Politics

Dec. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is suing the BBC for $10 billion, alleging it intentionally misrepresented a speech he gave before the Jan. 6 storming of Capitol Hill in order to influence the result of the 2024 presidential election.

The lawsuit was filed in a Florida court on Monday, more than a month after Trump threatened to bring litigation against Britain’s public broadcaster over the editing of a speech he gave to supporters in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, in the documentary Trump: A Second Chance.

Trump’s lawyers described the documentary’s depiction of him as “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory and malicious,” alleging it was aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment.”

The suit is for $5 billion in damages, plus interest, costs, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief the court finds appropriate.

The BBC declined to comment Tuesday but vowed it would fight the case.

“As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” said a spokesman.

The Panorama documentary aired in Britain on Oct. 28, 2024, just days ahead of the Nov. 5 election. The BBC stresses it was not broadcast in the United States and that it did not make it available to view there.

In the documentary, video of Trump’s speech was edited to piece together two comments the president made about 50 minutes apart, while omitting other parts of his speech.

“[T]he BBC “intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021,” his lawyers state in the lawsuit.

“The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The claim refers to the splicing together of excerpts lifted from the video that made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell,” was what viewers of the program saw, when Trump’s actual words were, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

It wasn’t until 50 minutes later in the speech that Trump made the comments about fighting.

The infraction went unnoticed until early November when The Telegraph published an exclusive on a leaked internal BBC memo in which a former external ethics adviser allegedly suggested that the documentary edited Trump’s speech to make it appear he directed the Jan. 6 attack on Congress.

Following the report, the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, and head of news, Deborah Turness, resigned.

BBC chairman Samir Shah immediately apologized for what he called an unintentional “error of judgment.”

After Trump wrote the BBC demanding a correction, compensation and threatening a $1 billion lawsuit, the corporation formally apologized and issued a retraction that was the lead story across all of its news platforms on television, radio and online — but said it strongly disagreed “there is a basis for a defamation claim.”

To win the case, Trump’s legal team would need to convince the court the program had caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The BBC has said that since the program was not broadcast in the United States or available to view there, Trump was not harmed by it and the choices voters made in the election were not affected as he was re-elected days after.

However, Trump’s legal team alleges the BBC had a deal with a third-party media company that had rights to air the documentary outside of the United Kingdom.

The blunder has reignited a furious national debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the institution itself, which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

It also comes as the future of the BBC is under review, with the renewal date of its royal charter approaching on the centenary of its founding in 2027.

Trump has won out-of-court settlements in a series of disputes with U.S. broadcasters, although largely at significantly reduced sums than those sought in the original lawsuit.

In July, CBS settled a $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 5.

ABC News paid Trump $15 million and apologized to settle a defamation suit over comments by presenter George Stephanopoulos that incorrectly stated Trump was “liable for rape.”

In 2022, CNN fought and successfully defended a $475 million suit alleging it had defamed Trump by dubbing his claim the 2020 election was stolen from him as the “Big Lie.” The judge ruled it did not meet the legal standard of defamation.

He has live cases pending cases against the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

Bangladeshi President Mohammed Shahabuddin, elected unopposed in 2023 as a nominee of the Awami League, has announced his intention to step down midway through his term following February’s parliamentary election. His decision comes amid tensions with the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

Although the presidency in Bangladesh is largely ceremonial, Shahabuddin gained national prominence during the student-led uprising in August 2024, when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to New Delhi and parliament was dissolved. During this period, Shahabuddin remained the last constitutional authority in the country.

Conflict with Interim Government

Shahabuddin described feeling sidelined by Yunus, citing instances such as being excluded from meetings, the removal of his press department, and the sudden elimination of his portraits from Bangladeshi embassies worldwide. “A wrong message goes to the people that perhaps the president is going to be eliminated. I felt very much humiliated,” he told Reuters in his first media interview since taking office.

Despite these grievances, he affirmed that he would remain in office until elections are held, respecting constitutional norms, and would allow the next government to determine his successor.

Political Landscape Ahead of Elections

Opinion polls suggest the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and hardline Jamaat-e-Islami are the leading contenders to form the next government. Shahabuddin has emphasized that no party has asked him to resign in recent months, and he maintains regular contact with Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman, who has assured him of no intention to seize power.

Military and Democratic Context

Bangladesh has a history of military intervention in politics, but Shahabuddin indicated that the army leadership is committed to democratic processes. During the August 2024 protests, the military largely stayed out of the conflict, which helped shape the political transition.

Personal Analysis

Shahabuddin’s planned resignation reflects a deeper struggle over the symbolic authority of the presidency amid political instability. Although the role is ceremonial, the treatment he received from the interim government appears to have eroded his sense of institutional respect. His public statements highlight not only personal frustration but also the fragility of democratic norms in transitional periods.

Furthermore, the situation underscores the delicate balance between civilian authority and the military in Bangladesh, where past interventions have shaped governance patterns. By signaling his willingness to step down while remaining constitutionally compliant, Shahabuddin seeks to preserve institutional legitimacy while avoiding direct confrontation, potentially smoothing the path for the incoming administration and reducing political friction in a tense electoral environment.

Overall, his resignation would mark a symbolic transition, emphasizing both the limitations of the presidency in Bangladesh’s political system and the ongoing influence of military and interim authorities in shaping the political landscape.

With information from Reuters.

The stunning cathedral has been at the heart of Christianity in the north of the country since the 7th century

From the towering Big Ben to Birmingham’s Mailbox, England boasts a wealth of iconic structures. However, new research from Angi has crowned York Minster as the most beautiful building in England.

York Minster has been a cornerstone of northern Christianity since the 7th century.

Its breathtaking stained glass windows and intricate architecture draw tourists from every corner of the globe.

The Minster’s Rose Window is renowned worldwide, crafted in 1515 by Master Glazier Robert Petty.

The panels showcase alternating Lancaster red roses and Tudor red and white roses, commemorating the union of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York, reports the Express.

One awestruck tourist penned on Tripadvisor: “Must see cathedral in York, not religious visitors but this building is simply outstanding.”

Another echoed: “Although we aren’t religious, this is a must visit. The splendour and grace cannot fail to be appreciated.

“The majesty of the building alone is worth the entrance fee but there is so much more than that.”

A visitor chimed in: “Spectacular! Truly stunning, never appreciated the history of York before, incredible place to visit!”

In 1984, the renowned Minster was hit by a bolt of lightning, leaving townsfolk stunned as they watched the roof become consumed by flames.

Bob Littlewood, superintendent of the Works, recalled: “We suddenly heard this roar as the roof started to come down and we just had to run as the whole thing collapsed like a pack of chairs.”

The fire caused the glass in the cathedral’s world-renowned Rose Window to crack, but miraculously, the window remained intact.

Following the blaze, children’s TV show Blue Peter organised a competition for youngsters to design new bosses for the cathedral roof.

The victorious designs depicted Neil Armstrong’s inaugural steps on the moon and the 1982 recovery of Henry VIII’s warship, the Mary Rose.

Visitors who arrive before January 5 will have the chance to experience York Minster’s Christmas Tree Festival, which features 40 trees displayed throughout the cathedral.

These magnificent trees are individually themed and adorned by local businesses, schools, and charities.

Youngsters can try their hand at the Christmas Tree Trail, hunting for several intriguing features around the Cathedral.

The study sought out the most beautiful buildings in each country worldwide. The world’s most stunning building was named as the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

Paris’s iconic Notre Dame secured second place, while Turkey’s Blue Mosque made it into the top 10.

India’s Taj Mahal, Austria’s Schonbrunn Palace, and the Hungarian Parliament Building were among the top 12 structures.

In the USA, the most stunning structure is Biltmore in Asheville, an 8,000-acre estate constructed by George Vanderbilt.

Most beautiful buildings in the world.

1. Sagrada Familia
2. Notre Dame
3. Biltmore
4. Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Center
5. Grand Central Terminal

When armed soldiers in the small West African nation of Benin appeared on national television on December 7 to announce they had seized power in a coup, it felt to many across the region like another episode of the ongoing coup crisis that has seen several governments toppled since 2020.

But the scenes played out differently this time.

Amid reports of gunfire and civilians scampering to safety in the economic capital, Cotonou, Beninese and others across the region waited with bated breath as conflicting intelligence emerged. The small group of putschists, on the one hand, declared victory, but Benin’s forces and government officials said the plot had failed.

By evening, the situation was clear – Benin’s government was still standing. President Patrice Talon and loyalist forces in the army had managed to hold control, thanks to help from the country’s bigger neighbours, particularly its eastern ally and regional power, Nigeria.

While Talon now enjoys victory as the president who could not be unseated, the spotlight is also on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The regional bloc rallied to save the day in Benin after their seeming resignation in the face of the crises rocking the region, including just last month, when the military took power in Guinea-Bissau.

This time, though, after much criticism and embarrassment, ECOWAS was ready to push back against the narrative of it being an ineffective bloc by baring its teeth and biting, political analyst Ryan Cummings told Al Jazeera.

“It wanted to remind the region that it does have the power to intervene when the context allows,” Cummings said. “At some point, there needed to be a line drawn in the sand [and] what was at stake was West Africa’s most stable sovereign country falling.”

Is a new ECOWAS on the horizon?

Benin’s military victory was an astonishing turnaround for an ECOWAS that has been cast as a dead weight in the region since 2020, when a coup in Mali spurred an astonishing series of military takeovers across the region in quick succession.

Between 2020 and 2025, nine coup attempts toppled five democratic governments and two military ones. The latest successful coup, in Guinea-Bissau, happened on November 28. Bissau-Guineans had voted in the presidential election some days before and were waiting for the results to be announced when the military seized the national television station, detained incumbent President Umaro Sissoco Embalo, and announced a new military leader.

ECOWAS, whose high-level delegation was in Bissau to monitor the electoral process when the coup happened, appeared on the back foot, unable to do much more than issue condemnatory statements. Those statements sounded similar to those it issued after the coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Guinea. The bloc appeared a far cry from the institution that, between 1990 and 2003, successfully intervened to stop the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and later in the Ivory Coast. The last ECOWAS military intervention, in 2017, halted Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh’s attempt to overturn the election results.

Indeed, ECOWAS’s success in its heyday hinged on the health of its members. Nigeria, arguably ECOWAS’s backbone, whose troops led the interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone, has been mired in insecurity and economic crises of its own lately. In July 2023, when Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the ECOWAS chair, he threatened to invade Niger after the coup there.

It was disastrous timing. Faced with livelihood-eroding inflation and incessant attacks by armed groups at home, Nigerians were some of the loudest voices resisting an invasion. Many believed Tinubu, sworn in just months earlier, had misplaced his priorities. By the time ECOWAS had finished debating what to do weeks later, the military government in Niger had consolidated support throughout the armed forces and Nigeriens themselves had decided they wanted to back the military. ECOWAS and Tinubu backed off, defeated.

Niger left the alliance altogether in January this year, forming the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) with fellow military governments in Mali and Burkina Faso. All three share cultural and geographic affinities, but are also linked by their collective dislike for France, the former colonial power, which they blame for interfering in their countries. Even as they battle rampaging armed groups like Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), the three governments have cut ties with French forces formerly stationed there and welcomed Russian fighters whose effectiveness, security experts say, fluctuates.

But Benin was different, and ECOWAS appeared wide awake. Aside from the fact that it was one coup too far, Cummings said, the country’s proximity to Nigeria, and two grave mistakes the putschists made, gave ECOWAS a fighting chance.

The first mistake was that the rebels had failed to take Talon hostage, as is the modus operandi with putschists in the region. That allowed the president to directly send an SOS to his counterparts following the first failed attacks on the presidential palace at dawn.

The second mistake was perhaps even graver.

“Not all the armed forces were on board,” Cummings said, noting that the small group of about 100 rebel soldiers had likely assumed other units would fall in line but had underestimated how loyal other factions were to the president. That was a miscalculation in a country where military rule ended in 1990 and where 73 percent of Beninese believe that democracy is better than any other form of government, according to poll site Afrobarometer. Many take particular pride in their country being hailed as the region’s most stable democracy.

“There was division within the army, and that was the window of opportunity that allowed ECOWAS to deploy because there wasn’t going to be a case of ‘If we deploy, we will be targeted by the army’. I dare say that if there were no countercoup, there was no way ECOWAS would have gotten involved because it would have been a conventional war,” Cummings added.

Quickly reading the room, Benin’s neighbours reacted swiftly. For the first time in nearly a decade, the bloc deployed its standby ground forces from Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone. Abuja authorised air attacks on rebel soldiers who were effectively cornered in a military base in Cotonou and at the national TV building, but who were putting up a last-ditch attempt at resistance. France also supported the mission by providing intelligence. By nightfall, the rebels had been completely dislodged by Nigerian jets. The battle for Cotonou was over.

At least 14 people have since been arrested. Several casualties were reported on both sides, with one civilian, the wife of a high-ranking officer marked for assassination, among the dead. On Wednesday, Beninese authorities revealed that the coup leader, Colonel Pascal Tigri, was hiding in neighbouring Togo.

At stake for ECOWAS was the risk of losing yet another member, possibly to the landlocked AES, said Kabiru Adamu, founder of Abuja-based Beacon Security intelligence firm. “I am 90 percent sure Benin would have joined the AES because they desperately need a littoral state,” he said, referring to Benin’s Cotonou port, which would have expanded AES export capabilities.

Nigeria could also not afford a military government mismanaging the deteriorating security situation in northern Benin, as has been witnessed in the AES countries, Cummings said. Armed group JNIM launched its first attack on Nigerian soil in October, adding to Abuja’s pressures as it continues to face Boko Haram in the northeast and armed bandit groups in the northwest. Abuja has also come under diplomatic fire from the US, which falsely alleges a “Christian genocide” in the country.

“We know that this insecurity is the stick with which Tinubu is being beaten, and we already know his nose is bloodied,” Cummings said.

Revelling in the glory of the Benin mission last Sunday, Tinubu praised Nigeria’s forces in a statement, saying the “Nigerian armed forces stood gallantly as a defender and protector of constitutional order”. A group of Nigerian governors also hailed the president’s action, and said it reinforced Nigeria’s regional power status and would deter further coup plotters.

Not yet out of the woods

If there is a perception that ECOWAS has reawakened and future putschists will be discouraged, the reality may not be so positive, analysts say. The bloc still has much to do before it can be taken seriously again, particularly in upholding democracy and calling out sham elections before governments become vulnerable to mass uprisings or coups, Beacon Security’s Adamu said.

In Benin, for example, ECOWAS did not react as President Talon, in power since 2016, grew increasingly autocratic, barring opposition groups in two previous presidential elections. His government has again barred the main opposition challenger, Renaud Agbodjo, from elections scheduled for next April, while Talon’s pick, former finance minister Romuald Wadagni, is the obvious favourite.

“It’s clear that the elections have been engineered already,” Adamu said. “In the entire subregion, it’s difficult to point to any single country where the rule of law has not been jettisoned and where the voice of the people is heard without fear.”

ECOWAS, Adamu added, needs to proactively re-educate member states on democratic principles, hold them accountable when there are lapses, as in the Benin case, and then intervene when threats emerge.

The bloc appears to be taking heed. On December 9, two days after the failed Benin coup, ECOWAS declared a state of emergency.

“Events of the last few weeks have shown the imperative of serious introspection on the future of our democracy and the urgent need to invest in the security of our community,” Omar Touray, ECOWAS Commission president, said at a meeting in the Abuja headquarters. Touray cited situations that constitute coup risks, such as the erosion of electoral integrity and mounting geopolitical tensions, as the bloc splits along foreign influences. Currently, ECOWAS member states have stayed close to Western allies like France, while the AES is firmly pro-Russia.

Another challenge the bloc faces is managing potential fallout with the AES states amid France’s increasing closeness with Abuja. As Paris faces hostility in Francophone West Africa, it has drawn closer to Nigeria, where it does not have the same negative colonial reputation, and which it perceives as useful for protecting French business interests in the region, Cummings said. At the same time, ECOWAS is still hoping to woo the three rogue ex-members back into its fold, and countries like Ghana have already established bilateral ties with the military governments.

“The challenge with that is that the AES would see the intervention [in Benin] as an act not from ECOWAS itself but something engineered by France,” Adamu said. Seeing France instigating an intervention which could have benefitted AES reinforces their earlier complaints that Paris pokes its nose into the region’s affairs, and could push them further away, he said.

“So now we have a situation where they feel like France did it, and the sad thing is that we haven’t seen ECOWAS dispel that notion, so the ECOWAS standby force has [re]started on a contentious step,” Adamu added.

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10bn from the BBC over a documentary that edited his speech to supporters before the US Capitol riot in 2021.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Monday, seeks “damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000,000” for each of two counts against the United Kingdom broadcaster for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Earlier in the day, Trump confirmed his plans to file the lawsuit.

“I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally… I guess they used AI or something,” he told reporters at the White House.

“That’s called fake news .”

President Trump: “I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally…I guess they used AI or something…they actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6th that I didn’t say.” pic.twitter.com/cUwXqBq3Zd

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2025

Trump has accused the UK publicly-owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021, speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.

The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.

Trump’s lawsuit alleges that the BBC defamed him, and his lawyers say the documentary caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

The BBC has already apologised to Trump, admitted an error of judgement and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.

The broadcaster also said that there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, and that to overcome the US Constitution’s strong legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove in court not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the programme did not damage Trump’s reputation.

Trump, in his lawsuit, said that the BBC, despite its apology, “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses”.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the BBC had “a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda”.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed on Monday.

The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.

Other media organisations have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC, when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.

Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all of which have denied wrongdoing.

As he has in three USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times polls conducted in April, July and August, former Vice President Joe Biden leads the field of contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Biden has the backing of 28% of Democratic voters, the latest poll found. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, with 13%, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with 11%, come next and are basically tied given the poll’s margin of error of 2 percentage points.

Support for Biden has remained relatively steady, while Warren is the only candidate who has consistently gained support since April. Her steady growth in support since the spring has come through consolidating the backing of college-educated, white liberals.

Warren has managed to match many of Sanders’ positions without being perceived by voters as being as far to the left, the poll finds.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

Support for California Sen. Kamala Harris has faded. She had threatened to break into the first tier of candidates after June’s debate, but instead in August she lost many of the supporters she had picked up in July. Likewise, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg hasn’t been able to turn his strength in fundraising into support in the polls and has joined New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke in the low single digits.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

A third tier of candidates has not been able to build momentum and gain sizable support among eligible voters. This tier includes entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

About 1 in 4 of the Democratic primary voters say they are undecided, a sizable segment. Ideologically, those undecided voters are closer to Biden than to any of his major rivals, the poll found. That could give the former vice president an additional cushion.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

The August figures come from the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll conducted from Aug. 12 to Sept. 8 among 5,367 adult American citizens, including 2,462 who said they planned to vote in a Democratic primary. The margin of error is 2 percentage points in either direction for the full sample and for the Democratic sub-sample.

Respondents were drawn from a probability-based panel maintained by USC’s Center for Economic and Social Research for its Understanding America Study. The poll was conducted in partnership with, and funded by, the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future. Responses among all eligible voters were weighted to accurately reflect known demographics of the U.S. population. A description of the methodology, poll questions and data, and additional information about the poll are posted on the USC website.

Whether you sat across the table from him or across the aisle, Rob Reiner left no doubt about what he cared about and was willing to fight for.

I had lunch with him once at Pete’s Cafe in downtown L.A., where he was far less interested in what was on his plate than what was on his mind. He was advocating for local investments in early childhood development programs, using funds from the tobacco tax created by Proposition 10 in 1998, which he had helped spearhead.

I remember thinking that, although political activism among celebrities was nothing new, Reiner was well beyond the easier tasks of making endorsements and hosting fundraisers. He had an understanding of public policy failures and entrenched inequities, and he wanted to talk about the moral duty to address them and the financial benefits of doing so.

“He was deeply passionate,” said Ben Austin, who was at that lunch and worked as an aide to Reiner at the time. “He was not just a Hollywood star … but a highly sophisticated political actor.”

Reiner, who was found dead in his Brentwood home over the weekend along with his wife, Michele, was also co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was instrumental in the fight to legalize same-sex marriage in California in 2008.

Michele Singer Reiner was her husband’s “intellectual partner” as an activist, Austin said, even though he was usually the one whose face we saw. But Michele made her voice heard, too, as she did when emailing me about the inexcusable crisis of veterans living on the street, including on the West L.A. veterans administration campus at a time when it was loaded with empty buildings.

I’d check on the progress and get back to her, and she’d check back again when little had changed. At one point, I told her I’d been informed that beds in a new shelter would be filled by the end of the year.

“And if you believe that,” she wrote back, “I’ve got a bridge for you.”

In choosing his causes, Austin said of Rob Reiner, the actor-director-producer “was not jumping on a train that was already moving.” Universal preschool education was barely a fringe issue at the time, Austin said, but Reiner was more interested in social change than making political points.

Reiner’s aggressive instincts, though, sometimes drew pushback. And not just from President Trump, who established a new low for himself Monday with his social media claim that Reiner’s death was a result of his disdain for Trump.

Reiner resigned in 2006 as chairman of California’s First 5 commission, an outgrowth of Prop. 10, after Times reporting raised questions about the use of tax dollars to promote Proposition 82. That Reiner-backed ballot measure would have taxed the rich to plow money into preschool for 4-year-olds.

In 2014, Reiner was at the center of a bid to limit commercial development and chain stores in Malibu, and I co-moderated a debate that seemed more like a boxing match between him and developer Steve Soboroff.

As the Malibu Times described it:

“Rob Reiner and Steve Soboroff came out with guns blazing Sunday night during a Measure R debate that’s sure to be one of the most memorable — and entertaining — Malibu showdowns in recent town history.”

Reiner threw an early jab, accusing Soboroff of a backroom deal to add an exemption to the measure. That’s a lie, Soboroff shot back, claiming he was insulted by the low blow. Reiner, who owned houses in both Brentwood and Malibu, didn’t care much for my question about whether his slow-growth viewpoint smacked of NIMBY-ism.

“I would say there’s a lot of NIMBY-ism,” Reiner snapped. “You bet. It’s 100% NIMBY-ism. Everybody who lives here is concerned about their way of life.”

But that’s the way Reiner was. He let you know, without apology, where he stood, kind of like his “Meathead” character in Norman Lear’s hit TV show “All in the Family,” in which he butted heads with the bigoted Archie Bunker.

Getting back to President Trump, he, too, unapologetically lets you know where he stands.

But most people, in my experience, work with filters — they can self-sensor when that’s what the moment calls for. It’s not a skill, it’s an innate sense of decency and human consideration that exists in the hearts and souls of normal people.

I did not know much about the history of Nick Reiner’s addiction issues and his temporary homelessness. But it became clear shortly after the bodies were found that the Reiners’ 32-year-old son might have been involved, and he was indeed booked a short time later on suspicion of murder.

What I do know is that with such an unspeakable horror, and with the family’s survivors left to sort through the madness of it all, a better response from the president would have been silence.

Anything but a grave dance.

The Reiners died, Trump said, “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME … .” The deaths occurred, Trump continued, “as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness …”

It was a reaction, Austin said, “that makes the case, better than Rob ever could have, about why Trump has no business being president of the United States.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

US President Donald Trump has said that an agreement to end Russia’s war on Ukraine is “closer than ever” after key leaders held talks in Berlin, but several officials said that significant differences remain over territorial issues.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he had “very long and very good talks” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and NATO.

“We’re having tremendous support from European leaders. They want to get it [the war] ended also,” he said.

“We had numerous conversations with President [Vladimir] Putin of Russia, and I think we’re closer now than we have been, ever, and we’ll see what we can do.”

Zelenskyy had earlier said that negotiations with US and European leaders were difficult but productive.

The high-level discussions, involving Zelenskyy, a US delegation led by envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and European leaders, took place in Berlin over two days amid mounting pressure from Washington for Kyiv to make concessions to Moscow to end one of Europe’s deadliest conflicts since World War II.

In a statement following the talks, European leaders said they and the US were committed to working together to provide “robust security guarantees” to Ukraine, including a European-led “multinational force Ukraine” supported by the US.

They said the force’s work would include “operating inside Ukraine” as well as assisting in rebuilding Ukraine’s forces, securing its skies and supporting safer seas. They said that Ukrainian forces should remain at a peacetime level of 800,000.

Two US officials, speaking to the Reuters news agency, described the proposed protections as “Article 5-like”, a reference to NATO’s Article 5 mutual defence pledge.

Ukraine had earlier signalled it may be willing to abandon its ambition to join the NATO military alliance in exchange for firm Western security guarantees.

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, Zelenskyy said that Kyiv needed a clear understanding of the security guarantees on offer before making any decisions on territorial control under a potential peace settlement. He added that any guarantees must include effective ceasefire monitoring.

Ukrainian officials have been cautious about what form such guarantees could take. Ukraine received security assurances backed by the US and Europe after gaining independence in 1991, but those did not prevent Russia’s invasions in 2014 and 2022.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Washington had offered “considerable” security guarantees during the Berlin talks.

“What the US has placed on the table here in Berlin, in terms of legal and material guarantees, is really considerable,” Merz said at a joint news conference with Zelenskyy.

“We now have the chance for a real peace process,” he said, adding that territorial arrangements remain a central issue. “Only Ukraine can decide about territorial concessions. No ifs or buts.”

Merz also said it was essential for the European Union to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine to demonstrate to Moscow that continuing the war is futile. He warned that EU members must share the risks involved in appropriating those assets, or risk damaging the bloc’s reputation.

Meanwhile, the EU has adopted new sanctions targeting companies and individuals accused of helping Russia circumvent Western restrictions on oil exports that help finance the war.

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Putin was “open to peace and serious decisions” but opposed to what he described as “temporary respites and subterfuges”.

Reporting from Berlin, Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane said the outcome of the talks remains unclear.

“We know American emissaries were speaking to Ukrainians here in Berlin yesterday and today. Talks between those two groups have finished, according to a statement by Zelenskyy’s office,” Kane said.

“What we don’t yet know is how much of the US-led 28-point plan – parts of which were acceptable to Moscow but strongly opposed by Kyiv and EU officials – remains intact.”

Kane added that the German government has presented a separate 10-point proposal focused on military and intelligence cooperation rather than a peace settlement. European leaders are expected to continue discussions on the remaining areas of disagreement.

Fighting continues

Meanwhile, Ukraine said on Monday that Russia launched 153 drones overnight, with 17 striking their targets.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said its forces destroyed 130 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory.

Kyiv said its underwater drones struck a Russian submarine docked at the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Ukraine has stepped up naval attacks in recent weeks on what it has described as Russia-linked vessels in the Black Sea.

Russian forces have continued to target the Ukrainian port city of Odesa, with two Turkish cargo ships hit in recent days. Kyiv said the strikes were aimed at Russian targets.

Zelenskyy also accused Moscow of using its attacks as leverage in peace negotiations.

He said Russia has struck every power station in Ukraine as part of its campaign against the country’s energy infrastructure.

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Let’s be candid about the controversy over whether film director Rob Reiner misspent public funds by raiding the child-development program created by his last ballot initiative, Proposition 10, for cash to promote his new Preschool for All ballot initiative.

Reiner’s not the only one taking advantage.

The supervisory standards set up by Proposition 10 in 1998 are scandalously lax. The program uses income from a tobacco surtax, including 50 cents per pack of cigarettes, to fund health, welfare and educational services for children up to age 5 — things like immunization and preschool.

But it has become a feeding trough for people flogging pet projects and for outside consultants of every stripe.

Proposition 10 bestowed a total lack of accountability on the bodies it established to disburse the money — the state Children and Families Commission (headed by Reiner until he took a leave of absence Feb. 24) and 58 county entities, known as “First5” commissions.

The initiative failed to provide guidance on rudimentary issues such as conflicts of interest, competitive bidding or how success should be measured. And each commission was given the responsibility to audit itself.

The sums involved aren’t trivial. The tobacco levy has produced $4 billion to date. Of this haul, 20% goes to the state commission. The rest is apportioned to the county commissions according to each county’s share of statewide live births.

For an example of how individual commissions disburse this money, let’s look at Orange County, the second-largest First5 in the state (after Los Angeles), which receives about $40 million a year. Its vice chairman, the right-wing political pundit Hugh Hewitt, is Reiner’s most vocal and persistent critic.

Back in 2003, the commission awarded a no-bid, $250,000 annual contract to a consulting firm called the White House Writers Group. What is this outfit, you ask? It’s a Washington-based gang mostly comprising former speechwriters and staff members in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. It was proposed for the contract by Hugh Hewitt, himself a former Reagan White House staffer and a personal friend of one of its principals.

Hewitt says he recommended the firm, which is essentially a high-powered PR outfit, to help the commission rectify what had become “four years of limited success in establishing the partnerships we need [in Washington] in the national health and philanthropy communities.” Whether the contract will put a single vaccine in a child’s arm he doesn’t say; I only know that $250,000 a year would buy a lot of vaccines.

Hewitt also says: “I don’t know and have never inquired about the political affiliation” of the firm’s partners and staff. Leaving aside the fatuous suggestion that a conservative Republican with his background could be unaware of the partisan coloration of such an obvious GOP nest, he doesn’t have to “inquire.” It’s trumpeted loudly on the firm’s website.

Hewitt observes that the OC commission also employs former Democratic assemblyman Phil Isenberg as its lobbyist in Sacramento, as though to prove that the commission is an equal-opportunity political piggy bank.

This got me thinking: Why in heaven’s name does a county commission, with a guaranteed revenue stream and representation in the capital by the statewide First5 commission and by a separate association of county First5 commissions, need its own Sacramento lobbyist?

Hewitt says it’s to keep the Legislature “mindful of the difference between the state commission and the local initiatives.”

What’s the cost of teaching legislators the difference between “state” and “county”? Since 2002, the OC commission has paid Isenberg’s current and former lobbying firms $340,762. That would probably cover the wages of a few school nurses.

Finally, let’s consider the OC commission’s featured new health initiative. This is an avian flu preparedness program, to which it allocated $2.3 million in November. Orange County is the only First5 commission that has established such a program, according to its executive director, Michael Ruane.

As it happens, the avian flu is an issue dear to the particular heart of Hugh Hewitt, who writes incessantly on his weblog about the imminent threat of an avian flu pandemic. Hewitt acknowledges that he “urged the Commission to consider and adopt” the avian flu plan. Reading between the lines, it sounds like his baby.

But at the moment, a large-scale threat to human health from the avian flu is entirely conjectural. Though the virus is spreading rapidly from Asia outward (it hasn’t reached North or South America), the threat is still largely to birds and, to a much smaller degree, farmers and other humans who come in direct contact with the infected animals.

The few known cases of human-to-human transmission — a prerequisite for a pandemic — resulted from extremely close contact with an infected person, such as between mother and child. Experts say the virus would have to mutate to become freely transmissible among humans, and although they don’t rule out the possibility, it hasn’t happened. The federal Centers for Disease Control don’t even recommend that Americans avoid travel to affected regions.

Hewitt defends the program by arguing that children will be “among the most vulnerable groups to the deadly virus.” But that can be said about almost any transmissible disease. Hewitt doesn’t explain why he believes that federal, state and local authorities will be so overmatched by the avian flu that the First5 commission, which has countless other ways to spend its money, needs to step up to the plate.

The irony is that spending on consultants and pet projects like these sends conservatives bouncing off the ceiling when they catch liberals at it. A Wall Street Journal editorial Hewitt quotes approvingly in his weblog commented pointedly, citing the Los Angeles Times, that First5 money “has found its way into the bank accounts of public relations and advertising firms, some of which are run by friends of Mr. Reiner.”

But sweetheart deals and personal hobbyhorses that divert money from children’s programs know no partisan boundaries. How are the friends of Mr. Hewitt doing?

Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You can reach Michael Hiltzik at golden.state@latimes.com and view his web log at latimes.com/goldenstateblog.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday said President Donald Trump’s executive order last week seeking national rules on artificial intelligence doesn’t prevent states from imposing laws on the use of the technology.

Speaking at an AI event at Florida Atlantic University, DeSantis said Florida will move forward on AI policies he has dubbed a “Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence.”

“The president issued an executive order. Some people were saying, ‘well, no, this blocks the states,'” DeSantis said, according to The Hill. “It doesn’t.”

Trump signed an executive order Thursday seeking to give the United States a “global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Politico reported the Trump administration has said it’s prepared to file lawsuits and without funding to states that interfere with federal AI plans.

DeSantis said, though, that an executive order can’t block states.

“You can preempt states under Article 1 powers through congressional legislation on certain issues, but you can’t do it through executive order,” he said.

“But if you read it, they actually say a lot of the stuff we’re talking about are things that they’re encouraging states to do. So even reading very broadly, I think the stuff we’re doing is going to be very consistent. But irrespective, clearly we have the right to do this.”

Hours after Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found dead in their home in what is shaping up to be a heartbreaking family tragedy, our president blamed Reiner for his own death.

“A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS,” President Trump wrote on his social media platform. “He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!”

Rest in peace, indeed.

It’s a message steeped in cruelty and delusion, unbelievable and despicable even by the low, buried-in-the-dirt bar by which we have collectively come to judge Trump. In a town — and a time — of selfishness and self-serving, Reiner was one of the good guys, always fighting, both through his films and his politics, to make the world kinder and closer. And yes, that meant fighting against Trump and his increasingly erratic and authoritarian rule.

For years, Reiner made the politics of inclusion and decency central to his life. He was a key player in overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage and fought to expand early childhood education.

For the last few months, he was laser-focused on the upcoming midterms as the last and best chance of protecting American democracy — which clearly enraged Trump.

“Make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy,” Reiner told MSNBC host Ali Velshi in October. “People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs. They care about their healthcare, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process, all these things will be taken away from them.”

The Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Nick Reiner has struggled with addiction, and been in and out of rehab. But Trump seems to be saying that if Nick is indeed the perpetrator, he acted for pro-Trump political reasons — which obviously is highly unlikely and, well, just a weird and unhinged thing to claim.

But also, deeply hypocritical.

It was only a few months ago, in September, that Charlie Kirk was killed and Trump and his MAGA regime went nuts over anyone who dared whisper a critical word about Kirk. Trump called it “sick” and “deranged” that anyone could celebrate Kirk’s death, and blamed the “radical left” for violence-inciting rhetoric.

Vice President JD Vance, channeling his inner Scarlett O’Hara, vowed “with God as my witness,” he would use the full power of the state to crack down on political “networks” deemed terrorist. In reality, he’s largely just using the state to target people who oppose Trump out loud.

And just in case you thought maybe, maybe our president somehow really does have the good of all Americans at heart, recall that in speaking of Kirk, Trump said that he had one point of disagreement. Kirk, he claimed, forgave him enemies.

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

There’s a malevolence so deep in Trump’s post about Reiner that even Marjorie Taylor Greene objected. She was once Trump’s staunchest supporter before he called her a traitor, empowering his goon squad to terrorize her with death threats.

“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies,” Greene wrote on social media. “Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder.”

But Trump has made cruelty the point. His need to dehumanize everyone who opposes him, including Reiner and even Greene, is exactly what Reiner was warning us about.

Because when you allow people to be dehumanized, you stop caring about them — and Reiner was not about to let us stop caring.

He saw the world with an artist’s eye and awarrior’s heart, a mighty combination reflected in his films. He challenged us to believe in true love, to set aside our cynicism, to be both silly and brave, knowing both were crucial to a successful life.

This clarity from a man who commanded not just our attention and our respect, but our hearts, is what drove Trump crazy — and what made Reiner such a powerful threat to him. Republican or Democrat, his movies reminded us of what we hold in common.

But it might be Michael Douglas’ speech in 1995’s “The American President” that is most relevant in this moment. Douglas’ character, President Andrew Shepherd, says that “America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s going to put up a fight.”

Shepard’s rival, a man pursuing power over purpose, “is interested in two things and two things only — making you afraid of ‘it’ and telling you who’s to blame for ‘it.’ ”

Sound familiar?

That our president felt the need to trash Reiner before his body is even buried would be a badge of honor to Reiner, an acknowledgment that Reiner’s warnings carried weight, and that Reiner was a messenger to be reckoned with.

Reiner knew what advanced citizenship meant, and he wanted badly for democracy to survive.

If Trump’s eulogy sickens you the way it sickens me, then here’s what you can do about it: Vote in November in Reiner’s memory.

Your ballot is the rebuke Trump fears most.

And your vote is the most powerful way to honor a man who dedicated his life to reminding us that bravery is having the audacity to care.

LAGUNA NIGUEL, CALIF. — At a time of huge bank mergers and cries to overhaul the nation’s banking system, Kenneth A. Guenther makes sure the smallest banks in America have one of the loudest voices.

The outspoken chief executive and executive vice president of the Independent Bankers Assn. of America more often than not finds himself at odds with powerful forces pushing for sweeping changes in the rules banks operate under as well as those promoting huge mergers as a way to improve the health of the nation’s banks.

The future of the Bush Administration’s bank reforms–allowing banks to open branches across state lines, allowing banks into Wall Street and insurance activities and permitting industrial and service companies to buy banks–is growing more uncertain. Two weeks ago, the House voted down a Democrat-altered version of the bank-reform plan. A much narrower bill, largely to bolster the nation’s dwindling bank deposit insurance fund, could be approved soon, but any major reforms are unlikely right now.

In fighting the Administration, Guenther has irked some powerful people. Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady has said that Guenther “demeans his members, carrying on the way he does” in his opposition to the bank-overhaul plans.

A native of Rochester, N.Y., Guenther, 55, completed graduate studies at Johns Hopkins, the University of Rangoon and Yale University. A former Treasury and State Department official, Guenther served as a special assistant to three former heads of the Federal Reserve Board. He joined the 6,100-member banking trade group roughly 10 years ago.

Guenther’s basic point is that the deck is increasingly stacked against the small community banks. Although he has the image of a maverick, Guenther is very much a Washington insider, maintaining cordial relationships with many people he disagrees with publicly. He plays tennis with the likes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and various bank regulators–though he often finds himself at odds with them on policy.

Guenther uses blunt words to make his case. But the Washington influence shows in his dress–a formal business suit for morning meetings even at a resort hotel where everyone is dressed for golf. His populist style has made him a hero among independent bankers, while attracting criticism from those who accuse him of grandstanding.

Part of Guenther’s clout comes with his skill with the media. He is a prolific writer of letters to the editor, is quoted frequently and has strong friendships with reporters–in fact, he and his wife, Lilly, are godparents of a New York Times reporter’s twins.

Question: What future does the independent bank have in this age of banking consolidation?

Answer: There are going to be fewer big banks and medium-sized banks than smaller banks. As banks get larger, this opens up more niches for your smaller banks. Larger banks generally mean poorer services for your small business and small-time customers.

Q: Large banks would argue the opposite. They would say it will be good for customers, providing things they can’t get now.

A: With size comes regimentation. You are going to have to do things their way. There is going to be far less “high touch.” Those small banks providing high-touch services are going to have increased opportunities.

Q: What about public policy concerning mergers? You said Treasury is committed to seeing a lot of mergers. Why so?

A: Secretary (Nicholas F.) Brady wants to get the banks in this country into the No. 1 rank. But people aren’t looking at the cost of building banks to the size of the Japanese banks. Size alone does not mean a healthy, good, diversified financial system or political system. The Japanese have the largest banks in the world, but who wants their political system? Our diversified financial and economic system underlies our diversified political system.

Q: What about the argument that the big banks use , that there’s too much overcapacity? That there are too many banks?

A: There’s a very interesting study out from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis that says public policy promoting consolidation is not in the interests of the banking system or the economy. This study indicates that we should not be moving in that direction.

Q: What about the argument that says the banking system is inefficient?

A: I think our banking system is remarkably efficient. I think we have still the strongest entrepreneurial system in the world. It needs some fine tuning. But we don’t have to throw it out lock, stock and barrel and adopt a Japanese model.

Q: Does it need consolidation?

A: The industry is consolidating. The question is: Is it productive public policy to force more rapid consolidation?

Q: The House for now has rejected legislation to overhaul the banking system. What does this mean for the independent banks?

A: This legislation has nine lives–it’s on its fourth now. The Administration and their big-bank allies killed a version of the bill they didn’t like and moved immediately to resuscitate another version of Secretary Brady’s big-bank reform bill.

Q: Why should people care about these proposals?

A: Everybody in the United States should breathe a big sigh of relief because the House has turned back a proposal from the Administration which would have allowed the largest commercial firms–domestic and foreign–to buy the largest banks in this country. This would have totally restructured the economic and financial system of the United States and led to an enormous concentration of economic power. That’s always bad news for John Q. Public.

Q: Why shouldn’t a bank be allowed to open a branch across a state line?

A: Our problem with that is that the Treasury Department proposed to keep “too big to fail”–meaning the Treasury Department proposed that the bigger banks continue to have a 100% deposit insurance product. At the same time, they were proposing that our deposit insurance product be reduced. That means the big banks could go across state lines, offering a superior deposit insurance product. This would have driven money out of the smaller banks of this country.

Q: Do you fear that there will eventually be some cuts in deposit insurance?

A: Everybody knows that the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) fund is hurting. Why not expand the assessment base? The foreign deposits in American banks that enjoy deposit insurance coverage do not pay deposit insurance premiums. Make everybody who has the insurance pay for the insurance. That could bring in literally billions and billions of dollars a year.

Q: Does it matter whether we declare a policy saying banks are not too big to fail? In a crunch, won’t we step in?

A: (Federal Reserve Board Chairman) Alan Greenspan is about as free market as you can get. But Greenspan has testified repeatedly before the Congress that the large uninsured depositor cannot be put at risk, because if he’s put at risk in this country we will have runs (on the banks). He will take his money and put it into the Japanese banks, or German banks. What Alan Greenspan is saying is, in the moment of truth, we are going to intervene to make sure the depositors in your big banks do not get hurt, because this is essential for the stability of the system. How can you make a policy prescription to cut back deposit insurance for John Q. Public, who banks with a smaller institution?

Q: What about proposals such as $100,000 protection per Social Security number?

A: In this day and age, $100,000 is not that much money. It’s a four-year college course for a student who doesn’t go to an Eastern school. Again, you are penalizing your smaller institutions. People will put their money in your “too-big-to-fail” banks.

Q: What about allowing banks into other lines of business?

A: You are opening the door into riskier areas. If you are moving into a business you don’t know well, you are not inclined to do it well in the beginning. And the doors that they are trying to open are really quite risky. Underwriting corporate debt, or underwriting stocks is a risky business. Will the banks do it well? Will it turn out to be profitable? I think these are question marks.

Q: What are the primary problems of independent banks these days?

A. We are in a recession that is deeper than anticipated. The Fed has just cut key interest rates. . . . The other problem is that the industry went too far overboard in terms of commercial real-estate development.

Q: How healthy are independent banks?

A: The independent banks are healthier than your larger banks.

Q: Can the voice of an independent bank be heard these days?

A: It’s enormously frustrating that this Administration is listening to a very select number of voices. The Treasury Department is promoting a legislative product that benefits a relatively few number of large financial institutions. This is why we have sort of adopted the theme that the Treasury is promoting Wall Street and we are here trying to protect Main Street. There are far more Main Street institutions than Wall Street institutions.

Q: Do you think that the deck is stacked against the independent bank?

A. The deck in this Administration is stacked against the independent banks. And therefore we have put together this wide-ranging Main Street coalition: small business, retired people, home builders and farm groups working against key elements in the Administration proposal.

Q: Both you and your association have taken a lot of criticism from people like Brady and also other trade groups.

A: No one likes to be criticized by the secretary of Treasury, who is a nice man. But I’m sorry, Mr. Secretary, your policy objectives are very different than ours. Your policy objectives will make life much tougher for millions of banks and small businesses.

Q: If they gave you the banking reform bill and said write it any way you want, what would you do?

A: The problem is that this bill focused on the weakness of the deposit insurance fund. Something has to be done to strengthen the deposit insurance fund, and thus strengthen depositor confidence. Then you move from that central issue that has to be addressed and ask yourself the next question: What can you do to definitely strengthen banking and the profitability of banking? There are some things that can be done in this area. Give banks some more retail products, and again this will increase what is available to the American consumer.

Q: Do you think taxpayers are going to have to pick up any of the tab for the banking problems as they have for the savings and loans?

A: It depends on what happens to the real-estate market in California. Just like with costs of the S&L; crisis, things are escalated by what happens in California. California is such a key state.

Q: And depending on what happens here is what is going to make the difference?

A. What happens in California will make the difference. The banking industry, to remain healthy, cannot pick up the full tab if things go very bad in California. At that time, the American taxpayer would have to decide: Do we want a healthy and growing banking industry or do we force the full tab on the banking industry?

Q: In this era of megamergers, with huge institutions being created, can the independent bank compete?

A: The independent bank will compete, the independent bank will survive and prosper. We run a high-touch operation: high-tech plus high-touch. There is going to be plenty of business around for those who don’t want to deal with the impersonal, insensitive elephants.

Q: What about the argument that we don’t need all of these little banks?

A: We don’t need all these big banks running around. There are definitely too many big banks in New York City–in a declining economy and declining city. The American market is really not over-banked. It’s one of the illusions that is out there. American small business wants to deal with your smaller bank, where you get better, personalized service.

Q: What about the argument that we need bigger banks to compete with foreign banks?

A: Perhaps in some areas, that’s the case. But what the big banks have lost in this country is the large commercial lending business. They’ve lost your commercial and industry loans. Big firms earlier went to banks to get this money, now they issue their own commercial paper. So the big banks are looking for a new role, and maybe they can’t find it.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — Trinidad and Tobago announced Monday that it will open up its airport to U.S. military flights as tensions escalate between the United States and Venezuela.

The country’s foreign ministry announced it has “granted approvals” to military jets to use its airports, adding that the United States said the flights would be “logistical in nature, facilitating supply replenishment and routing personnel rotations.”

“The Ministry of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs maintains close engagement with the United States Embassy in Trinidad and Tobago,” an announcement from Trinidad and Tobago said.

“The honorable prime minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar, has affirmed the government’s commitment to cooperation and collaboration in the pursuit of safety and security for Trinidad and Tobago and the wider region. We welcome the continued support of the United States.”

At its closest point, Trinidad is just 7 miles from Venezuela.

The country allowed the USS Graverly to dock Oct. 26 and conducted joint military drills with the U.S. 22 Marine Expeditionary Unit in October and November.

The U.S. military also installed a high-tech radar unit, AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR at the ANR Robinson International Airport in Crown Point, on Tobago, ostensibly to combat drug trafficking.

Persad-Bissessar initially denied reports of Marines being in Trinidad and Tobago. She retracted those statements last month, saying there were Marines working on the radar, runway and road.

Some on the island have expressed concern that it could be used as a launchpad for fighting with Venezuela, but Persad-Bissessar has denied that. She has voiced support of the U.S. attacks on boats in the Caribbean.

The United States has placed a large number of ships in the Caribbean, including warships, fighter jets, Marines and the USS Gerald R. Ford to show force against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a foe of President Donald Trump.

Katie Pavlich, a longtime contributor to Fox News, is leaving the network to join NewsNation.

Pavlich, a conservative political analyst, will have a nightly 10 p.m ET program starting early next year, the Nexstar-owned cable news channel announced Monday.

Pavlich, 37, will replace Ashleigh Banfield, who held down the time period since 2021. Banfield will partner with the network to create digital true crime content, including a podcast.

Pavlich has spent the last 16 years as news editor of the conservative website Townhall.com. She appeared regularly on cable ratings leader Fox News since 2013, appearing as a guest co-host on “The Five” and a fill-in host on its prime-time programs.

Pavlich becomes the latest Fox News alum to join NewsNation. Leland Vittert, a former correspondent for the network, is NewsNation’s 9 p.m. Eastern host. Chris Stirewalt, who was fired from Fox after the 2020 presidential election, is politics editor for the network.

Veteran cable news host Ashleigh Banfield joined NewsNation in March.

(NewsNation)

NewsNation was launched in 2020 as an alternative to the three major cable news networks at a time when all leaned heavily into opinion programming in prime time. But the network has moved toward political debate since Chris Cuomo became its highest rated host in prime time.

An Arizona native who grew up as an avid hunter, Pavlich is a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment. She poses with firearms in a number of photos on her Instagram.

Pavlich is the author of several books, including New York Times bestsellers “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal” and “Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women.”

Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.

The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.

Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

On Monday, attorneys for the GOP began by homing in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus, and parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton.

When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he over-represented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

“From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

“In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued, “was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.

“It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.

Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about” was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

“What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.

“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”

Physicians are seeking a return of salaries to their 2008-2009 levels before they were eroded by inflation.

Resident doctors in England will go ahead with a five-day strike this week after rejecting the government’s latest offer aimed at ending a long-running dispute over pay and working conditions.

Formerly known as junior doctors, the physicians, who make up nearly half of England’s medical workforce, will walk out from 07:00 GMT on Wednesday until 07:00 GMT next Monday.

The action follows an online survey by the British Medical Association (BMA) in which members voted to reject the proposal.

“Tens of thousands of frontline doctors have come together to say ‘no’ to what is clearly too little, too late,” BMA resident doctors committee chairman Jack Fletcher said in a statement, adding that members had rejected the government’s latest offer on working conditions.

Fletcher said the union remained willing to work towards a resolution.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting appealed to doctors to call off the strike.

“There is no need for these strikes to go ahead this week, and it reveals the BMA’s shocking disregard for patient safety,” he said, describing the action as “self-indulgent, irresponsible and dangerous”.

Speaking to Sky News, Streeting said the government was open to the BMA rescheduling the strike to reduce risks to patients during a surge in flu cases.

Flu-related hospitalisations in England rose by more than 50 percent in early December, reaching an average of 2,660 patients a day, the highest level for this time of year. Health leaders have warned there is still no clear peak in sight.

Across Europe, health authorities are grappling with an unusually early and severe flu season, warning of rising cases across the continent.

The BMA said 83 percent of resident doctors voted to reject the government’s offer with a turnout of 65 percent among its more than 50,000 members.

The offer, made on Wednesday, did not include new pay terms. The BMA has been campaigning for improved pay even before the Labour Party won last year’s general election.

Shortly after taking office, Streeting agreed a deal offering doctors a 22 percent pay rise, short of the 29 percent sought by the union.

The BMA has also called for improvements beyond the 5.4 percent pay increase announced earlier this year, arguing resident doctors continue to suffer from years of pay erosion.

Doctors are seeking “full pay restoration”, meaning a return of salaries to their 2008-2009 levels in real terms before they were eroded by inflation.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday announced a new California-led public health initiative, tapping former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials who publicly clashed with the Trump administration, including the former agency chief who warned that the nation’s public health system was headed to “a very dangerous place.”

Newsom said the initiative will be led by Dr. Susan Monarez, the former CDC director, and Dr. Debra Houry, the CDC’s former chief medical officer. The pair will lead the Public Health Network Innovation Exchange, or PHNIX, which the governor’s office said will “modernize public health infrastructure and maintain trust in science-driven decision-making.”

The initiative was created to improve the systems that detect and investigate public health trends and build a modern public-health backbone that connects data, technology and funding across states.

“The Public Health Network Innovation Exchange is expected to bring together the best science, the best tools, and the best minds to advance public health,” Newsom said in a statement Monday. “By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch, we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

Monarez will serve as strategic health technology and funding advisor for the initiative, helping advance private sector partnerships to better integrate healthcare data systems and enable faster disease surveillance.

“I am deeply excited to bring my experience in health technology and innovation to support PHNIX,” Monarez said in a statement shared by Newsom’s office. “California has an extraordinary concentration of talent, technology, and investment, and this effort is about putting those strengths to work for the public good — modernizing how public health operates, accelerating innovation, and building a healthier, more resilient future for all Californians.”

Houry was named senior regional and global public health medical advisor for PHNIX. Newsom’s office also announced it will work with Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, founder and chief executive of Your Local Epidemiologist. Jetelina will advise the California Department of Public Health on building trust in public health.

Monarez and Houry both described extraordinary turmoil inside the nation’s health agencies during congressional hearings, telling senators in September that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and political advisors rebuffed data supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Monarez was fired after just 29 days on the job. She said Kennedy told her to resign if she did not sign off on new unsupported vaccine recommendations. Kennedy has described Monarez as admitting to him that she is “untrustworthy,” a claim Monarez has denied through her attorney.

“Dramatic and unfounded changes in federal policy, funding, and scientific practice have created uncertainty and instability in public health and health care,” Dr. Erica Pan, CDPH director and state public health officer, said in a statement. “I am thrilled to work with these advisors to catalyze our efforts to lead a sustainable future for public health. California is stepping up to coordinate and build the scaffolding we need to navigate this moment.”

The salaries of the new positions were not immediately known.

Newsom’s office said the California initiative would build on previously announced public health partnerships, such as the West Coast Health Alliance.

SACRAMENTO — It turns out Proposition 50 smacked California Republicans with a double blow heading into the 2026 congressional elections.

First, there was the reshaping of House districts aimed at flipping five Republican-held seats to Democrats.

Now, we learn that the proposition itself juiced up Democratic voter enthusiasm for the elections.

Voter enthusiasm normally results in a higher casting of ballots.

It’s all about the national battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and Congress potentially exercising its constitutional duty to provide some checks and balance against the president. Democrats need a net pickup of only three seats in November’s elections to dethrone Republicans.

President Trump is desperate to keep his GOP toadies in power. So, he has coerced — bullied and threatened — some red-state governors and legislatures into rejiggering Democratic-held House seats to make them more Republican-friendly.

When Texas quickly obliged, Gov. Gavin Newsom retaliated with a California Democratic gerrymander aimed at neutralizing the Lone Star State’s partisan mid-decade redistricting.

California’s counterpunch became Proposition 50, which was approved by a whopping 64.4% of the state’s voters.

Not only did Proposition 50 redraw some GOP-held House seats to tinge them blue, it stirred up excitement about the 2026 elections among Democratic voters.

That’s the view of Mark Baldassare, polling director for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. And it makes sense. Umpteen millions of dollars were spent by Newsom and Proposition 50 backers advertising the evils of Trump and the need for Democrats to take over the House.

A PPIC poll released last week showed a significant “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic and Republican voters regarding the House contests.

“One of the outcomes of Proposition 50 is that it focused voters on the midterm elections and made them really excited about voting next year,” Baldassare says.

At least, Democrats are showing excitement. Republicans, not so much.

In the poll, likely voters were asked whether they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the congressional elections or less enthusiastic.

Overall, 56% were more enthusiastic and 41% less enthusiastic. But that’s not the real story.

The eye-opener is that among Democrats, an overwhelming 72% were more enthusiastic. And 60% of Republicans were less enthusiastic.

“For Democrats, that’s unusually high,” Baldassare says.

To put this in perspective, I looked back at responses to the same question asked in a PPIC poll exactly two years ago before the 2024 elections. At that time, Democrats were virtually evenly split over their enthusiasm or lack of it concerning the congressional races. In fact, Republicans expressed more enthusiasm.

Still, Democrats gained three congressional seats in California in 2024. So currently they outnumber Republicans in the state’s House delegation by a lopsided 43 to 9.

If Democrats could pick up three seats when their voters weren’t even lukewarm about the election, huge party gains seem likely in California next year. Democratic voters presumably will be buoyed by enthusiasm and the party’s candidates will be boosted by gerrymandering.

“Enthusiasm is contagious,” says Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley. “If the party’s concentric circle of committed activists is enthusiastic, that excitement tends to spread outward to other voters.”

Schnur adds: “Two years ago, Democrats were not motivated about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Now they’re definitely motivated about Donald Trump. And in order to win midterm elections, you need to have a motivated base.”

Democratic strategist David Townsend says that “enthusiasm is the whole ballgame. It’s the ultimate barometer of whether my message is working and the other side’s is not working.”

The veteran consultant recalls that Democrats “used to go door to door handing out potholders, potted plants, refrigerator magnets and doughnuts trying to motivate voters.

“But the best turnout motivator Democrats have ever had in California is Donald J. Trump.”

In the poll, 71% of voters disapproved of the way Trump is handling his job; just 29% approved. It was even worse for Congress, with 80% disapproving.

Among Democratic voters alone, disapproval of Trump was practically off the chart at 97%.

But 81% of Republicans approved of the president.

Among voters of all political persuasions who expressed higher than usual enthusiasm about the House elections, 77% said they‘d support the Democratic candidate. Also: 79% said Congress should be controlled by Democrats, 84% disapproved of how Congress is handling its job and 79% disapproved of Trump.

And those enthused about the congressional elections believe that, by far, the most important problem facing the nation is “political extremism [and] threats to democracy.” A Democratic shorthand for Trump.

The unseemly nationwide redistricting battle started by Trump is likely to continue well into the election year as some states wrestle with whether to oblige the power-hungry president and others debate retaliating against him.

Sane politicians on both sides should have negotiated a ceasefire immediately after combat erupted. But there wasn’t enough sanity to even begin talks.

Newsom was wise politically to wade into the brawl — wise for California Democrats and also for himself as a presidential hopeful trying to become a national hero to party activists.

“Eleven months before an election, nothing is guaranteed,” Schnur says. “But these poll numbers suggest that Democrats are going to start the year with a big motivational advantage.”

Trump is the Democrats’ proverbial Santa who keeps on giving.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Kristi Noem grilled over L.A. Purple Heart Army vet who self-deported
The TK: Newsom expresses unease about his new, candid autobiography: ‘It’s all out there’
The L.A. Times Special: A Times investigation finds fraud and theft are rife at California’s county fairs

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

With two words, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown launched himself into controversy Thursday morning when he joked about being glad that Elizabeth Warren, his likely Democratic opponent in 2012, had never posed in the nude.

Brown was responding to a quip Warren made at a Democratic debate Tuesday. Asked how she had paid for college – compared with Brown, who once posed partially nude for Cosmopolitan – Warren said: “I kept my clothes on.”

Brown fired back during an interview onBoston radio station WZLX: “Thank God!”

The jab went over well with the host, who laughed, then tried to stoke the flames.

“That’s what I said,” the host responded. “I said, look, can you blame a good looking guy for, you know, for wanting to…”

Brown swept into office last year on a tea party wave that helped him take a seat that had been held by Edward M. Kennedy for nearly 50 years. Democrats will fight hard to win it back in 2012.

Warren has a strong following and is known for her consumer advocacy. Obama tapped her last year to set up a new consumer protection agency, but Republicans opposed letting her head the agency.

She entered the Senate race in mid-September after being heavily courted, but her nomination is not guaranteed – the Democratic primary field is packed with other contenders. Brown’s comment made him an easy target at a time when he’d be better off laying low and letting the Democrats fight it out.

Brown cut in with an attempt to soften the jab: “You know what, listen, bottom line is I didn’t go to Harvard. You know, I went to the school of hard knocks and I did whatever I had to do to pay for school.”

(Warren also did not go to Harvard, though she is a Harvard law professor.)

Brown went on to describe how he faced “real challenges growing up.”

“You know, whatever,” he said. “You know, let them throw stones. I did what I had to do. And but not for having that opportunity, I never would have been able to pay for school and never would have gone to school and I wouldn’t probably be talking to you, so, whatever.”

The host didn’t want to let Brown’s initial comment go, and Brown wasn’t going to take all the blame.

“That’s funny you throw that jab, because –“ the host began. But Brown again cut him off.

“You said it too!” Brown replied.

The Massachusetts Democratic Party was quick to respond, scolding Brown for the comment.

“Sen. Brown’s comments are the kind of thing you would expect to hear in a frat house, not a race for U.S. Senate,” executive director Clare Kelly said in a statement. “Scott Brown’s comments send a terrible message that even accomplished women who are held in the highest esteem can be laughingly dismissed based on their looks.”

kim.geiger@latimes.com

Gov. Pete Wilson challenged President Clinton on Thursday to make California a test market for a tamper-proof federal identification card designed to keep illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits or getting jobs in the United States.

Later, a Wilson aide said one option might be a national identification card that would be carried by every legal resident of the United States, including U.S. citizens.

Wilson’s news conference at U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service offices at Los Angeles International Airport was billed as the forum for a “major announcement regarding immigration.” In fact, Wilson’s statement expanded on his Aug. 9 program by only a small step–the proposed California test–while raising even more questions about his plan for the proposed identification card.

The governor acknowledged to a reporter that it probably is impossible to come up with a foolproof card because counterfeiters could fake birth certificates, passports or other documents that would be needed to get the card.

Wilson left unclear just who might have to possess the card: just foreign nationals living in the country legally or all U.S. citizens?

Asked who would have to carry the card, Wilson said: “Those who are applicants for employment and those who are applicants for benefits.”

Later, Wilson aide Dan Schnur said one possibility that arose during policy discussions in the governor’s office was a national identification card issued to all U.S. citizens and legal residents.

“A universal card is one option, but we’re not looking at it as an absolute condition,” Schnur said in telephone calls to reporters.

The form and scope of any card would be worked out in negotiations with the Clinton Administration, he said.

There have been periodic proposals for a national ID card, but they have always run up against strong opposition on civil liberties grounds.

Wilson was quoted by the Santa Monica Outlook while running for the U.S. Senate in 1982 that a proposed national identification card was “a lousy idea” because it would create a massive new bureaucracy. He also said he had some philosophical objections to the concept.

Schnur had no comment on that report, but he said conditions have changed greatly since the passage of immigration reform in the late 1980s and the heavy influx of illegal immigrants into California in recent years.

Thursday’s billing of a major new initiative drew a dozen television cameras and perhaps a score of reporters, a big turnout for any political event in Los Angeles. Although it turned out that Wilson’s statement was more of an expansion on a previous proposal than a major new initiative, the session did give the governor a platform for responding to critics of his Aug. 9 announcement.

Wilson said an identification card is the key to the enforcement of any of the sanctions written into federal law against employers who hire illegal immigrants for jobs in the United States. Without it, such sanctions are unenforceable, he said.

“Until we deal with the problem of document fraud, anyone proposing additional employer sanctions is simply blowing hot air,” Wilson said after examining stacks of phony passports, Social Security cards and other false documents confiscated by the INS.

Critics, including potential Democratic gubernatorial challenger Kathleen Brown, have said Wilson’s plan cracks down on illegal immigrants but not on the employers who also violate the law by hiring them.

Last week, Brown, the state treasurer, endorsed a national tamper-proof Social Security card that would have to be presented to a prospective employer before the cardholder could be hired.

In his lengthy Aug. 9 letter to Clinton, Wilson called on the federal government to compensate California for the cost of services to illegal immigrants, called for stricter enforcement of the California-Mexico border, and said children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants should not automatically become U.S. citizens or be eligible to attend public schools in California.

Wilson made no mention of stronger enforcement against employers. He proposed an identification card as something that foreign nationals in the country legally would present to qualify for state services.

Wilson said California’s modern holographic drivers licenses could be the model for a federal card, but a reporter wondered if even they could be forged, since a photographic blowup of one was among the fake IDs on display.

“You know, I don’t dispute the ingenuity of counterfeiters. . . . I think it is possible to stay technologically ahead of even expert counterfeiters,” Wilson said.

“The question really is not whether you’re going to have an entirely foolproof system, but whether you have one that works to achieve its major goal, which is to screen out the vast majority of counterfeit documents.”

Later in the day, Democratic state Chairman Bill Press chided Wilson for intervening with the INS in 1989 on behalf of a San Diego supporter, Anne Evans, whose hotels were under investigation for hiring illegal immigrants. At the time, Wilson was a U.S. senator.

Evans ultimately was accused of 362 violations of employer sanctions provisions and fined $70,000.

Schnur described Wilson’s letter, which sought a conciliation between the INS and Evans, as a routine constituent service.

Marian La Follette, who spent 10 years as a Republican Assemblywoman from Northridge before retiring in 1990, plans to enter the state Senate race in the new district that stretches from Oxnard to the San Fernando Valley, Republican sources said Tuesday.

“I just spoke to her a little while ago, and she has made up her mind that she will be running,” said Charles H. Jelloian, a Republican from Northridge. Jelloian said he has decided to withdraw from the state Senate race, partly to make way for La Follette’s return to politics.

“Marian’s jumping into the race is a very big factor,” said Jelloian, who became acquainted with La Follette when he was an aide to state Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale). “I worked very, very well with her for a long time,” he said. “I have a lot of respect for her.”

La Follette has lived in Orange County since her retirement. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

If she enters the race, she could pose a formidable challenge to Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) in the new 19th state Senate District. So far, Wright is the leading candidate in the district that encompasses Oxnard, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, Fillmore, Simi Valley and Northridge.

“Both are new to this district,” said one Republican source. “I think they would start out about equal.”

Roger Campbell, a Republican city councilman in Fillmore, also has declared his candidacy in the heavily Republican district. No Democratic candidate has come forward in the district that has roughly 28,000 more registered Republican voters than Democrats.

La Follette, a conservative legislator, was best known for her persistent efforts to divide the massive Los Angeles Unified School District into smaller districts.

She decided to retire two years ago when her late husband, Jack, a Los Angeles lawyer, fell seriously ill with cancer.

When she was in the Legislature, she aligned herself with Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), who is vacating the Senate seat. Republican sources said they anticipate that Davis will support her candidacy against Wright, a longtime political foe.

La Follette’s candidacy is another indication that Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) will run for Congress. She and McClintock are strong political allies.

McClintock has toyed with the notion of running for state Senate, GOP sources said. The long-anticipated announcement of his plans has been postponed until later this week.