politics

Boycotts. Prebuttals. Rebuttals. Historic guests.

California members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives’ approach to President Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night are as varied as their politics and their districts.

Before the speech, Sen. Adam Schiff described Trump as an out-of-control and corrupt president who has ignored pressing issues such as climate change in order to enrich himself and punish his political enemies, including by turning the U.S. Department of Justice and the rest of the federal government into a “personal fiefdom,” unbound by the law.

“From the birth of our nation, our founders were obsessed with preventing tyranny and the emergence of another king, another despot. They created checks and balances, separation of powers, an independent judiciary. They understood that the greatest threat to liberty wasn’t foreign invasion, it was the concentration of power in the hands of one person or faction,” Schiff said on the floor of the U.S. Senate. “This president has systematically dismantled these safeguards in his second term.”

Schiff is among the Democrats boycotting the speech. Other Californians include Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) and Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village).

Sen. Alex Padilla, the son of immigrants who was tackled in Los Angeles last year when he attempted to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during the immigration raids, will deliver a Spanish-language response after Trump’s address on television and online.

California has the largest congressional delegation in the nation, so its elected officials frequently have an outsized presence in the nation’s capital. An especially memorable moment was when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) ripped up a copy of Trump’s speech after the 2020 State of the Union address.

It’s unclear whether California elected officials plan anything as dramatic tonight. But their guests are notable.

Though Garcia is not attending the speech, his guest at the event is Annie Farmer, a woman who was abused at the age of 16 by sexual predators Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), who is attending, is bringing Teresa J. Helm — another Epstein abuse survivor.

Others plan to bring constituents from their districts — Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) is bringing Ben Benoit, the Riverside County auditor-controller who is a longtime friend.

Pelosi’s guest is the Rev. Devon Jerome Crawford, senior pastor of historic Third Baptist Church of San Francisco. And some have surprise guests who will be unveiled later tonight.

WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to deliver his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, the event will unfold against the backdrop of a widening Democratic protest and mounting resistance from lawmakers who are standing by to balk at the president’s remarks.

More than 30 congressional Democrats have pledged to boycott the address altogether, while others plan to attend alternative events designed to compete with the president’s messaging.

“I think we are going to hear two different States of the Union: One from the president that is going to be full of lies and then you are going to hear the truth,” California Sen. Alex Padilla, who will deliver the Democrats’ Spanish-language response, said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Democrats who plan to skip the president’s formal address to Congress have said their doing so because they do not want to give credence to Trump. Others plan to voice their opposition to Trump by inviting guests who have been affected by his agenda.

California Democrats Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Ro Khanna will attend alongside Annie Farmer and Haley Robson, two of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose trafficking crimes have dogged the Trump since he returned to office a year ago.

“I’ve invited Annie to the State of the Union so she can join other survivors and remind the President of his refusal to release all of the Epstein files,” Garcia wrote Monday in a post on X.

The Democratic opposition highlights the tense political moment that Trump is facing early in his second term, when the stakes are high for Republican as they seek to keep control of Congress ahead of the midterm elections.

Trump, who is set to begin speaking at 6 p.m. Pacific time, is expected to frame the moment as one defined by economic successes and fulfilled campaign promises particularly as it related to his administration carrying out an immigration crackdown.

Trump is expected to make an appeal to his religious base as well. He has invited Erika Kirk, the widow of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and intends to use her presence to bring attention to the “tremendous revival of faith” that has taken place since Kirk’s assassination, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X.

“The president will call on Congress to ‘firmly reject political violence against our fellow citizens’ with Charlie Kirk’s widow in the chamber,” Leavitt said.

The president’s remarks could also shed light on the president’s thinking regarding international conflicts brewing in the Middle East and in Mexico as Trump pressures its southern neighbor to curb drug trafficking.

Another potential issue that could come up in the address is the topic of tariffs, more so after the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Trup’s preferred tariffs policy was illegal and could not stand without the approval of Congress.

Trump has been adamant that he intends to impose new tariffs in different ways, and has suggested he should not need congressional approval to do so. If Trump insists on imposing new tariffs, his push will be at odds with Republican leaders.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Monday that it would be a “challenge to find consensus on any path forward on the tariffs, on the legislative side.”

However Trump handled the issue of tariffs would underscore the existential moment that Congress is in as it navigates the Trump administration’s second term.

In recent months, Trump’s willingness to sideline Congress in major policy decisions — whether it is trade or national security — have exposed fractures within his own party and deepened partisan divisions.

Tuesday night’s even could highlight those tensions.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has been critical of the Trump’s use of military force without congressional approval since his administration began blowing up alleged drug boats on the Caribbean Sea late last year.

As Trump says he is considering a military attack on Iran, Schiff is once again raising concerns that Trump is stoking broader conflicts abroad.

“Our allies don’t trust us. Our adversaries don’t fear us,” Schiff said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “When the next crisis comes — and it will come, and it may even be caused by this president — we will find ourselves isolated.”

Trump’s push to have the federal government assert more control over elections could also expose some fractures.

In May, at the behest of Trump, the Justice Department began demanding voter registration data from states across the country. Democrats see the move as a pretext for bogus voter fraud claims down the line, as congressional Republicans tee up new barriers to voter registration through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

“The Trump administration is not being shy about threatening to undermine and steal this November election,” Padilla said. “They know that their record is not just unpopular but has been so harmful to working families that their only hope to stay in power is to initiate a voter purge.”

Democrats’ concerns have been heightened by comments made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem last week in which she outlined plans to station federal immigration agents at polling stations “to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders”

Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Jaime Moore has taken over an agency under intense scrutiny — and he’s getting paid handsomely to do it.

Moore, who was appointed by Mayor Karen Bass in October, will earn $473,600 a year, the City Council decided Tuesday — $18,000 more than his predecessor, Kristin Crowley, made when she was ousted by Bass in February 2025 for her handling of the Palisades fire.

The LAFD and the mayor continue to face intense scrutiny over their handling of the Palisades fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes in January of last year, as well as the watering down of the LAFD after-action report on the fire.

When Crowley started as fire chief in 2022, her annual salary was $367,100.

Soon after that, the city amended its salary ranges for department heads to keep up with inflation, said Matt Szabo, the city’s top budget analyst.

Crowley, the city’s first female and first LGBTQ fire chief, received annual merit raises, according to Szabo.

On Monday, Crowley filed a whistleblower lawsuit claiming that Bass “orchestrated a campaign of retaliation” to protect her own political future and paper over her failures during the Palisades fire.

The LAFD did not immediately comment on Moore’s salary, which was recommended by the mayor and the City Council’s Executive Employee Relations Committee before going to the full council on Tuesday.

“Investing in strong and experienced leadership fortifies public safety for residents,” said a spokesperson for council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who chairs the employee relations committee.

Moore’s salary is fairly comparable to that of other city and county public safety leaders.

The chief of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, Anthony Marrone, made $475,000 in base pay in 2024, according to county data.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell was sworn in at a $450,000 salary in 2024 — less than the $507,500 the Board of Police Commissioners had initially recommended. McDonnell’s salary as of Tuesday was still about $450,000.

McDonnell’s salary was a significant jump over the initial pay of his predecessor, Michel Moore, who earned $350,000 when he first assumed the position in 2018.

The LAFD has about 3,200 uniformed fire personnel, while the LAPD has about 8,700 sworn officers.

Both McDonnell and the new fire chief make far less than Janisse Quiñones, general manager of the Department of Water and Power, who was sworn in at $750,000 a year. Salaries for DWP executives must remain competitive with those of utility company execs to retain top talent, according to the city’s Office of Public Accountability, which recommended Quiñones’ salary.

She makes much more than Marty Adams, the previous department head, who earned about $447,000 a year when he departed.

Moore, a 30-year LAFD veteran, has spent his first months as chief dealing with persistent questions about the department’s management of the Palisades fire.

A week after the fire, a Times investigation found that top LAFD officials did not fully staff up and pre-deploy all available engines and firefighters to the Palisades and other high-risk areas, despite a forecast of dangerously high winds.

Bass cited the failure to keep firefighters on duty for a second shift as one reason she dismissed Crowley.

The new chief has swerved between candid reflection over the department’s failures during the Palisades fire and lashing out at the media over what he has called a “smear” campaign against firefighters who bravely worked to put out the catastrophic blaze.

Moore appeared to be referencing a Times report that a battalion chief ordered crews to roll up their hoses and leave the area of the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, even though firefighters had complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch. Days later, the Lachman fire reignited into the Palisades fire.

Moore has also tried to walk a fine line on the LAFD’s after-action report, which was meant to spell out mistakes and suggest measures to avoid repeating them.

The author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the final version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report, in his words, “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

The most significant change to the report involved downplaying LAFD officials’ pre-deployment mistakes.

Moore has admitted that the report was watered down to “soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership,” while saying he would not look into who directed the watering down. But Moore has also said that he will not allow similar edits to future after-action reports.

Bass has repeatedly denied that she was involved in any effort to water down the report. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office have said that Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened.

Bass has called The Times’ reporting “dangerous and irresponsible.”

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has warned she could take possible legal action following comments from right-wing tech billionaire Elon Musk, accusing her of ties to cartels.

At her morning news conference on Tuesday, the president was asked for her response to Musk’s statements a day prior. Musk had described her as being beholden to the cartels.

“Well, we are considering whether to take any legal action,” she began. “The lawyers are looking into it.”

She then proceeded to describe the allegations that she leads a “narco-government” as “absurd” and demonstrably false.

“It falls apart all on its own,” she said, dismissing the accusation as hackneyed. “They don’t even know what to invent any more, right? Honestly, it’s laughable.”

Sheinbaum has faced criticism for her national security policies following a spate of cross-country violence over the weekend.

Killing of El Mencho

The violence erupted after the death on Sunday of a top cartel leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known by the nickname El Mencho.

The Mexican military had tracked El Mencho to the town of Tapalpa in central Mexico. He died while en route to medical care after being shot by authorities.

Members of El Mencho’s criminal organisation, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, responded to the news of his death with road blocks, arson and clashes with security forces. Dozens of people were killed in the violence.

Musk was among the online commentators criticising Sheinbaum’s handling of Mexico’s security in the aftermath of the attacks.

His posts came in response to a video clip circulating on social media, showing Sheinbaum advocating for alternatives to the militaristic “war on drugs” approach.

“She’s just saying what her cartel bosses tell her to say,” Musk wrote in response to the video.

“Let’s just say that their punishment for disobedience is a little worse than a ‘performance improvement plan’.”

A vocal critic of left-wing governments like Sheinbaum’s, Musk is closely aligned with United States President Donald Trump, who has likewise pushed for more military action against cartels.

In September, for instance, Trump’s State Department listed Mexico as an area of concern for drug-trafficking and outlined steps it expected to see to address the issue.

“Much more remains to be done by Mexico’s government to target cartel leadership, along with their clandestine drug labs, precursor chemical supply chains, and illicit finances,” the State Department wrote.

“Over the next year, the United States will expect to see additional, aggressive efforts by Mexico to hold cartel leaders accountable and disrupt the illicit networks engaged in drug production and trafficking.”

Trump himself has accused Sheinbaum of inefficacy in her campaign to crack down on illicit drug trafficking.

“She’s not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico,” Trump told Fox News in the hours after launching a January 3 military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“She’s very frightened of the cartels. They’re running Mexico. I’ve asked her numerous times, ‘Would you like us to take out the cartels?’”

Sheinbaum has repeatedly refused the prospect of unilateral US intervention, arguing it would violate Mexican sovereignty. Still, Trump has repeatedly warned that the US is considering military strikes on Mexican soil.

“Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” he told Fox News.

Upping the pressure

Sheinbaum, however, has defended her administration’s track record. Faced with US tariffs in February 2025, she deployed nearly 10,000 members of Mexico’s National Guard to the country’s northern border to crack down on fentanyl trafficking.

She has also taken targeted military actions against cartels, though she has argued that the process should be focused on prosecuting criminals, rather than killing them in law enforcement operations.

Her administration has also overseen the extradition of dozens of Mexican nationals suspected of crimes in the US. In January 2025, for instance, 37 people were sent to the US. In April and August, groups of 13 and 14 suspects were transferred, respectively.

Sunday’s capture and killing of El Mencho was the fulfilment of a decades-long goal for the Mexican government, which has long sought his arrest.

Still, on Monday, Trump briefly posted a message on his Truth Social platform indicating that he expected Sheinbaum to do more.

“Mexico must step up their effort on Cartels and Drugs,” he wrote in a post that was later removed.

Sheinbaum, meanwhile, used Tuesday’s news conference to dismiss the criticism as out of touch with what was happening in Mexico. She added that what matters to her is the opinion of the Mexican people, not Musk.

“The vast majority of people recognise the work of the armed forces and the work we are doing every day, not only in security, but for the good of the country, for the wellbeing of all Mexicans,” she said. “That is what will guide us.”

Former Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley is suing the city, claiming in a whistleblower lawsuit that Mayor Karen Bass “orchestrated a campaign of retaliation” to protect her own political future and paper over her failures during the most destructive fire in city history.

In the lawsuit, filed Monday in L.A. County Superior Court, Crowley and her attorneys allege Bass sought to shift blame for the way the city handled last year’s catastrophic Palisades fire to Crowley amid mounting criticism of the mayor’s decision to attend a ceremony in Ghana on Jan. 7, the day the fire erupted. Bass, the suit alleges, left L.A. despite knowing of the potential severe winds and fire danger.

“She sought to avoid accountability by shifting blame and lying — including falsely claiming that she was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event, falsely claiming that the LAFD’s budget was not cut, and falsely claiming that LAFD’s resources would have supported an additional 1,000 firefighters to fight the blaze — claims contradicted by public records and Bass’ own prior statements,” the lawsuit alleges. “These false statements were not mistakes but part of a deliberate strategy to divert scrutiny from Bass’ decisions and to avoid accountability.”

The Palisades fire took off the morning of Jan. 7, 2025 amid fierce Santa Ana winds, killing 12 people and destroying thousands of homes amounting to billions of dollars in damage. While authorities allege a Florida man started the fire, saying it was actually a rekindling of a Jan. 1 fire, decisions by both LAFD brass and the mayor before, during and after Jan. 7 have come under scrutiny.

According to records obtained by The Times, shortly before releasing an after-action review report on the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department issued a confidential memo detailing plans to protect Bass and others from “reputational harm.” The 13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for department officials, representatives of Bass’ office, and public relations consultants hired to help shape messaging about the fire.

But as questions about the fire response swirled, instead of getting in lockstep with Bass, Crowley revealed to the public that “budget cuts had weakened the department’s readiness and jeopardized public and firefighter safety” and said her repeated warnings were ignored, the lawsuit says. It alleges Bass retaliated by ousting her as fire chief on Feb. 21, 2025.

Since the fire, the city has faced criticism for an inadequate deployment of firefighters, a chaotic evacuation of Pacific Palisades and a lack of water caused in part by a local reservoir being left empty for repairs. In December, The Times revealed that the city’s after-action report had been altered to deflect criticism of LAFD’s failure to predeploy engines and crews to the Palisades, among other shortcomings.

Crowley’s lawyers claim Bass’ view of her performance shifted with political opinion — starting with initial praise before reversing course and criticizing Crowley as the mayor came under fire for being out of the country during the blaze.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When Crowley was ousted, the mayor said it was because Crowley failed to inform her about the dangerous conditions that day or to predeploy hundreds of firefighters just in case. She also said Crowley rebuffed a request to prepare a report on the fires — a critical part of ongoing investigations into the cause of the fire and the city’s response.

But Crowley’s lawyers, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro, allege their client “repeatedly warned of the LAFD’s worsening resource and staffing crisis” prior to the fire and warned that aging infrastructure, surging emergency calls and shrinking staff left the city at risk.

“An analysis of the 90th percentile of all incidents indicates that the overall response time of LAFD resources has increased from 6:51 (minutes) in 2018 to 7:53 in 2022. This dramatic increase is nearly double the time by national standards for first-arriving units,” the lawsuit says.

Three days after the fire, Crowley told a local TV news station that her department was “screaming to be properly funded,” which prompted Bass to summon Crowley to her office, according to the lawsuit.

“I don’t know why you had to do that; normally we are on the same page, and I don’t know why you had to say stuff to the media,” Bass told Crowley, according to the lawsuit. Bass allegedly told Crowley she wasn’t firing her then because “right now I can’t do that.”

Before Crowley was ousted, the city’s top financial analyst pushed back on her budget-cutting narrative, saying that spending on the Fire Department actually went up during that budget year — in large part because of a package of firefighter raises. Those increases added an estimated $53 million to the department’s budget.

Regardless, the day after Crowley and Bass met in her office, the lawsuit alleges, retired LAFD Chief Deputy Ronnie Villanueva began working at the Emergency Operations Center, donning a mayor’s office badge. On Feb. 3, 2025, more than two weeks before Crowley was removed from her position, Villanueva wrote a report to the Board of Fire Commissioners identifying himself as the interim fire chief — a position he held until the appointment of Fire Chief Jaime Moore last fall.

The lawsuit alleges that Bass and others in her administration defamed Crowley, retaliated against her in violation of California’s labor code and violated Crowley’s 1st Amendment rights. Crowley is seeking unspecified damages.

Bass repeatedly has denied she was involved in any effort to water down the after-action report, which was meant to spell out mistakes in the Palisades fire response and suggest measures to avoid repeating them. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office said that after receiving an early draft of the report, the mayor told Villanueva it could expose the city to legal liabilities.

Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources told The Times this month. The mayor has said The Times’ story based on the sources’ accounts was “completely fabricated.”

Crowley and her lawyers allege the LAFD “did not have sufficient operating emergency vehicles to safely and effectively pre-deploy 1,000 (or anywhere near 1,000) additional firefighters on January 7.” The department did not have the money or personnel “to repair and maintain emergency fire engines, fire trucks, and ambulances,” the suit alleges.

“This case is about accountability,” said Harrison, Crowley’s attorney. “Public servants should not face punishment or be silenced for telling the truth about public or firefighter safety and on matters of public importance.”

Times staff writers Alene Tcheckmedyian, David Zahniser and Paul Pringle contributed to this report. Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the U.S. Postal Service is shielded from being sued even if its employees intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said Congress in 1946 had barred lawsuits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” and that includes mail that is stolen or misdirected by postal employees.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law broadly bars complaints involving lost or missing mail.

“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,” he said.

The ruliing is a setback but not a final defeat for Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent who is Black. She had sued contending white postal carriers refused to deliver her mail to two houses where she rented rooms.

She did not live at either property but said she stayed there “from time to time.”

She first complained to the post office in Euless, Texas, after she learned the mail carrier had changed the listed owner on a central postal box from Konan’s name to a tenant’s name.

After two years of frustration, she sued the United States in 2022 alleging the Postal Service had intentionally and wrongly withheld her mail. She sought damages for emotional distress, a loss of rental income and for racial discrimination.

Her claim of racial bias was dismissed by a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court and did not figure in the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the 5th Circuit Court ruled she could go forward with her suit alleging she was a victim of intentional misconduct on the part of postal employees.

The Biden and Trump administrations urged the court to hear the case and to reject lawsuits against the Postal Service based on claims of intentional wrongdoing.

They said the 5th Circuit’s ruling could “open the floodgates of litigation.” They noted the Postal Service delivers about 113 billion pieces of mail per year and receives about 335,000 complaints over lost mail and other matters.

“We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas said. “We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.”

Joining Thomas to limit lawsuits against the Postal Service were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law refers to a “loss” or “miscarriage” of the mail, which suggests negligence.

“Today, the court holds that one exception — the postal exception — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail,” Sotomayor wrote.

Joining her were Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

If Warner’s board changes course and deems Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix will be able to revise its bid.

Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) says it is reviewing a new takeover offer from Paramount Skydance, but it continues to recommend a competing proposal from Netflix to its shareholders in the meantime.

Warner disclosed on Tuesday that it had received a revised offer from Paramount after a seven-day window to renew talks with the Skydance-owned company elapsed on Monday. Paramount – which is run by David Ellison, son of United States President Donald Trump ally and Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison – confirmed it had submitted the proposal, but neither company provided details about it. The company was widely expected to have raised its offer.

A WBD buyout would reshape Hollywood and the wider media landscape, bringing HBO Max, cult-favourite titles like Harry Potter and, depending on who wins the Netflix vs Paramount tug-of-war, potentially even CNN under a new roof.

Paramount wants to acquire Warner Bros in its entirety, including networks like CNN and Discovery, and went straight to shareholders with an all-cash, $77.9bn hostile offer just days after the Netflix deal was announced in December. Accounting for debt, that bid offered Warner stakeholders $30 per share, amounting to an enterprise value of about $108bn.

Paramount maintained on Tuesday that its tender offer remains on the table while Warner evaluates its latest proposal.

Netflix wants to buy only Warner’s studio and streaming business for $72bn in cash, or about $83bn including debt. Warner’s board has repeatedly backed this deal and on Tuesday maintained that its agreement with Netflix still stands.

Warner shareholders are to vote on the Netflix proposal on March 20.

If Warner’s board changes course and considers Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix would have a chance to match or revise its proposal, potentially setting the stage for a new bidding war. It could also choose to walk away.

Further consolidation

Paramount, Warner and Netflix have spent the last couple of months in a heated back and forth over who has the stronger deal. But along the way, lawmakers and entertainment trade groups have sounded the alarm, warning that either buyout of all or parts of Warner’s business would only further consolidate power in an industry already run by just a few major players. Critics said that could result in job losses, less diversity in filmmaking and potentially more headaches for consumers who are facing rising costs of streaming subscriptions as is.

Combined, that raises tremendous antitrust concerns – and a Warner sale could come down to who gets the regulatory greenlight. The US Department of Justice has already initiated reviews, and other countries are expected to do so too.

Both Paramount and Netflix have argued that their proposals are good for consumers and the wider industry. And the companies have taken aim at each other publicly with regulatory arguments.

Paramount has pointed to Netflix’s much larger market value, and it has argued that if the streaming giant acquires Warner, it would only give it more dominance in the subscription video-on-demand space. But Netflix is trying to persuade regulators that it’s up against broader video libraries, particularly Google’s YouTube, America’s most-watched TV distributor.

Paramount’s bid will create a studio bigger than market leader Disney and fuse two major TV operators, which some Democratic senators said would control “almost everything Americans watch on TV”.

It will also hand control of CNN to the conservative-leaning Ellisons, soon after they acquired CBS News and installed as its editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion editor who had no prior TV experience. The network settled for $16m a lawsuit that Trump had filed, accusing CBS’s 60 Minutes programme of editing an interview with Kamala Harris to his 2024 presidential election rival’s advantage. It also appointed Kenneth Weinstein, a former Trump administration official, as ombudsman to investigate allegations of bias.

In December, Ellison visited the White House, media reports said, and told Trump that Paramount would execute “sweeping changes” if it acquired CNN’s parent company.

More recently, Trump, in a Truth Social post on Saturday, demanded that Netflix fire former US National Security Adviser Susan Rice from its board. Rice, a Black woman, had served under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both Democrats.

“This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal,” Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos told BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme on Monday. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the US and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”

Trump previously made unprecedented suggestions about his involvement in seeing a deal through before walking back those statements and maintaining that regulatory approval will be up to the Justice Department.

Venezuela’s National Assembly has passed an amnesty law amid the political, economic, and social shifts the country has been experiencing following the removal of Nicolás Maduro by the United States. On February 5, the first debate on the amnesty bill took place, and after two weeks of consultations it was unanimously approved on February 19. Although the law includes significant changes compared to the version approved in the first stage, it still contains gaps that make it impossible to speak of genuine reconciliation.

Throughout the entire process, the ruling party’s narrative has been that chavismo “forgives” those who committed crimes, rather than acknowledging that the judicial system acted in a biased, arbitrary manner and contrary to the law. This is important to underscore because amnesty laws arise as special justice mechanisms through which the State recognizes its partial use of the justice system, especially in political contexts.

This newly approved amnesty law cannot be perceived as a sign of reconciliation. On the contrary, it seems to be a mechanism that allows the Rodríguez siblings to manage the release of prisoners without recognizing the State’s responsibility for more than two decades of political persecution. At the same time, however, we must view the consultation processes—promoted from within the structures of chavista power—as spaces where sectors of civil society and civic organizations raised their voices and, in one way or another, managed to be “heard” and “taken into account” to some extent.

To “forgive” prisoners, the presidency already has the authority to decree pardons under Article 236 of the Venezuelan Constitution. If the Executive Power is already able to order releases, what function does this law actually serve?

The answer to that question reveals the structural insufficiency of the law that was passed. It establishes no mechanisms for reparation and continues to exclude hundreds of individuals who have been persecuted. At its core, the law does not correct injustice. It merely attempts to cloak in legality the discretionary manner in which power has exercised persecution. It follows the same logic that has been used for years with pardons (the last of which came on Christmas 2025, days before the US military intervention) which are presented as gestures meant to project a “goodwill” image of the State while avoiding any acknowledgment of the harm caused.

Changes and silences

From the outset, we expected an imperfect law that would at least have room for improvement. In that regard, the law introduced important changes compared to the draft approved in the first debate, such as providing legal representation for those abroad. It also revised the list of excluded crimes, narrowing it to the crime of corruption (previously referred to as “crimes against public assets”), incorporated the possibility of appeals against court decisions on amnesty, and ordered notification to foreign bodies to lift international alerts or arrest warrants. It can even be said that it broadened the scope of acts eligible for amnesty. However, it also made significant omissions.

The statute could be amended to create a commission entirely independent from State bodies, composed of representatives of civil society, relatives of victims, and experts capable of making binding decisions.

The law must include all persecuted individuals. There can be no distinctions or exclusions, because persecution itself made no such distinctions. For this reason, any meaningful improvement of the current law must begin by eliminating the exclusion set out in Article 9 concerning “persons who are or may be prosecuted or convicted for promoting, instigating, requesting, invoking, favoring, facilitating, financing, or participating in armed or forceful actions against the people, the sovereignty, and the territorial integrity of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, on behalf of States, corporations, or foreign individuals.” If the crime of rebellion is generally defined as an uprising against authority, then it is a political act like any of the other amnestiable offenses.

Recognition, inclusion, and non-discrimination must be the minimum standards for any amnesty that seeks to be considered a step forward in the pursuit of justice.

Lacking external oversight

In transitional justice contexts, international frameworks are clear in their assessment of amnesties: they cannot be left in the hands of the very institutions that participated in the persecution. The approved law establishes that verification of amnestiable cases falls to the courts and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose highest-level official stated in November 2024 that there were no political prisoners in Venezuela (nor minors unjustly imprisoned), only individuals who committed crimes and were prosecuted in accordance with the law. This underscores a problem as obvious as it is serious: this amnesty law cannot, on its own, correct the very bodies responsible for human rights violations.

The final text incorporates an advisory body to monitor the law’s implementation, one of the recommendations made by experts who engaged with the Interior Policy Commission. This body takes the form of a Special Commission of the National Assembly composed of figures directly linked to the State’s control and coercive apparatus, including Nicolás Maduro Guerra and Iris Varela, the former Minister of Prisons.

To ensure impartiality and credibility, oversight of the law’s implementation should fall to an independent body. Given that Venezuela lacks a genuine separation of powers, the statute could be amended to create a commission entirely independent from State institutions, composed of representatives of civil society, victims’ families, and experts in human rights and transitional justice, with powers to review case files, request information, and make binding decisions. In other words, technical specialists must be able to effectively oversee the application of the law.

Memory and non-repetition

If we aspire for the amnesty law to contribute to Venezuela’s reconciliation process, it cannot be limited to releasing individuals. The law must repair the harm caused and guarantee that persecution will not occur again.

Article 14 maintains the elimination of records and criminal histories of beneficiaries. This provision, far from promoting reconciliation, may erase evidence necessary to reconstruct patterns of persecution. Preserving documentation is a cornerstone of transitional justice. An amnesty that erases archives risks becoming a mechanism of impunity. Thus, while cases must indeed be extinguished, the files should be preserved and made available so that the Commission responsible for verifying the amnesty can confirm that victims have been repaired.

The discussion is no longer about whether persecution occurred, but about how it will be repaired and what independent mechanisms are needed to review each case.

Moreover, the law does not prescribe any mechanism for reparation. But all of this depends on the State recognizing its victims, restoring their rights, providing both symbolic and material reparations, and adopting institutional reforms that serve as safeguards to prevent the justice system from once again being used in a partisan manner.

One element removed from the draft approved in the first debate was the extinction of administrative actions. While this may seem minor, in the Venezuelan context it is vital. Amnesty should not apply only to criminal cases. In Venezuela, administrative mechanisms—such as political bans on opposition figures—have been used arbitrarily and constantly

Without these elements, the amnesty risks becoming a clean slate rather than a commitment to truth, justice, and non-repetition.

Political signals

The US has not issued a statement on the approved law. Representatives of the Trump administration, including the president himself, have primarily insisted on the release of political prisoners and the safe return of those in exile. We will see whether there is a statement (which, in my view, will come and will amount to a “green light”) and whether this law fits within the steps announced by Washington to evaluate the conduct of those in charge of the Venezuelan government.

After the law was approved in the chamber, lawmakers immediately presented it to the Executive. Delcy Rodríguez signed it publicly and, in her speech, called for speed in evaluating cases that do not fall under the law. That call can take several paths: issuing final convictions, granting pardons, or decreeing dismissals. The difference among the three is enormous. The first would mean completely forgetting those who are not amnestiable and keeping them imprisoned; the second would amount to a simple pardon, without acknowledging injustice; and the third would be an admission that there is insufficient evidence to proceed.

Jorge Rodríguez’s statements are also important to note: he publicly acknowledged the unjust application of the Anti-Hate Law and the possibility of reforming it. He also recognized that there are more than 11,000 cases linked to political persecution. That acknowledgment, although it did not come with an admission of responsibility, dismantles the narrative that these are “isolated” incidents or that the amnesty concerns only “individual cases.” Whether this is a gesture of “democratization” or simply the result of international oversight now conditioning the government, admitting the magnitude of persecution creates a crack in the official discourse. A crack that civil society and the opposition must seize.

When we speak of reconciliation and pacification in Venezuela, we mean that it’s the State that must cease to be a violent actor. Today, with an insufficient amnesty law in place, we cannot speak of such reconciliation. But considering these signals, the discussion is no longer about whether persecution occurred, but about how it will be repaired and what independent mechanisms are needed to review each case.

Venezuela needs real reconciliation. And such reconciliation is only possible if the State acknowledges that it systematically used the justice system to persecute those who think differently. The approved law is insufficient, but it may yield partial results. That is why it is important for civil society to be present at every public forum to demand truth, reparation, and review of case files. The more contradictions those interventions induce among powerful factions, the greater the pressure to make decisions that would not be made voluntarily. This amnesty law does not resolve persecution, but it does create a space for persistence, oversight, and civil society coordination that can push for real change. As the transition advances and the political landscape shifts, the amnesty law can be adjusted, expanded, and corrected. Its enactment is not an endpoint. It is a starting point that can evolve.

Feb. 24 (UPI) — The Olympic gold-winning U.S. men’s hockey team and several survivors of Jeffrey Epstein‘s sex trafficking scheme will be among the dozens of people invited to attend President Donald Trump‘s State of the Union address on Tuesday.

It’s Trump’s first official State of the Union address during his second term in office, though in March 2025, he did address a joint session of Congress. His theme this year is “America at 250: Strong, Prosperous and Respected,” unnamed officials who have seen a draft of the speech told CNN.

To that end, Trump has invited Team USA’s men’s hockey team to attend the speech at the U.S. Capitol, two days after they won the gold medal in a game against Canada in Milan, Italy. It was the men’s first gold medal in hockey since the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” team won in Lake Placid, N.Y.

Trump’s invitation — which came during a phone conversation over speakerphone with FBI Director Kash Patel and the team — caused a stir Sunday after the president said he’d also have to invite the women’s team. His comment was met by laughter among some of the men in the locker room, though at least one did yell out that Team USA was “two for two,” seemingly in support of the women.

The women’s hockey team also won gold in a final game against Team Canada. It was their third Olympic gold medal after 1998 and 2018. After Trump’s comments, they declined his invitation to Tuesday’s State of the Union.

First lady Melania Trump invited two people to sit with her during the speech — Sierra Burns, 24, who took part in Trump’s Foster Youth to Independence program; and Everest Nevraumont, 10, who attends a school that incorporates artificial intelligence curriculum.

Meanwhile, several Democratic members of Congress have invited survivors of sex abuser Epstein, The Hill reported. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., invited the family of the late Virginia Giuffre; Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., invited Haley Robson; Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., invited Jess Michaels; Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., invited Annie Farmer, the sister of survivor Maria Farmer; House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., invited Marina Lacerda; and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., invited Dani Bensky.

Some of those survivors, however, will be attending the State of the Union without their respective hosts. Some Democratic lawmakers intend to skip the speech entirely or participate other events in protest of Trump’s policies.

A coalition of liberal activist groups, including MoveOn Civic Action, is holding a so-called “People’s State of the Union” event on the National Mall around the same time as Trump’s speech. The group said the event will include “everyday Americans most impacted by Trump’s dangerous agenda.”

Lawmakers expected to attend the event include Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, along with Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, Becca Balint of Vermont, Greg Casar of Texas, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Delia Ramirez of Illinois, Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, John Larson of Connecticut and April Delaney of Maryland, The Hill reported.

The National Press Club is also hosting an event it’s calling “State of the Swamp” to take place ahead of Trump’s speech. Reps. Jason Crow, D-Colo., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass., plan to attend both this event and Trump’s speech, while Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.’s office said he’ll only be attending the “State of the Swamp.”

Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., said he plans to boycott the State of the Union this year.

“After watching President Trump run roughshod over the Constitution, display utter disregard for Congress, and openly engage in corruption as he and his family use the office to enrich themselves and tarnish this country that I love, I will not give him the dignity of having my presence at the State of the Union,” Bera said.

A strange quirk at San Quentin state prison is that most of those incarcerated behind its towering walls are unable to see the San Francisco Bay that literally laps at the shore a few yards away.

That changed recently with the completion of new buildings — holding among other accouterments a self-serve kitchen, a library, a cafe and a film studio — and third-floor classrooms that look out over that beautiful blue expanse, long a symbol of freedom and possibility.

In the new San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, along with learning job skills and earning degrees, incarcerated men can do their own laundry, make their own meals, and interact with guards as mentors and colleagues of sorts, once a taboo kind of relationship in the us-and-them world of incarceration.

“You want to clothes wash? You wash them,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom, debuting the new facilities, including laundry machines, for reporters last week. “You want to get something to eat. You can do it, whenever.”

“All of a sudden, it’s like you’re starting to make decisions for yourself,” he said. “It’s called life.”

Listen closely, and one can almost hear President Trump’s brain exploding with glee and outrage as his favorite Democratic foil seemingly coddles criminals. A cafe? C’mon. Bring on the midterms!

March 2024 of the East Block of San Quentin’s former death row.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

But what Newsom has done inside California’s most notorious prison, once home to the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere, is nothing short of a remarkable shift of thinking, culture and implementation around what it means to take away someone’s freedom — and eventually give it back. Adapted from European models, it’s a vision of incarceration that is meant to deal with the reality that 95% of people who go to prison are eventually released. That’s more than 30,000 people each year in California alone.

“What kind of neighbors do you want them to be?” Newsom asked. “Are they coming back broken? Are they coming back better? Are they coming back more enlivened, more capable? Are they coming back into prison over and over?”

When it comes to reforming criminals, “success looks like more and more people gravitating to their own journey, their own personal reform,” Newsom said, sounding more like a lifestyle influencer than a presidential contender. “It’s not forced on you, because then it’s fake, man. If it’s coerced, I don’t buy it.”

Of course, coming back better should be the goal — because better people commit fewer crimes, and that benefits us all. But coming back over and over has become the norm.

Traditional incarceration, a lock-’em-up and watch-them-suffer approach, has dramatically failed not only our communities and public safety writ large, but also inmates and even those who guard them.

Incarcerated people come out of prison too often in California (and across the country) with addictions and emotional troubles still firmly in place, and no job or educational skills to help them muddle through a crime-free life. That means they often commit more crimes, create more victims and cycle back into this failed, expensive, tough-on-crime system.

Still, it’s a favorite trope of Trump, and the justification for both his immigration roundups and his deployment of National Guard troops in Democratic cities, that policies such as Newsom’s are weak on crime and have led to the decline of American society.

This narrative of fear and grievance goes back decades, recycled every election by the so-called law-and-order party because it’s effective — voters crave safety, especially in a chaotic world. And locking people up seems safe, at least until we let them go again.

But, as Chance Andes, the warden of San Quentin, pointed out last week, “Humanity is safety,” and treating incarcerated people like, well, people, actually makes them want to behave better.

Here’s where the tough-on-crime folks will begin composing their angry emails. Why are we paying for killers to have a view? Why should I care if a rapist has a good book to read? Our budget is bleeding red, why are tax dollars being used for prison lattes? (To be fair, I do not know whether they actually have lattes.)

But consider this: The prison guards back Newsom.

“Done right, it improves working conditions for our officers and strengthens public safety,” said Steve Adney, executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., the union that represents guards, of the California model, as Newsom calls his vision.

Faced with high rates of suicide and other ills such as addiction, corrections officers have long been concerned about the stress and violence of their jobs. A few years ago, some union members traveled to Norway to see prisons there. I tagged along.

A correctional officer at Halden prison in Norway checks out the ice cream freezer in the grocery store inside the facility.

(Javad Parsa/For The Times)

The American officers were shocked to see Norwegian prisoners access kitchen knives and power tools, but even more shocked that the guards had built relationships with these criminals that allowed them to do their jobs with far less fear.

Rather than jailers, these corrections officers were more like social workers or guides to a better way of living. Of course, the corrections officers aren’t dumb. That only works with vetted inmates, such as those at San Quentin, who have proved they want to change.

But when you have officers and incarcerated people who are able to coexist with respect and maybe a dash of kindness, you get a different outcome for both sides.

“If we are capable of building this at San Quentin, then we are capable of making the workplace safe for every officer who walks in the gates,” said CCPOA President Neil Flood, a startling statement in favor of radical reform from a law enforcement officer.

But in a moment when most Democrats with ambitions for national office (or even an eye on replacing Newsom) are backing away from criminal justice reform, it would be naive to think the California model won’t be used to bludgeon Newsom in a presidential race, and provide further fuel to the dumpster-fire narrative about the state.

Soon — before the midterms — many expect Congress to move forward on Trump’s expressed desire for a crime bill that would empower police with even greater immunity for wrongdoing, create longer sentences for crimes including those involving drugs and further erode criminal justice reform in the name of public safety.

Trump is going hard in the opposite direction, toward more punishment, always the easier and more understandable route for voters fed up with crime (even though crime rates have been declining since President Biden was in office).

The California model is “a political liability in this environment,” said Tinisch Hollins, a victims advocate who worked on the San Quentin transition and heads Californians for Safety and Justice.

But she retains faith that “the majority of people don’t believe that shoving everyone into prison is how we resolve the problem.”

Newsom deserves credit for standing by that position, when simply backing away and dropping the California model would have been the simpler and safer route — it’s complicated and messy and oh-so-easy to make it sound dumb.

I refer you back to the cafe. If construction had been cut at San Quentin, the budget cited as the reason, no one would have noticed and few would have complained.

Instead, sounding a bit like Trump, Newsom said he “threatened the hell out of them if they didn’t get it done before I was gone.”

“This is not left or right,” he said. “This is just being smart and pragmatic and you know, I just … I believe people are not the worst thing they’ve done.”

Politically at least, San Quentin is a legacy for Newsom now, the best or worst thing he’s done on crime, depending on your personal views of second chances.

But it is undeniably a vision of public safety starkly at odds with Trump, one Newsom will carry into his next political fight — where it is certain to cause him some pain.

The White House’s comment comes days after a senior Trump aide said Iran is one week away from having material for nuclear bomb.

The White House has insisted that last year’s strikes against Iran destroyed the country’s nuclear programme despite a recent claim by a senior US official that Tehran is a week away from having bombmaking material.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that the June 2025 attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, was an “overwhelmingly successful mission”.

The attack “did, in fact, obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities“, Leavitt said.

But just this weekend, President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that Iran is close to having enough material to build a nuclear weapon.

“They’re probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material,” Witkoff told Fox News on Saturday.

Since last June’s strikes, Trump has repeatedly hailed the attack, arguing that it eliminated Iran’s nuclear programme and led to “peace” in the Middle East. Operation Midnight Hammer came towards the end of a 12-day war Israel initiated with Iran that month.

But eight months later, US and Iranian officials are once again holding talks to reach a nuclear deal and avert another war.

On Tuesday, Leavitt said the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme had been “verified” by Trump and the United Nations’ watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“That does not mean that Iran may never try again to establish a nuclear programme that could directly threaten the United States and our allies abroad, and that’s what the president wants to ensure can never happen again,” she added.

Last year, after the US attack, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months”.

But the UN agency’s inspectors have not been able to assess Iran’s nuclear sites since the US strikes.

The Pentagon’s public assessment was that the Iranian nuclear programme was set back by one to two years.

There has been no official confirmation of the US claims that Iran has restarted nuclear enrichment after the attack.

After a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US in December, Trump renewed his threats to attack Iran if it tries to rebuild its nuclear or missile programme.

Tensions have spiralled since then, with the US amassing military assets near Iran.

Still, Tehran and Washington are set to hold the third round of negotiations this year to push for a nuclear deal.

Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has said it would agree to minimal uranium enrichment under strict IAEA supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

But Trump has repeatedly stressed that it is seeking zero enrichment.

Enrichment is the process of isolating and concentrating a rare variant, or isotope, of uranium that can produce nuclear fission.

At low levels, enriched uranium can power electric plants. If enriched to approximately 90 percent, it can be used for nuclear weapons.

Before the June 2025 war, Iran was enriching uranium at 60 percent purity.

Tehran had been escalating its nuclear programme since 2018, when Trump, during his first term, nixed a multilateral agreement that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent. He instead started piling up sanctions on the Iranian economy, as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign.

The White House on Tuesday suggested the military option against Iran remains on the table.

“President Trump’s first option is always diplomacy. But as he has shown, he is willing to use the lethal force of the United States military if necessary,” Leavitt said.

Warner Bros. Discovery said Tuesday that it was “reviewing” a revised offer from Paramount Skydance — the latest twist in the high-profile auction to claim one of Hollywood’s corporate jewels.

The company did not provide any details of Paramount’s bid. Paramount separately confirmed that it submitted a revised offer.

In a short statement, Warner acknowledged that Paramount had submitted a modified proposal to buy all of the company’s outstanding shares and that board members were evaluating the offer “in consultation with our financial and legal advisors.”

“We will update our shareholders following the Board’s review,” Warner said.

The Larry Ellison-backed Paramount had been facing a late Monday night deadline to boost its bid to claim the company that owns CNN, HBO, TBS and the storied Warner Bros. movie and film studios. Last week, the auction’s winning bidder — Netflix — agreed to allow Warner Bros. Discovery to reopen talks with Paramount for seven days to determine whether Paramount would bring more money to the table.

Warner instructed Paramount to present its “best and final” offer.

Netflix has matching rights should Warner Bros. Discovery reverse course and accept the Paramount bid.

The move comes nearly three months after Warner’s board unanimously agreed to sell HBO and studio assets, including its deep library that includes Superman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, “Game of Thrones,” and “The Big Bang Theory,” to Netflix for $27.75 a share.

Netflix’s deal, valued at $82.7 billion, does not include Warner’s basic cable channels, including CNN, TBS and HGTV.

Those channels are slated to be spun off to a new company later this year.

But Paramount, managed by scion David Ellison, has repeatedly cried foul, saying its cash bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including the Warner cable channels, would be more lucrative for shareholders. Paramount, which enjoys friendly relations with President Trump, has also boasted that it has a more certain path to win U.S. regulatory approval compared to Netflix.

But Warner Bros.’ board has stuck with Netflix’s bid, saying the streaming giant’s financing was more secure.

“The Netflix merger agreement remains in effect, and the Board continues to recommend in favor of the Netflix transaction,” Warner said in its Tuesday statement.

Warner Bros. Discovery told Paramount last week that it expected the billionaire Ellison to put more money into the deal.

Paramount has previously said that the tech billionaire would guarantee more than $41 billion in equity financing that was needed to pull of the more than $108-billion take-over.

Under Paramount’s previous offer, the Ellison family was planning to contribute about $12 billion. Another $24 billion was expected to come from the royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

In recent weeks, Paramount agreed to cover a $2.8 billion break-up fee that Warner would owe Netflix should Warner walk away from the Netflix deal. Paramount also suggested that it would increase its offer to at least $31 a share.

The move comes amid heightened political interest in the monumental deal that would reshape Hollywood.

The Department of Justice is investigating whether a Netflix takeover, or Paramount’s alternative bid, would harm competition.

Republican lawmakers have been critical of the Netflix deal, saying it would blunt competition.

President Trump has said he didn’t plan to get involved in the investigation, but over the weekend he threatened Netflix, writing on social media that Netflix must fire Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official, from its board or “pay the consequences.”

Warner Bros. Discovery is consulting with investment bankers from Allen & Company, J.P. Morgan and Evercore and the law firms Wachtell Lipton and Debevoise & Plimpton.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is set to deliver a high-stakes State of the Union address on Tuesday night at 6 p.m. Pacific time before a joint session of Congress in the U.S. Capitol.

The president is expected to emphasize economic issues, an immigration crackdown that has been central to his agenda, and tariffs in the wake of a recent legal setback to his trade agenda.

Here is what to know about the event:

How to watch

The remarks will be shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels. Another way to watch live is through the public affairs network C-SPAN. The White House will stream the address on its website.

What to expect in the speech

Trump is expected to focus on his immigration crackdown and his promises to go after what he says is government “waste, fraud and abuse,” as previewed in two White House videos on Monday.

One year back in office, Trump has led an aggressive deportation campaign that has involved violent arrests, troops in American cities and an uptick in detentions. The tactics used by federal immigration agents have raised concerns among lawmakers in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. Those concerns are central to ongoing standoff over funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

It will also be worth watching how Trump talks about future efforts to target waste and abuse in public spending, an effort that has often roped in blue states like California.

Who will deliver responses?

Democrats have picked Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Sen. Alex Padilla of California to deliver the Democratic responses to Trump’s speech.

Spanberger will give her remarks in English, while Padilla will deliver the Spanish-language response.

Padilla’s remarks will be live-streamed here.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has a way of saying the quiet parts out loud in defending President Trump’s economic policies, told the truth again Friday, during a public appearance a few hours after the Supreme Court threw out most of Trump’s tariffs.

Asked about the prospects that Americans would be receiving refunds of the illegal tariffs paid since Trump imposed them in April, Bessent replied with a condescending smirk: “I get a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

A couple of things about that. One is that there doesn’t seem to be any legal question that those who paid the tariffs are entitled to refunds. In his 6-3 ruling invalidating levies imposed on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that those tariffs were unconstitutional and illegal from their inception.

Therefore, there’s no excuse for the government to hold on to the money it has collected — estimated at somewhere between $135 billion and $170 billion. But Roberts didn’t state whether refunds are warranted or, if so, how they should be calculated and distributed.

Trump has dangled the prospect of tariff refunds — actually, tariff “dividend” checks of $2,000 — in front of taxpayers for months. In effect, that would mean returning to taxpayers the money that his tariffs have cost them. Bessent’s comments put paid to that promise.

Today, no one is arguing seriously that checks should be cut for taxpayers — except Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer, who demanded refund checks totalling $8.7 billion for his constituents. But that has the aroma of a campaign stunt for Pritzker, who is running for a third term and may be positioning himself for a presidential run.

By not specifying a refund process, the Supreme Court decision left a vacuum that Bessent tried to fill. In his comments, he explained why refunds will be nothing but a dream for the average American — and those comments were chilling.

First, he said, Trump has the authority to reimpose the same tariffs under different laws. Indeed, Trump has already announced that he will be imposing 15% tariffs across the board.

He also signaled that although Roberts pushed refund decisions down to the Court of International Trade, the government is poised to challenge importers’ applications for reimbursement, generating litigation that “can be dragged out for weeks, months, years.”

In other words, Bessent implied that, far from resolving the economic confusion Trump has generated through his on-again-off-again tariff policies during 2025, the court’s decision provoked Trump to inject even more uncertainty into U.S. trade relations and domestic business decisions.

That dime appeared to drop for stock market investors Monday. The markets rose modestly in a relief rally Friday after the Supreme Court released its decision, but tumbled Monday as Trump doubled down on tariffs. At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was down by 821.91 points, or nearly 1.7%, and the Nasdaq and Standard & Poor’s 500 indices both fell by more than 1%.

Bessent didn’t mention the most important reason why American consumers are unlikely to see anything resembling a tariff refund.

Tariffs on imported products are, by any measure, a tax on domestic consumers. Economic opinion is virtually unanimous on that point. As I reported in January, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, concluded that 96% of the 2025 Trump tariffs were paid by American importers and their domestic clients.

“The tariffs are, in the most literal sense, an own goal,” Kiel’s researchers wrote. “Americans are footing the bill.” Their conclusion was largely echoed earlier this month by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which placed the burden on American importers and consumers at “nearly 90%.”

That said, the specifics of tariff payments are in the hands of importers and retailers, which keep records of how much they’ve paid and on what products or parts. Consumers don’t normally know the numbers. (I actually received an invoice last year breaking out the tariffs charged by a Japanese retailer on a set of pens I had bought for a birthday present, but since the sum came to $12 I’m not sure that demanding a refund from the government would be worth it.)

So far, about 1,500 businesses have filed claims for refunds through the Court of International Trade. Most filed these claims to secure for themselves a position in the scrum for refunds, like music fans lining up overnight for tickets to a star’s upcoming concert.

Many of these businesses may not actually have put a number on their claim. Costco, perhaps the biggest retailer to file with the CIT, didn’t say in its Nov. 28 filing how much it thought it was owed, possibly because it was still bound to pay the tariffs until the Supreme Court issued a final decision.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which actually computes and collects the tariffs, says it will cease collecting the invalidated levies when the clock strikes 12:01 a.m. Tuesday morning.

What consumers don’t know is how much of the tariffs have been passed down to them. Some sellers decided to eat some or all of the tariffs to keep consumer prices steady. Some may have stocked up on tariff-eligible products ahead of the formal imposition of the levies.

Will retailers seek out customers who paid higher prices on products that were tariffed to hand them refunds? None has said that such an eventuality is in the cards, though it might not be surprising to see some businesses use the end of tariffs as a marketing device — you know, “We’re cutting prices on Toyotas during ‘tariff freedom month!’” etc., etc.

It’s also conceivable that retailers passed imaginary tariff costs on to their customers, putting through price increases that had nothing to do with the levies but could be blamed on them anyway.

That’s what happened after Trump imposed tariffs on washing machines, which were almost all foreign-made, in 2018. According to a 2020 survey by Federal Reserve and University of Chicago economists, the tariffs forced washing machine prices up by nearly 12%, or about $86 each. The researchers discovered, however, that prices on clothes dryers increased by about the same amount, even though they weren’t subject to the tariffs at all.

What happened? The researchers conjectured that because washers and dryers are typically sold as pairs, retailers may have simply spread the washing machine cost increase between the two products to keep their prices similar. It’s also possible that retailers, figuring that consumers would expect to pay more for tariffed washing machines and would assume the same effect held for dryers, charged more for the latter to fatten their profits. One wouldn’t expect consumer refunds in those cases.

Another imponderable is the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the U.S. consumer economy generally. The Trump tariffs cost the average American household the equivalent of a tax increase of about $1,000, the Tax Foundation has calculated.

About $600 of that sum was due to the IEEPA tariffs now struck down. But the new tariffs Trump announced after the Supreme Court ruling will raise the tariff tax for American families by $300 to $700, the Foundation reported — potentially a greater total burden than existed before the court’s action.

All of Trump’s tariffs increased the average tariff rate to 13.8%, the Foundation reckoned. The Supreme Court’s ruling reduced that to about 6% — still the highest U.S. tariff rate since 1971 — but the new 15% tariff Trump announced would raise the applied rate back to 12.1%. By law, the new tariff can remain in effect for only five months unless it’s extended by Congress. In 2022, America’s applied tariff rate was 1.5%.

Perhaps the most immediate question facing businesses is how refund claims will be administered. In his dissent to Roberts’ IEEPA decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that “the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Possibly Kavanaugh’s concern was that the Court of International Trade will have to adjudicate 1,500 claims one by one. But it need not be so.

In 1998, the Supreme Court declared a Harbor Maintenance Tax on exports, based on the constitutional provision that exports can’t be taxed. Responsibility for those refunds also fell to the Court of International Trade, which established a standardized procedure for claims. Even under the streamlined system, however, the resolution of all those claims took until 2005, or seven years. And that involved only about $1 billion in claims, not the more than $130 billion at stake today.

What remains unexplained in the miasma created by Trump’s tariff policies is why he is doing this. None of his rationales has been borne out. The tariffs haven’t restored manufacturing employment in the U.S., which have fallen throughout Trump’s current term. They haven’t eliminated America’s trade deficit with the rest of the world, which has persisted since 1975 and — despite Trump’s assertions — isn’t anywhere close to an economic crisis.

As it happens, while the overall trade deficit fell modestly last year by less than $3 billion, or about one-third of 1%, most of the reduction was in services; the deficit in goods rose by $25.5 billion to a record $1.24 trillion.

All that’s left is Trump’s inclination to wield tariffs as tools of geopolitical bullying. He has raised or threatened to raise tariffs on Brazil because of that country’s criminal pursuit of former President Jair Bolsonaro for leading a coup attempt; on Switzerland because he felt dissed by a Swiss government leader; and on several European countries for thwarting his effort to annex Greenland.

None of those actions bore fruit (Bolsonaro was convicted and is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence). America’s trading partners plainly recognize that the new tariffs must expire within 150 days and can’t be renewed without action by a Congress plainly queasy about giving Trump his tariffs back after the Supreme Court took them away. They don’t seem to be taking Trump seriously.

They can tell that on tariffs, as on many other things, Trump is increasingly behaving like a lame duck, albeit one with a whim of iron. But as the stock market seemed to be telling us Monday, even a whim of iron can be very, very costly.

WASHINGTON — President Trump will deliver his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night at a moment of unusual upheaval, confronting a cascade of crises that have left Washington unsettled and his own political standing diminished early in his second term.

When lawmakers gather to hear the president’s agenda for the year ahead, the scene is expected to reflect an undeterred president under increasing political strain.

The president is facing a partial government shutdown triggered by his administration’s aggressive deportation campaign, rising tensions over the United States’ involvement in foreign conflicts and growing domestic dissent that is fracturing the president’s political alliances and aggravating his rivals.

Adding to the turbulent atmosphere is the economic unease in an election year. The president, who a year ago promised to bring down prices for consumers, insisted Monday that America has “the greatest economy we’ve ever had” even though public polling shows economic pressures are worrying a majority of Americans.

Trump said he plans to talk about the country’s economic successes in his speech, saying “it is going to be a long speech because we have so much to talk about.”

Republicans have recently pushed Trump to focus on the push to lower costs, a message they see as crucial to help them keep control of Congress. What remains to be seen is how much of Trump’s economic message will be colored by a Supreme Court decision last week that struck down his use of tariffs, a key portion of his economic agenda. In recent days, the president has remained defiant on the issue, lashing out at the justices for delivering a legal setback on his tariffs, and looking to impose new global tariffs in a different way.

Trump said Monday he does not need to seek congressional approval to impose new levies, even though the nation’s highest court ruled his tariffs cannot stand without the approval of Congress.

“As president, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago!”

Trump’s rebuke underscores the president’s increasingly combative posture toward both the judiciary and Congress, at a time when he is heavily relying on his executive authority to advance sweeping policies on immigration, trade and national security.

His willingness to wield executive authority has been seen in the last year as the president led U.S. forces to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, threatened to seize Greenland, considered an attack on Iran and eyed an armed conflict with drug cartels in Mexico.

At home, Trump has said he thinks the federal government should assert control over state elections as he continues to push false claims of a stolen 2020 election.

Whether that will happen remains to be seen as Republican leaders, and other conservative lawmakers, voice opposition to some of the president’s legislative pitches.

In recent months, Congress has tried to reassert its authority over the executive branch — in some cases led by small Republican defections by lawmakers who have grown concerned about the president’s involvement in foreign wars and his economic policies.

One of the most notable rebukes to Trump’s authority occurred late last year, when a bipartisan group of lawmakers secured legislation that forced the Trump administration to release investigative files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

While Trump maintains the release of those files cleared him of wrongdoing, the findings have so far ensnared key figures in Trump’s political orbit and reinforced a sense of scandal that continues to loom over his administration. Anger over the administration’s handling of the Epstein case has led to bipartisan backlash, even prompting some conservatives to call for U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to resign.

Another sign of the polarized moment Trump will face Tuesday night will be led by Democrats.

About a dozen Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives plan to boycott the president’s speech and participate in what they have dubbed the “People’s State of the Union.”

“I will not be attending the State of the Union,” U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a social media video over the weekend. “We cannot treat this as normal. This is not business as usual. I will not give him the audience he craves for the lies that he tells.”

In recent years, lawmakers who wished to disavow the president’s address would typically stand and shout in protest, disrupt the remarks or coordinate outfits to signal their opposition.

In 2020, for example, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) stood behind Trump at the podium as he delivered his remarks and then shredded a copy of his script. She later called it a “manifesto of mistruths.”

This year, even the president’s allies appear to be on notice.

While it is a long-standing custom for the Supreme Court justices to attend the president’s annual address, Trump told reporters on Friday that the six justices who voted against his tariffs policy were “barely” invited to the event.

“Three of them are invited,” he said.

Trump’s State of the Union remarks will be dissected to see how he intends to advance his agenda and to deal with a divided Congress that remains at a standstill over how to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The partial government shutdown was triggered by partisan tensions over Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by federal agents.

At a White House event Monday, Trump lamented that public polling shows waning support for federal immigration agents.

“It just amazes me that there is not more support out there,” Trump said. “We actually have a silent support, I think it is silent.”

Feb. 24 (UPI) — Peter Mandelson, Britain’s former ambassador to the United States, was released on bail in the early hours of Tuesday after being arrested in London on suspicion of misconduct in public office related to his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Metropolitan Police said in a news update that it released a 72-year-old-man arrested at an address in the Camden area of north London earlier on Monday evening, pending further investigation.

The force said the man had been taken to a London police station for questioning after search warrants were executed at two addresses in Wiltshire and Camden on Feb. 6.

Mandelson is 72-years-old and owns homes in Wiltshire and Camden.

The Met launched an investigation amid allegations that Mandelson passed details of confidential government documents when he was serving as Business Secretary in the cabinet of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2009 after the latest tranche of Epstein files released by the Department of Justice show email exchanges in which Mandelson appears to share market-sensitive information.

In one email in 2009, Mandelson appeared to send Epstein information regarding Britain’s response to the then-financial crisis, including an “asset sales plan.”

In 2010, he apparently shared information about a “tax on bankers’ bonuses” and gave Epstein advance notice of a bailout package for the Euro, a day before it was announced.

The alleged emails were sent after Epstein’s conviction for sex offenses in the United States in 2008.

The BBC said it understands that Mandelson denies he acted in a criminal way or for personal financial gain in his relationship with Epstein, although he has not commented publicly in months.

Mandelson’s arrest came four days after the former Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested and released under investigation by Thames Valley Police in a parallel but separate misconduct in public office probe in connection with his friendship with Epstein.

Mandelson was fired as Britain’s U.S. ambassador by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in September after files from the U.S. House Oversight Commttee emerged showing the “depth and extent” of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”

Andrew, who settled a sexual assault civil suit brought by the late Virginia Giuffre in 2022 for an undisclosed eight figure sum out-of-court, has also denied any wrongdoing — but has remained silent on the latest slew of allegations from 2010 and 2011 when he was Britain’s Trade Envoy.

Seven other police forces across the country are running live investigations into Epstein’s links to Britain including allegations he trafficked women and girls to and via Britain on private aircraft after Prime Minister Brown spoke about Epstein’s “Lolita Express” and its use of U.K. airports.

At least 87 flights that were related to Epstein arrived at or departed from U.K. airports between the early 1990s and 2018, according to an investigation by the BBC.

Sky Roberts and Amanda Roberts, Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law, praised Britain’s proactive approach in investigating possible wrongdoing revealed in the files and criticized U.S. authorities for not doing more.

“As Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s family, we commend the British authorities for taking meaningful action and treating the Epstein files with the urgency they demand. While these arrests aren’t for the underlying exploitation, they are a crucial step toward truth and accountability,” they said in a statement Monday.

“The contrast with the continued inaction in the United States is undeniable. Survivors deserve transparency, swift investigation, and real justice, no matter who is implicated.”

This is the Year of the Fire Horse in the Chinese zodiac — but for the White House, it’s more like the Year of Babies.

No, not the ones in the Trump administration. Actual babies.

Parents can take advantage of a larger child tax credit. July 5 will see the launch of $1,000 stock investments funded by the Treasury Department for children born in this country during President Trump’s reign. He has mulled offering $5,000 “baby bonuses” and creating a “National Medal of Motherhood” for women who have six or more children.

All this is happening even as birthrates have plummeted in this country for decades, reaching their lowest point ever in 2024. A reduced population tends to relegate countries to economic and demographic doom — look at Japan and Russia. That’s why one of Trump’s big campaign promises was to Make America Fertile Again.

“I’ll be known as the fertilization president and that’s OK,” he boasted last spring during a women’s history event at the White House.

But even as this administration urges families to grow and single people to marry and welcome little ones into their lives, it’s persecuting children in the name of Trump’s deportation deluge.

While the president told a crowd last October, “We want more babies, to put it nicely” while announcing cheaper in vitro fertilization drugs, the New York Times found his administration was keeping an average of 175 children a day in immigration detention — a 700% increase from the end of the Biden administration.

As Vice President JD Vance bragged during a March for Life rally in January that he “practices what he preaches” by expecting a fourth child this year, 5-year-old U.S. citizen Génesis Ester Gutiérrez Castellanos was adjusting to life in Honduras along with her deported mother.

On the same day last month that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted on social media, “My greatest job is being a dad to my nine kids and family will always come first,” a federal judge ordered the release of 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos, an Ecuadorean preschooler grabbed outside his Minneapolis home along with his father in what the jurist described as a “perfidious lust for unbridled power.”

Just last week, Alaska resident Sonia Espinoza Arriaga and her sons, ages 5 and 16, were dumped in Tijuana by la migra even though the family had an active case to determine whether they qualified for asylum. And Trump’s campaign against undocumented children is just beginning on multiple fronts.

Ayaan Moledina protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement as they march toward the South Texas Family Residential Center on Jan. 28 in Dilley, Texas.

(Joel Angel Juarez / Getty Images)

The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings in April for Trump’s lawsuit seeking to end birthright citizenship for people born to parents who aren’t citizens or permanent residents. U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is suing to end policies that protect immigrant children in custody.

Thousands more agents are expected to storm our streets in the coming weeks while the Department of Homeland Security spends billions of dollars to build or retrofit warehouses to stuff with the people they grab. Reports are already emerging from the South Texas Family Residential Center an hour south of San Antonio, which ICE uses to house children slated for removal from this country, of rancid food and overcrowded cells.

Trump’s apologists will claim there’s nothing racist or heartless about removing youngsters in this country illegally — or if their parents are in the U.S. without documentation — while asking citizens to have bigger families, even as the main proponents of the so-called pronatalist movement are white conservatives while nearly all of the kids la migra are booting are Latinos.

But an administration that can’t treat these children humanely shouldn’t be trusted with taking care of even American-born children. And one can’t separate Trump’s supposed pro-baby policies from what this country has historically inflicted on Latino families.

American authorities forced U.S.-born children to leave for Mexico with their parents during the Great Depression, arguing they would become a welfare burden at the expense of white children. Doctors were sterilizing Latinas without their consent in the name of population control as recently as the 1970s. Popular culture ridiculed large Latino families as backward and destined for poverty.

I grew up in a California where politicians railed against Mexican American kids like myself for supposedly overwhelming schools, parks, medical clinics and streets with our numbers. We were supposedly the ground troops in a nefarious conspiracy called Reconquista that sought to return the American Southwest to Mexico.

By the time I reached high school in the 1990s, voters began to pass laws that sought to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants like my father and other relatives, with a special punitive focus on their progeny. The infamous Prop. 187, which passed in 1994, would’ve banned undocumented children from attending California public schools from kindergarten to higher education. Five years later, the Anaheim Union High School District, whose schools I attended, passed a resolution seeking to sue Mexico for $50 million for educating the children of undocumented immigrants.

Board president Harald Martin — who migrated to this country from Austria as a 2-year-old — appeared on NPR to justify his actions by comparing the students he was in charge of to Tribbles, furry little aliens that starred in a famous “Star Trek” episode when they bred in such numbers that the Starship Enterprise was overwhelmed.

“They were so cute and fluffy, nice little things when there were four or five of them,” Martin said. “Then it got to the point down the road when it wasn’t so nice. They were getting in the way because there now were thousands of them on the ship.”

Martin’s example was not only wildly racist, it ignored the reality that Latinos were on the same road to assimilation as other previous immigrant groups ridiculed for their large families. While a March of Dimes study released last year shows Latinas had more children than any other ethnic group in this country as of 2023, the Latina birthrate declined by a third since 2003 — by far the largest drop of those groups.

I’ve seen this play out in my own family. I have 16 aunts and uncles who lived to adulthood and am the oldest of four children born to my parents — but my dad has just one grandchild and probably isn’t getting any more. I agree with Trump, Vance and the rest of them that children bring magic and vitality to communities — but what Latino family would want to raise a family where everything is far more expensive and the threat of deportation is never far away?

In this photo released by U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Adrian Conejo Arias and his son, 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos, are seen in San Antonio on Jan. 31 after being released from the Dilley detention center.

(U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro)

Fatherhood wasn’t in the cards for me, but I love being Tío Guti to my nephew and the children of my friends. That’s why my heart breaks when I hear them say that their classmates left the United States and my blood boils when I hear Vance, Trump and others urge Americans to have more kids. Trumpworld isn’t looking to increase the number of people who look like my loved ones — and that’s something that should frighten us all.

This essay is excerpted from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.”

On January 20, 2004, I took a seat in the gallery of the House of Representatives to hear President Bush deliver his State of the Union address. The seat came courtesy of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Ten months earlier, Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq after his administration’s historic campaign of lies convinced the American people that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We would not extricate ourselves from that costly conflict for another seventeen years. Much of his speech that night was a further attempt to sell to the nation the justification for his war. “Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day,” Bush said. He characterized the Patriot Act, which had unleashed a new magnitude of spying on American citizens, as “one of those essential tools” in the war on terror.

“Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery” by Gavin Newsom

(Penguin Press)

The rest of his speech was standard fare, ho-hum really, until he reached a section near the end about American values and the need for us to “work together to counter the negative influences of the culture and to send the right messages to our children.” He said he was troubled by activist judges in activist states who were threatening to undo the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton. We had to “defend the sanctity of marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, he said. If need be, he would seek a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

As I was leaving the chamber, a middle-aged couple next to me was talking about how pleased they were that their president was finally confronting the “homosexual agenda.” The word homosexual came out of their mouths bent by contempt. I was supposed to head downstairs for a reception with Congresswoman Pelosi and a delegation of California Democrats, but I needed a breath of fresh air. Outside the Capitol, I kept walking and muttering to myself. “These are my people Bush is attacking. My constituents. My staff. My closest advisers.” In the cold and dark of Washington, I called one of my aides back in San Francisco and pledged that I was “going to do something about it” as soon as I returned home.

The law in our state was no different from the law in every other state. Same-sex unions could not be recognized by the local assessor-recorder’s office. They were illegal. As I explained to aides my willingness to now defy that law, I held up a copy of the California Constitution. In Article I, the first section promises that “all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.” Among these rights are pursuing and obtaining “safety, happiness and privacy.” It was not until Section 7.5 that these rights were then abridged: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This not only contradicted the first section but was discriminatory on its face.

My top staff didn’t disagree with my reading, but almost to a person they were opposed to my taking on the issue. Steve Kawa, my chief of staff, a gay Bostonian whose accent cut through all nonsense, pulled me aside and spoke from his heart. His father had renounced him for being gay, and he wanted nothing more than to live in an America where homophobia was no longer the norm. But swinging open the doors to the city clerk’s office and inviting gay men and lesbian women to the marriage altar was political suicide, he argued. We were new to office, for one thing. And polls showed that less than one third of Californians supported gay marriage.

The “go it slow” admonition was the mother’s milk of Democratic politics. In the endless battle for the hearts and minds of moderates, it seemed the only feasible way for a Democrat to get elected and govern. But this was San Francisco, and we were talking about equal protection under the law for a class of people whose ostracism by family, friends, and community had brought them to San Francisco in the first place. If not here, where? Eric Jaye, one of my campaign consultants, could see my quandary. I was caught between my conscience and the sound political advice of the people closest to me. We had several late-night conversations on the phone. “What the f— are you doing here? Why did we work so hard to win if you can’t do something bold?” he asked. “This is a short life, Gavin. Your time as a politician to get things done is just a blip.”

I thought back to my model for the wine store. The entire purpose was to turn the staid on its head and create a new reality. I called Joyce Newstat, my policy director, who was also gay. “We need to do this,” I told her. She could hear in my voice that I had made up my mind. “OK, but we can’t afford to take a wrong step,” she said. “Gays and lesbians have a history of being blindsided, and you don’t want to become part of that narrative. Give me a week or two to reach out to the community.” Joyce sat down with Kate Kendell, the brilliant executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, based in San Francisco. “Who is this guy?” Kendell wondered. “He can’t just come waltzing in here and upset the delicate balance we’ve taken years to achieve.” Joyce told her I couldn’t be talked out of it, that it had become internalized after I had gone to Washington and heard the words of bigotry ring out in the Capitol. “Well, OK. But if he’s going to do it, he has to do it right,” Kendell said. She directed her attorneys at the center to work with our team on fashioning a plan.

I then went to Mabel Teng, my former colleague on the board of supervisors who was now the assessor-recorder of San Francisco. I asked her what complications would be presented to her official duties if we allowed same-sex marriages at city hall. Mabel, who began her career in politics as an activist with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, did not surprise me with her reply. “It would be no problem at all, Mayor.” The marriage of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would require hardly any change to the paperwork. Rather than “man and wife,” they would show up in her computer as “Applicant One” and “Applicant Two.”

Alarmed by my plans, my father and Uncle Brennan and their close friend Joe Cotchett — each one steeped in law and politics but only Joe standing six foot four and a former Special Forces paratrooper —attempted a last-minute intervention. They lured me to the Balboa Cafe for dinner and wine. They weren’t the kind to beat around the bush. Did I realize that I was about to torpedo my political career?

Joe got right in my face. “Why are you doing this, Gavin?”

“I’ll tell you why I’m doing this,” I said defiantly. “Because it’s the right thing to do.”

I could not have given him a more simple and true answer, and it seemed to hit Joe, who had built his career out of representing the underdog, right in the gut.

“OK,” he said in a different voice. “Then let’s do it.”

With that, my father and uncle went quiet. Not another word was said about it. I left there that night thinking that even my Newsom kin, the ones who had my best interests at heart, could get it wrong from time to time. While I was open to skepticism and second-guessing, indeed I welcomed such a process, in the end I had to trust my own gut. On the matter of civil rights for all Californians, there was no turning back. As for big Joe Cotchett, he ended up joining the ranks of lawyers fighting for the legal right to same-sex marriage.

From “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery” by Gavin Newsom, published by Penguin Press, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © 2026 by Gavin Newsom.

Ukraine officials say infrastructure damaged as Russia strikes Zaporizhzhia on the war’s fourth anniversary.

A Republican from the South Bay who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars running unsuccessfully against Rep. Maxine Waters four times while promoting QAnon conspiracy theories was sentenced to four years in federal prison for misusing campaign funds, the Department of Justice announced Monday.

Omar Navarro, 37, pleaded guilty in June to a single count of wire fraud for defrauding his own election campaign. The perennial candidate had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years from prominent right-wing figures while promoting QAnon conspiracy theories but never cracked 25% of the vote.

He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi, who ordered Navarro immediately remanded into federal custody. A restitution hearing will be scheduled at a later date to determine how much money Navarro must pay to compensate victims.

Narvarro ran to represent Los Angeles County residents in California’s 43rd Congressional District in the 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022 election cycles.

From July 2017 to February 2021, he funneled tens of thousands of dollars in donations to his campaign committee back to himself through his mother, Dora Asghari, and friend Zacharias Diamantides-Abel, prosecutors said. In total, his scheme diverted around $266,00 in campaign funds, more than $100,000 of which went directly into his pocket, prosecutors said.

“Defendant could have used that money to buy radio advertisements, purchase billboard space, or send a mailer to aid him in the election,” prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memorandum. “He chose instead to steal his donors’ dollars and fund his lavish lifestyle, including using it to pay for Las Vegas trips, fancy dinners, and even criminal defense attorneys for his criminal stalking charge after he had the audacity to use his campaign money to pay a private investigator to stalk her.”

He set up a sham charity called the United Latino Foundation to embezzle additional funds for his personal use. He also wrote thousands of dollars’ worth of checks to Brava Consulting, a company owned by his mother. This money was allegedly payment for campaign work, but the bulk of it was simply funneled back to him.

Initially, Navarro denied the allegations publicly, writing on X last year that the claims were “baseless” and suggested Waters herself was behind the investigation. He pleaded guilty months later.

Prosecutors argued that a significant sentence was necessary given the “prolonged and pervasive” nature of his fraud and to discourage others from engaging in similar behavior “that undermines the very fabric of the campaign finance system, a system designed to promote trust in government.”

The other two people connected to the case were also criminally charged.

Navarro’s mother pleaded guilty in June 2025 to one count of making false statements after lying to the FBI when questioned about receiving funds from her son’s campaign. She will face up to five years in federal prison at her April 13 sentencing hearing.

Diamantides-Abel pleaded guilty in May 2025 to one count of conspiracy and awaits sentencing.

New Zealand says it, too, will support the UK government if it decides to remove the disgraced prince from succession to the throne.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced that his government is writing to Commonwealth countries about its support to have the United Kingdom’s former prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, removed from the line of royal succession over his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Albanese’s announcement on Tuesday came as neighbouring Commonwealth member New Zealand declared that it would also support the UK government if it proposes the removal of Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession to the throne.

“Australia likes being first, and we have made sure that everyone knows what our position is, and we’ll be writing today to the other realm countries as well, informing them of our position,” Prime Minister Albanese told Australia’s ABC public broadcaster.

Australians were “disgusted” by revelations about late US sex offender Epstein’s relations with public figures, and they want the government to be clear about its position, Albanese told the ABC.

“King Charles has said that the law must now take its full course. There must be a full, fair and proper investigation. And that needs to occur,” he added.

The former 66-year-old prince was arrested last week, detained and questioned as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office following revelations about his dealings with Epstein.

Albanese also said the UK would have to initiate any proposed change to the line of royal succession, and it would need the agreement of the 14 other Commonwealth nations that have King Charles III as head of state.

Albanese wrote to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and informed him that, “in light of recent events”, the Australian government would “agree to any proposal to remove [Mountbatten-Windsor] from the line of royal succession”, according to Australian media.

“I agree with His Majesty that the law must now take its full course and there must be a full, fair and proper investigation,” Albanese wrote.

“These are grave allegations and Australians take them seriously,” he added.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said that if the UK government proposes to remove Mountbatten-Windsor from the order of succession, New Zealand would support it, the UK’s Press Association reports.

“The bottom line is, no one is above the law, and once that investigation is closed, should the UK government decide to remove him from the line of succession, that is something we would support,” Luxon told reporters.

Officials in the UK have told media outlets that any moves to change the line of succession would come after the police conclude their investigation into the former prince, who is eighth in line to the throne.

Starmer’s official spokesman said on Monday that the government was not ruling out any steps in relation to the disgraced prince, but it would not be appropriate to comment further during the police probe.

Mountbatten-Windsor, who was stripped of his royal title last year as news of links to Epstein emerged, has denied any wrongdoing over his relationship with Epstein, who was ruled to have taken his own life in prison in 2019. He has not directly responded to the latest allegations regarding misconduct in public office.