democrats had hoped for as they kept the government closed for 43 days, demanding that Republicans negotiate with them on an extension before premiums sharply increase. But they say they will try again as the expiration date approaches.

“It remains to be seen if they are serious,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. But he said Democrats “are just getting started.”

Republicans have been meeting privately to discuss the issue. Some want to extend the subsidies, with changes, to avoid the widespread increases in premiums. Others, like Johnson and Trump, want to start a new conversation about overhauling “Obamacare” entirely — a redo after a similar effort in 2017 failed.

Democrats push for extension

Healthcare has long been one of the most difficult issues on Capitol Hill, marked by deep ideological and political divides. Partisan disagreement over the 2010 law has persisted for more than a decade, and relationships are already strained from weeks of partisan tensions over the shutdown.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said that while Republicans have promised negotiations and a Senate vote, Democrats are wary. She noted that Johnson has not committed to anything in the House.

“Do I trust any of them? Hell no,” DeLauro said.

If the two sides cannot agree, as many as 24 million people who get their healthcare from the exchanges created by the law could see their premiums go up Jan. 1. New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, one of the Democrats who struck a deal with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to reopen the government, said she thinks an agreement on the tax credits is possible.

During the talks that led to the shutdown’s end, Shaheen said she and other moderate Democrats sat across from Thune and “looked him eye to eye” as he committed to a serious effort.

“We’re going to have a chance to vote on a bill that we will write by mid-December, in a way that gives us a chance to build — hopefully build — bipartisan support to get that through,” Shaheen said.

While Democrats would like to see a permanent extension of the tax credits, most realize that is unlikely. Just before the shutdown ended, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York proposed a one-year extension and a bipartisan committee to address Republican demands for changes to the Affordable Care Act. But Thune said that was a “nonstarter” as the government remained shut down.

In the House, Democrats have proposed a three-year extension.

What Republicans want

While Republicans have long sought to scrap Obamacare, they have had challenges over the years in figuring out what would replace it. That problem plagued the 2017 effort, when then-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cast the deciding vote to kill a bill on the Senate floor that was short on detail.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) have proposed overhauling the law to create accounts that would direct the money to individuals instead of insurance companies. Those are ideas that Trump echoed as he signed the funding bill Wednesday evening.

“I want the money to go directly to you, the people,” Trump said.

It is unclear exactly how that would work, and scrapping the law in its current form would take months, if not years, to negotiate, even if Republicans could find the votes to do it.

Slow start to negotiations

Some moderate Republicans in the House have said they want to work with Democrats to extend the subsidies before the deadline, which is only weeks away. In a letter to Thune and Schumer on Wednesday, Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, the Republican co-chair of the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, encouraged negotiations.

“Our sense of urgency cannot be greater,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “Our willingness to cooperate has no limits.”

So far, though, Senate Republicans have been meeting on their own to figure out their own differences.

“Right now, it’s just getting consensus among ourselves,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Monday after GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee met to discuss possible ways forward.

Tillis is supportive of extending the tax credits, but said lawmakers also need to find a way to reduce costs. If the two sides cannot eventually agree, Tillis said, Republicans may have to try to figure out a way to do it on their own, potentially using budget maneuvers that enabled them to pass Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” this summer without any Democratic votes.

“We should have that in our back pocket too,” Tillis said.

Another shutdown?

Some House Democrats have raised the possibility that there could be another shutdown if they are unable to win concessions on healthcare. The bill signed by Trump will fully fund some parts of the government, but others run out of money again at the end of January if Congress does not act.

“I think it depends on the vulnerable House Republicans who are not going to be able to go back to their constituents without telling them that they’ve done something on healthcare,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

“We’ll just have to see” if there could be another shutdown, said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside).

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said he is “not going to vote to endorse their cruelty” if Republicans do not extend the subsidies.

DeLauro said that Republicans have wanted to repeal the ACA since it was first enacted. “That’s where they’re trying to go,” she said.

“When it comes to Jan. 30 we’ll see what progress has been made,” she said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON —  A slow drip of revelations detailing President Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein that have burdened the White House all year has turned into a deluge after House lawmakers released reams of documents that imply the president may have intimate knowledge of his friend’s criminal activity.

The scope of Epstein’s interest in Trump became clear Thursday as media organizations combed through more than 20,000 documents from the convicted sex offender’s estate released by the House Oversight Committee, prompting a bipartisan majority in the House — including up to half of Republican lawmakers — to pledge support for a measure to compel the Justice Department to release all files related to its investigation of Epstein.

In one email discovered Thursday, sent by Epstein to himself months before he died by suicide in federal custody, he wrote: “Trump knew.” The White House has denied that Trump knew about or was involved in Epstein’s years-long operation that abused over 200 women and girls.

The scandal comes at a precarious political moment for Trump, who faces a 36% approval rating, according to the latest Associated Press-NORC survey, and whose grip on the Republican Party and MAGA movement has begun to slip as his final term in office begins winding down leading up to next year’s midterm elections.

Attempts by the Trump administration to quash the scandal have failed to shake interest in the case from the public across the political spectrum.

The records paint the most expansive picture yet of Trump’s relationship with Epstein, the subject of unending fascination and conspiracy theories online, as well as growing bipartisan interest in Congress.

In several emails, Epstein, a disgraced financier who maintained a close friendship with Trump until a falling-out in the mid-2000s, said that the latter “knew about the girls” involved in his operation and that Trump “spent hours” with one in private. Epstein also alleged that he could “take him down” with damaging information.

In several exchanges, Epstein portrayed himself as someone who knew Trump well. Emails show how he tracked Trump’s business practices and the evolution of the president’s political endeavors.

Other communications show Epstein closely monitoring Trump’s movements at the beginning of his first term in office, at one point attempting to communicate with the Russian government to share his “insight” into Trump’s proclivities and thinking.

White House officials attempted to thwart the effort to release the files Wednesday, holding a tense meeting with a GOP congresswoman in the White House Situation Room, a move the administration said demonstrated its willingness “to sit down with members of Congress to address their concerns.”

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York accused the White House and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of “running a pedophile protection program” for trying to block efforts to release the Epstein files.

The legislative effort in the House does not guarantee a vote in the Senate, much less bipartisan approval of the measure there. And the president — who has for months condemned his supporters for their repeated calls for transparency in the case — would almost certainly veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.

Epstein died in a federal prison in Manhattan awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking in 2019. His death was ruled a suicide by the New York City medical examiner and the Justice Department’s inspector general.

As reporters sift through the documents in the coming days, Trump’s relationship with Epstein is likely to remain in the spotlight.

In one email Epstein sent to himself shortly before his imprisonment and death, he wrote that Trump knew of the financier’s sexual activity during a period where he was accused of wrongdoing.

“Trump knew of it,” he wrote, “and came to my house many times during that period.”

“He never got a massage,” Epstein added. Epstein paid for “massages” from girls that often led to sexual activity.

Trump has blamed Democrats for the issue bubbling up again.

“Democrats are using the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax to try and deflect from their massive failures, in particular, their most recent one — THE SHUTDOWN!” the president wrote Wednesday in a social media post, hours after the records were made public.

Trump made a public appearance later that day to sign legislation ending the government shutdown but declined to answer as reporters shouted questions about Epstein after the event.

Trump comes up in several emails

The newly released correspondence gives a rare look at how Epstein, in his own words, related to Trump in ways that were not previously known. In some cases, Epstein’s correspondence suggests the president knew more about Epstein’s criminal conduct than Trump has let on.

In the months leading up to Epstein’s arrest on sex trafficking charges, he mentioned Trump in a few emails that imply the latter knew about the financier’s victims.

In January 2019, Epstein wrote to author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls,” as he discussed his membership at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s South Florida private club and resort.

Trump has said that he ended his relationship with Epstein because he had “hired away” one of his female employees at Mar-a-Lago. The White House has also said Trump banned Epstein from his club because he was “being a creep.”

“Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” Epstein wrote in the email to Wolff.

One of the employees was Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s survivors who died by suicide this year. Giuffre said in a civil case deposition that she never witnessed Trump sexually abuse minors in Epstein’s home.

Republicans in the House Oversight Committee identified Giuffre as one of the victims whose names are redacted in an April 2011 email.

In that email, Epstein wrote to Ghislane Maxwell, a former associate who was later sentenced for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors, that Trump was “the dog that hasn’t barked.”

“[Victim] spent hours at my house with him,” Epstein wrote. “He has never once been mentioned.”

“I have been thinking about that…,” Maxwell replied.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that the emails “prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”

News over the summer that Trump had penned a lewd birthday card to Epstein, drawing the silhouette of a naked woman with a note reading, “may every day be another wonderful secret,” had sparked panic in the West Wing that the files could have prolific mentions of Trump.

CHICAGO — A Chicago day-care center employee who was detained by immigration agents at work as children were being dropped off last week has been released, according to her attorney.

Diana Santillana Galeano was detained Nov. 5 at the Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center on the north side of Chicago. A video showed officers struggling with her as they walked out the front door. Her attorneys said in a statement Thursday that she was released from a detention center in Indiana on Wednesday night.

“We are thrilled that Ms. Santillana was released, and has been able to return home to Chicago where she belongs,” attorney Charlie Wysong said in the statement. “We will continue to pursue her immigration claims to stay in the United States. We are grateful to her community for the outpouring of support over these difficult days, and ask that her privacy be respected while she rests and recovers from this ordeal.”

Her case reflects the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive enforcement tactics. But her detention at a day care was unusual even under “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has resulted in more than 3,000 immigration arrests in the Chicago area since early September. Agents have rappelled from a Black Hawk helicopter in a middle-of-the-night apartment building raid, appeared with overwhelming force in recreational areas and launched tear gas amid protests.

“I am so grateful to everyone who has advocated on my behalf, and on behalf of the countless others who have experienced similar trauma over recent months in the Chicago area,” Santillana Galeano said in the same statement. “I love our community and the children I teach, and I can’t wait to see them again.”

The Department of Homeland Security said last week that the woman, who is from Colombia, entered the U.S. illegally in June 2023 but obtained authorization to work under the Biden administration. The department denied that the day care was targeted.

Voters’ approval of Proposition 50 means Democrats might win up to five additional seats in the US House of Representatives in 2026.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has joined a lawsuit against California over the state’s redistricting effort, which was approved by a landslide in the November 4 election.

On Thursday, the Department of Justice said it would seek to overturn California’s new map of congressional districts, which was passed through a ballot initiative with approximately 64 percent support.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

She accused California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, of attempting to stifle Republican voices in his state. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

The ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, is poised to redraw the boundaries of electoral districts to favour the Democrats in next year’s midterm elections.

The proposition was designed as a counterattack against Trump’s gerrymandering in Republican states.

In Texas, for instance, the Trump White House urged the state legislature to pass new congressional districts that would allow the Republicans the opportunity to win five more seats in the House of Representatives in 2026.

In August, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Republican-backed map into law.

Republicans also expect to gain one seat each from new maps in Missouri and North Carolina, and potentially two more in Ohio. Civil rights advocates have argued that the new boundaries in Texas and Missouri illegally disadvantage minority communities at the ballot box.

Proposition 50 in California means that Democrats might win as many as five additional seats in the House in 2026, in an explicit attempt to offset the new Texas congressional map.

However, the California Republican Party and 19 registered voters sued the state in federal court on November 5, a day after the election was held.

They claimed California’s redistricting effort violates provisions of the US Constitution by unlawfully favouring Hispanic communities.

The Justice Department has echoed those concerns in its complaint. It argues that California’s map “manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race”.

Tonight, California sent a powerful message to Donald Trump. We will fight for our democracy. And we will win. pic.twitter.com/tEcPlxVbi4

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 5, 2025

In response, Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Governor Newsom, said, “These losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”

Newsom has emerged as a prominent Democratic critic of Trump, calling the president’s opposition to California’s ballot measure the “ramblings of an old man that knows he’s about to LOSE”.

Newsom has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028 once the 2026 midterm elections are over.

California’s new district boundaries will apply for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

Normally, congressional districts in California are drawn by an independent commission, based on the results of a national census taken every 10 years.

Proposition 50 suspends that commission’s work for the next three national elections and instead adopts a map created by the state legislatures.

In theory, electoral maps should reflect the people who live in a given state. In reality, most boundaries are rejigged by the parties in power, in a process called gerrymandering. Legislatures in many states determine how the districts are drawn.

California’s new congressional map aims to dilute Republican voters’ power, in one case by uniting rural, conservative-leaning parts of far northern California with Marin County, a famously liberal coastal stronghold across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco.

The Justice Department is asking a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom flew around the country last year campaigning for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his chief of staff Dana Williamson — known as one of California’s toughest political insiders — was not only helping to helm the ship in Sacramento, but under criminal investigation by federal law enforcement.

The resulting criminal case, which splashed into public view with Williamson’s arrest Wednesday, does not implicate Newsom in any wrongdoing. Williamson’s alleged misdeeds occurred in private work prior to her joining his staff, and his office said it placed her on leave in November 2024 after she informed him she was under investigation.

Nonetheless, the bombshell allegations struck at the center of the political power circle surrounding Newsom, rattling one of the nation’s most prominent and important hubs of Democratic state power at a time when President Trump and his Republican administration wield power in Washington.

Williamson was charged with bank and tax fraud for allegedly siphoning campaign and COVID-19 recovery funds into her and an associate’s pockets and claiming personal luxuries as business expenses on tax forms. According to the indictment, the campaign funds were drawn from a dormant state account of another top California Democrat: gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra.

Two other well-connected aides in state politics were also charged — and struck plea deals confirming the scheme — while a third, with deep ties to one of the most well-connected circles of political and business consultants in the country, appeared in charging documents as an uncharged co-conspirator.

Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento, told The Times on Wednesday that federal authorities had approached Williamson more than a year ago, seeking help with some kind of probe of the governor himself.

“She told them she had no information to provide them, and then we wind up today with these charges,” Scott said. The nature of that alleged probe is unclear.

Newsom’s office on Thursday said it was “not aware of any federal investigation involving the governor.”

Lauren Horwood, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento, said she could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation involving Newsom, in accordance with Justice Department policy. None of the charging documents released in the cases against the three aides mention Newsom.

A loquacious liberal foil to Trump and likely 2028 presidential contender, Newsom has been in Brazil since Sunday and on Wednesday left for a planned trip into the Amazon with a small delegation after attending the United Nations climate summit known as COP30. He left the conference before news of Williamson’s arrest, and could not be reached directly by The Times for comment.

In his absence, Newsom’s representatives have tried to draw a connection between the federal case and the contentious relationship between California and the Trump administration, though offered no evidence that the investigation was influenced by the White House.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” a Newsom spokesperson said Wednesday.

“Under the Trump administration, the DOJ routinely targets the state, which has resulted in us suing the federal administration 46 times,” a Newsom spokesperson said Thursday.

Trump and his administration have been accused of using their power — and control over the Justice Department — to go after his political enemies. Charges reportedly deemed weak and unfounded by career prosecutors have been brought forward anyway against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, while Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is being investigated for years-old occupancy claims in mortgage documents. All have denied wrongdoing.

The case against Williamson and the other California aides, however, is something different — originating years ago under the Biden administration.

“Today’s charges are the result of three years of relentless investigative work, in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said Wednesday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, rejected the notion that the case was in any way driven by the Trump administration or politically motivated.

“What an absurd claim to make when public reporting has already noted that this investigation began under the Biden DOJ,” Jackson said. “The Trump administration is restoring integrity and accountability to the Justice Department.”

Prosecutors also have plea deals with two of the primary suspects in the case, in which they corroborate some of the allegations.

According to the 23-count indictment, unsealed Wednesday morning, Williamson conspired with Sean McCluskie — a former top aid to Becerra — and lobbyist Greg Campbell to bill Becerra’s dormant state campaign account for bogus consulting services. The three allegedly used shell companies to funnel money out of the campaign fund starting in 2022.

Federal authorities alleged the bulk of the payments were made to McCluskie’s wife, who did not actually provide consulting services, and deposited into an account accessed by McCluskie. Becerra, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, said Wednesday’s charges alleging “impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” and that he was cooperating with authorities.

In addition, Williamson was charged with falsifying documents for a COVID-era small business loan, and with claiming luxury goods and services — including a $15,353 Chanel purse, $21,000 in private jet travel and a $150,000 birthday trip to Mexico, complete with an $11,000 yacht trip — as business expenses on her tax returns, federal prosecutors said.

Williamson appeared in federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday afternoon, and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Williamson’s attorney said he has been in “regular communication” with federal prosecutors about the case for some time, and had asked to meet with prosecutors to “present our side” before any charges were brought, but that request “was not honored.”

Instead, officials “chose grandstanding instead of the normal process” and arrested Williamson at home Wednesday, despite her being seriously ill and in need of a liver transplant, Scott said. Williamson could not be reached for comment directly.

Williamson previously worked as a Cabinet secretary to former Gov. Jerry Brown, who also could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The case against Williamson is bolstered by acknowledgments of guilt from at least two others.

McCluskie — a former chief deputy attorney general of California when Becerra was attorney general — pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and is cooperating with authorities, court filings show. He could not be reached for comment.

Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to defraud and commit offenses against the U.S. government. Campbell’s attorney Todd Pickles said his client “takes full accountability for his actions and is cooperating fully with the legal process.”

The case also involves another longtime California political insider: Alexis Podesta, a former secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency who Newsom appointed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund board of directors in January 2020. A spokesperson for the board confirmed Podesta remained a member as of Thursday morning.

Bill Portanova, Podesta’s attorney, confirmed to The Times that Podesta is the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 2” in charging documents — including McCluskie’s plea agreement, which alleges she funneled the campaign funds to him.

Portanova said Podesta inherited responsibilities for handling the Becerra account from Williamson when Williamson left to become Newsom’s chief of staff. Podesta did not perceive anything “unusual about the accounts, how they were set up or who had set them up,” so continued making payments as previously arranged, Portanova said.

However, “when confronted with the information that it was improper payments,” Portanova said, she immediately stopped the payments, and “has been fully cooperative with the federal authorities at every stage of these proceedings.”

He said she is not charged, and “should not be charged” moving forward. He otherwise declined to comment, as “investigations are ongoing.”

Podesta had close ties to some of the most influential Democratic political consultants in California, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.

In September 2020 — about eight months after Newsom had appointed Podesta to the insurance board for workers’ compensation — Politico reported on a new “influence superteam” of Democratic political consultants forming in California.

The project, it said, would be called the Collaborative. Among its “architects” were Williamson and Campbell, as well as Jim DeBoo, another former Newsom chief of staff. Its managing director, the outlet reported, would be Podesta.

Among its enlisted consultants, it said, would be Sean Clegg of Bearstar Strategies, another senior advisor to Newsom, and Shannon Murphy, of M Strategic Communications, who has ties to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

DeBoo, Clegg and Murphy have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“Bearstar participated in a joint marketing press release with the Collaborative and worked on one campaign with the Collaborative’s members in 2022. Bearstar and its partners had no interest, stake or other involvement with this entity,” David Beltran, a representative of Bearstar, said in a statement Thursday.

Murphy also released a statement about the enterprise: “Five years ago, our firm participated in a joint-marketing effort. We had zero ownership or role in the business entity that was created and had no knowledge of its finances or operations until yesterday’s news stories.”

DeBoo did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Members of the Collaborative advise some of the largest companies in not just the country, but the world.

The Collaborative’s website was recently scaled down to a simple landing page, but it previously touted itself there as “the hub for the most talented public affairs, campaign, crisis management, communications and lobbying firms in California,” providing clients “the ability to choose one or several firms that work together — rather than compete — to provide their clients with the best possible outcomes.”

The website led with what it called a proverb: “If you call one wolf, you invite the pack.”

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The next city bracing for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is Charlotte, North Carolina, which could see an influx of federal agents as early as this weekend, a county sheriff said Thursday.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said in a statement that two federal officials confirmed a plan for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to start an enforcement operation on Saturday or early next week in North Carolina’s largest city. His office declined to identify those officials. McFadden said details about the operation haven’t been disclosed, and his office hasn’t been asked to assist.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin declined to comment, saying, “Every day, DHS enforces the laws of the nation across the country. We do not discuss future or potential operations.”

President Trump has defended sending the military and immigration agents into Democratic-run cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and even the nation’s capital, saying the unprecedented operations are needed to fight crime and carry out his mass deportation agenda. Charlotte is another such Democratic stronghold, and the state will have one of the most hotly contested U.S. Senate races in the country next year.

Activists, faith leaders, and local and state officials in the city had already begun preparing the immigrant community, sharing information about resources and attempting to calm fears. A call organized by the group CharlotteEAST had nearly 500 people on it Wednesday.

“The purpose of this call was to create a mutual aid network. It was an information resource sharing session,” said City Councilmember-Elect JD Mazuera Arias.

“Let’s get as many people as possible aware of the helpers and who the people are that are doing the work that individuals can plug into, either as volunteers to donate to or those who are in need of support can turn to,” said CharlotteEAST executive director Greg Asciutto.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department also sought to clarify its role, saying it “has no authority to enforce federal immigration laws,” and is not involved in planning or carrying out these enforcement operations.

Mazuera Arias and others said they had already begun receiving reports of what appeared to be plainclothes officers in neighborhoods and on local transit.

“This is some of the chaos that we also saw in Chicago,” state Sen. Caleb Theodros, who represents Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, said Thursday.

Theodros was one of several local and state officials who issued a statement of solidarity this week.

“More than 150,000 foreign-born residents live in our city, contributing billions to our economy and enriching every neighborhood with culture, hard work, and hope,” it read, adding: “We will stand together, look out for one another, and ensure that fear never divides the city we all call home.”

Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol chief who led Customs and Border Protection’s recent Chicago operation and was also central to the immigration crackdown in Los Angeles, had been coy about where agents would target next.

The Trump administration’s so-called “ Operation Midway Blitz ” in the Chicago area was announced in early September, over the objections of local leaders and after weeks of threats on the Democratic stronghold.

It started as a handful of arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the suburbs but eventually included hundreds of Customs and Border Protection agents whose tactics grew increasingly aggressive. More than 3,200 people suspected of violating immigration laws have been arrested across Chicago and its many suburbs dipping into Indiana.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees both immigration agencies, has offered few details on the arrests, aside from publicizing a handful of people who were living in the U.S. without legal permission and had criminal records.

The group Indivisible Charlotte and the Carolina Migrant Network will be conducting a training for volunteers on Friday.

“Training people how to recognize legitimate ICE agents, versus obviously those who don’t look legitimate,” said Tony Siracusa, spokesman for Indvisible Charlotte. “They’re not always wearing vests that say ‘ICE.’ And what your rights are.”

The groups will also discuss areas where they can conduct “pop up protests.”

“Obviously, we’re not doing anything that is going to encourage people to go get arrested by federal agents,” he said.

Siracusa said locals are “not freaking out, but very definitely concerned. Nobody asked for this help. Nobody asked for this, at least no one of any official capacity.”

Breed and Verduzco write for the Associated Press. Breed reported from Wake Forest, N.C. AP writer Sophia Tareen in Chicago contributed to this report.

LONDON — The BBC apologized Thursday to President Trump over a misleading edit of his speech on Jan. 6, 2021 but said it had not defamed him, rejecting the basis for his $1 billion lawsuit threat.

The BBC said Chair Samir Shah sent a personal letter to the White House saying that he and the corporation were sorry for the edit of the speech Trump gave before some of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify the results of President-elect Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

The BBC said there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary, which had spliced together parts of his speech that came almost an hour apart.

“We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the BBC wrote in a retraction.

Trump’s lawyer had sent the BBC a letter demanding an apology and threatened to file a $1 billion lawsuit for the harm the documentary caused him. It had set a Friday deadline for the BBC to respond.

The dispute was sparked by an edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs series “Panorama,” titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” broadcast days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.”

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Director-General Tim Davie, along with news chief Deborah Turness, quit Sunday, saying the scandal was damaging the BBC and “as the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me.”

The apology and retraction came as BBC acknowledged that its Newsnight program in 2022 had also misleadingly spliced together parts of Trump’s speech.

Melley writes for the Associated Press.

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Lawyers for two of President Trump’s foes who have been charged by the Justice Department asked a judge on Thursday to dismiss the cases against them, saying the prosecutor who secured the indictments was illegally installed in the role.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie didn’t immediately rule from the bench but said she expects to decide by Thanksgiving on challenges to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The requests are part of multiprong efforts by former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James to get their cases dismissed before trial.

At issue during Thursday’s arguments are the complex constitutional and statutory rules governing the appointment of the nation’s U.S. attorneys, who function as top federal prosecutors in Justice Department offices across the country.

The role is typically filled by lawyers who have been nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. Attorneys general do have the authority to get around that process by naming an interim U.S. attorney who can serve for 120 days, but lawyers for Comey and James note that once that period expires, the law gives federal judges of that district exclusive say over who can fill the vacancy.

But that’s not what happened in this instance.

After then-interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert resigned in September while facing Trump administration pressure to bring charges against Comey and James, Attorney General Pam Bondi, at Trump’s public urging, installed Halligan to the role.

Siebert had been appointed by Bondi in January to serve as interim U.S. attorney. Trump in May announced his intention to nominate him and judges in the Eastern District unanimously agreed after his 120-day period expired that he should be retained in the role. But after the Trump administration effectively pushed him out in September, the Justice Department again opted to make an interim appointment in place of the courts, something defense lawyers say it was not empowered under the law to do.

Prosecutors in the cases say that the law does not explicitly prevent successive appointments of interim U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department and that, even if Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, the proper fix is not the dismissal of the indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, and James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud allegations. Their lawyers have separately argued that the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and motivated by the president’s personal animus toward their clients, and should therefore be dismissed.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said Wednesday that the utility expects the first Eaton fire victims who have agreed not to sue the utility to get their settlement offers later this month.

In an interview, Pizarro said that the utility decided to create the program to pay victims before the fire investigation was complete to get money to them more quickly and because it has become more apparent that the company’s equipment ignited the inferno that killed 19 people.

“There is no other clear probable cause at this point,” he said.

More than 6,000 homes and other properties were destroyed in the Jan. 7 fire that started under an Edison transmission tower in Eaton Canyon. The flames damaged an additional 700 to 800 homes, according to Edison.

Those homes, as well as more than 11,000 others that were damaged by smoke and ash, are eligible for compensation under Edison’s plan. To receive the money, the victims must agree not to sue Edison for the fire.

So far 580 people have applied for compensation, Pizarro said.

He said that if the person accepts the company’s offer, they would be paid within 30 days. “We’ve staffed it to move very quickly.” he said.

Pizarro said the utility is expecting to swiftly be reimbursed for the amounts it pays to victims by a state wildfire fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers created to keep utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks a catastrophic fire.

The first $1 billion in damage costs will be covered by an insurance policy paid for by the utility’s electric customers.

In April, Pizarro said that a leading theory of the fire’s cause was that a century-old transmission line, not used since 1971, reenergized through a process called induction and sparked the fire.

Induction is when magnetic fields created by a nearby live line cause a dormant line to electrify. The unused line runs parallel to other energized high-voltage transmission wires running through Eaton Canyon.

Asked why Edison did not turn off those transmission lines on Jan. 7, Pizarro said in the interview that the company’s protocol at the time, which analyzes wind speed and other risk factors, did not call for a preventive shutoff.

He said the Los Angeles County Fire department and Cal Fire are continuing their investigation into the official cause of the fire.

“We’ve given them everything they’ve asked for,” he said.

At the same time, he said, Edison and lawyers for victims who have filed lawsuits are working jointly on a separate investigation that is gathering detailed information on the fire’s cause.

Pizarro said that he and the company have pledged to be transparent about details of the fire’s cause.

“As significant material things come out we will make that known,” he said.

“I need to go to the supermarket in Pasadena or Altadena and be able to look people in the eye,” Pizarro said. “We want to do the right thing for our community.”