politics

BUENOS AIRES, Sept. 3 (UPI) — Argentina’s declining birth rate has drawn renewed attention after President Javier Milei linked the drop in births to the legalization of abortion during at least two public appearances over the past week.

Milei said Argentina’s population is no longer growing at a rate sufficient to ensure generational replacement because of what he called “that passion for murdering children in their mothers’ wombs.” He added that the trend is costing the country dearly in terms of economic growth and its pension system.

But demographic data and experts consulted by UPI challenge Milei’s assertion, noting that the decline began years before abortion was legalized and reflects broader economic and social factors.

Argentina’s birth rate began to fall in 2014, six years before the country legalized abortion in 2020.

According to official data released Wednesday by UNICEF Argentina, the number of births fell by nearly half over the past decade to 413,135 in 2024 from 777,012 in 2014. The fertility rate has reached its lowest level on record at 1.3 children per woman.

Argentina’s trend is part of a global phenomenon, though the decline has been more pronounced in the country. In 2024, Argentina recorded roughly the same number of births as in 1948, despite having three times as many women of reproductive age.

Sociologist and feminist historian Dora Barrancos said Milei’s argument is part of a broader narrative also found among far-right groups in other countries.

“There is a strong ideological focus on blaming feminists and their policies for the decline in the birth rate. From a historical perspective, that explanation has no basis,” she said.

Gala Díaz Langou, director of the International Panel on Social Progress, also rejected abortion as an explanation for the declining birth rate.

“That argument does not hold up. This is a global, multifaceted process,” she said.

Mariana Isasi, head of the United Nations Population Fund office in Argentina, said the declining birth rate reflects tensions between people’s personal aspirations, economic conditions and the way family life is organized.

A recent UNFPA survey on reproductive intentions in Argentina found that 57% of people between ages 18 and 45 would like to have more children.

“There is a gap between the number of children people have and the number they would like to have. This shows that the desire exists, but the conditions to do so are not always there,” Isasi said.

Isasi said conditions were not necessarily better in previous periods, but people today have more tools to make decisions about motherhood.

Uncertainty about the future is another factor influencing decisions about whether to have children. In addition, 20% of those surveyed said they had difficulty finding a suitable partner with whom to have children.

Isasi also noted that Argentina’s adolescent fertility rate has fallen by more than 50%.

“It is good news that teenage girls can continue their education without becoming mothers and can decide later whether they want to have children,” she said.

Another factor is the postponement of motherhood. The average age at which women in Argentina have their first child is 29.2.

“When motherhood is postponed, people may end up having fewer children over the course of their lives,” Isasi said.

Díaz Langou said some of the factors behind the falling birth rate represent positive changes, while others reflect economic and social difficulties.

Among the positive changes, she cited improvements in contraception that allow women’s reproductive decisions to better reflect their preferences and reduce unintended pregnancies.

Economic conditions and the cost of raising children, however, remain major concerns.

“Raising children is very expensive and is becoming increasingly costly because of the limited availability of public care services in Argentina. This is compounded by precarious employment conditions, which affect the real incomes of many people who have children,” Díaz Langou said.

The cost is also linked to the availability of care services. According to a recent analysis by La Cocina de los Cuidados, an intersectoral group focused on care policies, 48 of the 50 national care policies identified by the organization have been eliminated or defunded since December 2023.

The remaining policies have been repealed, cut back or dismantled under Milei’s administration.

Barrancos places the decline in births within a demographic process that began in the second half of the 19th century and reached Argentina by the end of that century.

She said women began to limit the number of children they had long before the expansion of feminism and the movement for women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies.

Barrancos rejected the idea that the decline in births can be attributed to feminism or the legalization of abortion and disputes that the trend represents a threat.

“There is nothing to fear. As the number of children women want to have declines, other forms of family are also growing, including same-sex families seeking to adopt. The alarmist rhetoric of the far right is incompatible with the historical evidence,” she said.

WASHINGTON — Confronted by an intransigent Iranian government that has refused to back down in the face of a massive military campaign, President Trump appears to have settled on a dual-prong approach that combines economic pressure with the potential of a devastating escalation in force.

Having launched “Operation Economic Outcast” just last week to try to isolate Iran from its remaining global trade partners, the Trump administration also resumed strikes in recent days, prompting Iranian retaliation that has renewed concerns of an all-out regional war.

However, the combination of already intense sanctions on Iran and an off-and-on bombing campaign since the war began more than six months ago has not bowed the Iranian leadership and has left the administration struggling to find a way to wind down the conflict. Tehran has dug in its heels — to Trump’s frustration — as energy prices rise, the global economy roils and poll numbers on the administration’s handling of the war dip ahead of November’s midterm congressional elections.

Trump said Wednesday that he didn’t think the conflict would last “much longer,” but he again shrugged off suggestions that its unpopularity and high gasoline prices resulting from Iran’s chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz would affect the elections for Republicans.

“It doesn’t matter. And I’m not affected by the election,” he told reporters. “I’m not running. But my party is running, and I’m going to help my party. But I think my party respects the fact that we’re not allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

A regional diplomat briefed on the matter described the current impasse between Tehran and Washington as reflective of both countries’ domestic priorities: the midterm elections for Trump and Republicans and the internal crises within Iran.

Domestic issues are critical reasons why neither side is willing to blink first, said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.

The diplomat said negotiations, including those between Iran and Oman or even Iran and the U.S., will not go anywhere without addressing the initial catalyst of war: Israel. And the diplomat was skeptical of the Trump administration’s new sanctions plan, saying the threats require more explanation than what the U.S. has provided so far.

The Trump administration’s economic isolation of Iran is off to a slow start

The administration’s new push for Iran’s economic isolation was announced with great fanfare last week and a dire warning for all remaining countries to cut off financial and trade ties with Iran or face U.S. retaliation — but the campaign so far has fallen flat.

Just one branch of an Egyptian bank in the United Arab Emirates has been targeted so far. For actual sanctions to bite, experts agree that they must apply to Iran’s main trading partners: mainly China but also India and Russia. But Trump is loath to target China especially as he is preparing to host President Xi Jinping later this month.

Trump also insists that the U.S. has control over the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s oil transited before the war began. The strategic waterway has been a key pressure point for Iran, and reopening it fully has become one of the prime goals for the U.S. administration.

Ship traffic through the strait is well below pre-war levels due to the risk of attack if vessels don’t comply with an Iranian vetting regime near its coastline, which is in sharp contrast to the unhindered navigation before the war. There were 102 transits last week and 126 the week before, according to shipping data company Lloyd’s List Intelligence, compared with 130 or more per day before the war.

“As President Trump said, the strait is open and all mines have been cleared,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Thursday. “The naval blockade remains in full force and effect, and Operation Economic Outcast is underway to sever every remaining economic lifeline sustaining the regime.”

The White House has repeatedly touted the economic impact that the sanctions have had on Iran, citing its rampant inflation and the massive loss in the value of its currency. U.S. officials have described Iran’s financial system as “one big house of cards.”

Going forward, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “the price” Iran will pay will be primarily economic, “but we reserve the right … to take military action when necessary — not just to protect ourselves but to prevent them from being able to threaten others as well.”

“They’re going to continue to feel the squeeze,” he told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade in an interview that aired Wednesday.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this week likened Iran to a snake that has been decapitated but whose body is still writhing.

“We are burying the head of the Iranian snake,” he said Tuesday. “The snake doesn’t know it’s dead yet, but it will stop wiggling when the sun goes down. And so the Iranian regime — they are in demise, and they will figure it out.”

Combining military force and sanctions on Iran ‘is the only option,’ one analyst says

Complicating things for the U.S., Iran’s leadership has shown signs of divisions between moderates more open to a diplomatic solution and hardliners who want to press ahead with a more confrontational approach.

President Masoud Pezeshkian is one of the most prominent voices still calling for a negotiated solution. But the hardliners appear to have gained the upper hand, and Iran shows no sign of backing down. Tehran continues to lash out at U.S. interests and allies around the region in response to military strikes.

“This kind of a hybrid approach — the combination of military force, blockade and economic pressure — that is the only option that seems to be available to the United States at this moment,” said Hamidreza Azizi, consulting senior Iran analyst for the International Crisis Group.

Still, he said, “it’s been for a long time, but now maybe more than ever, a battle of endurance between the two sides.”

Amr Hamzawy, director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pointed to two main reasons for the deteriorating situation.

“One, none of the two parties is satisfied with the outcome — meaning that the current situation does not serve U.S. interests well, and it does not serve Iranian interests well,” Hamzawy said.

The other reason is how leaders from both sides are perceived at home.

“The Trump administration is afraid of being portrayed in the U.S. as an administration that failed to end a military campaign successfully, and that’s going to impact the midterm elections,” he said. “And the Iranians, especially the Revolutionary Guard, are quite afraid of appearing as if they are submitting to U.S. sanctions with no actions on their side, which might hurt them domestically.”

Lee, Magdy and Amiri write for the Associated Press. Magdy reported from Cairo. AP writers Will Weissert in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is proposing a new rule that would strip private schools and colleges of their tax-exempt status if they provide targeted help to students based on their race, a significant escalation in the White House’s campaign to eradicate diversity programs directed at Black, Latino and other minority students.

The Treasury Department proposed the change Thursday in a new regulation that, if made final, would take effect after May 2027. The rule is broadly aimed at ending any policies or programs that help students because of their race, and it specifically says such benefits in admissions, scholarships and facilities “would be incompatible” with the rule.

It’s the latest attempt by the Trump administration to pressure schools and colleges to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies that had become common before President Trump returned to the White House with a promise to eliminate them. Trump officials have used Civil Rights-era laws to unwind the policies, saying they discriminate against white and Asian American students.

Scores of universities have shut down or rebranded their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion offices and ended scholarships and clubs designed for minority students under pressure from the White House. In a statement announcing the proposal, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that even policies that are no longer under the banner of DEI could be targeted.

“Schools rebranding race-based preferences as equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing does not change their discriminatory nature,” Bessent said.

The Treasury Department and IRS estimate that up to 18,000 private schools, colleges and other education institutions could be affected by the proposal.

America’s private universities have been exempt from many taxes for more than a century because they provide a public good. The benefit saves many universities millions of dollars every year.

Trump has seen the tax-exempt status as a lever to pull in his pressure campaign against colleges that he describes as bastions of “wokeness.” He threatened to cut the benefit for Harvard University last year during his battle with the nation’s oldest college. In a response, Harvard officials said there was no legal basis for doing so and argued it would force cuts to financial aid and crucial medical research.

It’s incredibly rare for the federal government to go after a college’s tax-exempt status, but there’s one notable precedent. Bob Jones University, a small Christian school in South Carolina, lost the benefit in the 1970s over a ban on interracial dating and marriage on campus. The Supreme Court upheld the IRS’s decision to deny the school its exemption. The school has since ended the ban and regained tax-exempt status in 2017.

Laws forbid the IRS from targeting individuals and organizations for ideological reasons, and federal officials are not allowed to direct IRS investigations.

To maintain nonprofit status, which allows donations to be tax-deductible, organizations must follow IRS rules on lobbying, political campaign activity and annual reporting requirements, as well as other obligations.

The Trump administration describes the new proposal as a move toward restoring merit in the nation’s education systems.

The Justice Department has separately opened investigations into several medical schools that it accuses of favoring Black and Hispanic students in admissions. Trump officials say any such favoritism violates Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that forbids discrimination in education and was created to fight segregation and its impact.

A statement from IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said private schools that promote discriminatory practices will no longer be exempt from taxes.

“Today’s proposed regulations put institutions on notice and schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination should expect to lose that status,” he said.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press Education Writer Annie Ma contributed to this report.

Sept. 3, 2026 9 AM PT

BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston said Thursday the U.S. Postal Service has told her nothing about how it would implement a plan to regulate mail ballots for the midterms as she considers whether to let the plan proceed in the weeks before Election Day.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani is deciding whether to extend her prohibition on the proposed regulation of mail ballots, an effort undertaken as part of an executive order by President Trump. The hearing in the closely watched case came a day before the first state begins sending mail ballots to voters.

“We are 70 days from the election and I have nothing from the USPS about how this will happen,” Talwani told Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer representing the Postal Service.

Last week, Talwani imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order to keep it from being used. That order expires next week as more states begin sending out mail ballots. Velchik said the administration will most likely go to the Supreme Court by the end of the week to seek permission to resume implementing the plan.

Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump’s order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.

But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani’s order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump’s order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.

They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated in the Constitution to the states and in some cases Congress.

They won an initial victory with Talwani’s restraining order, which has already been appealed by the administration.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

Election officials say there’s simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.

Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.

The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal. But the portal was still not active this week, and most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.

Velchik told Talwani that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system. But the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so.

A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters, but if a single one’s bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

Riccardi and Casey write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver.

WASHINGTON — Beginning on Day One, House Democrats plan to “hold the crooks accountable.”

That’s the promise House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has made, previewing an ambitious agenda with oversight of President Trump’s administration and legislation to address the high costs of living, if Democrats seize majority control from Republicans in the midterm elections.

But first, the Democratic leaders have to ensure they can keep their own politically diverse — and sometimes rebellious — big-tent caucus in line, which was tested this week. Two go-their-own-way Democrats bucked the party on a routine procedural vote, angering colleagues and raising a red flag about potential party divisions to come.

“His greatest challenge will be governing,” Ashley Etienne, a former top aide to Nancy Pelosi during her historic tenure as House speaker, said of Jeffries.

The House majority is expected to be decided by a handful of seats in a shrinking number of competitive districts, potentially creating a similar political dynamic to the past four years under GOP control, a chaotic new era in Congress.

In the House, the size of the majority matters. When the majority is slim, any single lawmaker can become a kingmaker, determining whether a party’s agenda sinks or soars. House Speaker Mike Johnson is tested by his narrow majority almost daily, and his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, was the first in history to be booted from office, ousted by a small number of opponents from his own side.

Jeffries, who is poised to become the House speaker if his party wins power and would be the first Democrat to wield the gavel since Pelosi, faces a party at a crossroads. It has a new generation of candidates, some far-left from the Democratic Socialists of America, and they are eager for change.

The Democratic leadership team responded swiftly to the slight from the two centrist lawmakers this week over the thwarted procedural vote, sending a message that they will not tolerate the kind of disruptions that have often left Republicans in disarray.

But the damage was done.

“It was disappointing,” said seasoned Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee. ”It makes us look as bad as them.”

A routine procedural vote becomes anything but

The procedural rule vote, which sets the terms for debate, was long a non-issue in the House. The party in power voted for it, the minority party voted against. But conservative Republicans have routinely bucked their own GOP majority on the votes, tanking the agenda.

As the tally Tuesday was teetering, it appeared Johnson once again had a revolt on his hands. Then two Democrats, retiring Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and outsider Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, voted with the Republicans, salvaging the outcome and the week’s agenda.

Golden was working to ensure passage of his bill on the lobster industry. Gluesenkamp, often an ally as a fellow Blue Dog Democrat in a Trump-won congressional district, had joined.

Democrats were livid. Some were eager for a reprimand. Others expressed the angst coming from voters who want the party to stick together to fight Trump. The Pelosi-ism, “Unity is our strength,” was revived.

“The challenge is, that if you don’t have the numbers, all of a sudden a few people can be very decisive,” said Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., a former party leader who recently lost his own primary bid for reelection.

“You can never ask people to vote against their own interest,” he said. ”But you also have to emphasize the camaraderie and concept of working together as a team.”

A cautious Democratic leader faces new challenges

Jeffries is known as a careful leader and, as he says himself, chooses calm over chaos at a time when many Democrats prefer a quicker, attention-grabbing reaction.

The New York Democrat is singularly focused on winning back control of the House. In office since 2013, Jeffries is confronting the party’s quickly changing climate, as he works to hold together what is arguably the most diverse party caucus in U.S. history.

“We’re fighting to make healthcare affordable for every single American,” he said earlier in the week. “And we certainly will fight to hold the crooks accountable who have unleashed unprecedented corruption on the American people.”

Two weeks ago, Jeffries ran into trouble with progressives after having accepted a meeting with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, an outside adviser to the White House.

The two New Yorkers had known each other and worked together on legislation during the first Trump administration. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles had suggested Kushner reach out. But liberals questioned why Jeffries would even meet with those close to Trump.

“He asked for a meeting, and I took it,” Jeffries said in a defiant video the next day.

The Democrats have established five working groups to tackle affordability issues — in housing, healthcare, child care, groceries and gas and utilities. The top Democrats on the Oversight and Judiciary committees are preparing to root out corruption.

Jeffries also sketched out the pillars of a Democratic legislative agenda for the coming year: repealing Republican Medicaid cuts, restoring expanded tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, repealing Trump’s tariffs and ending the Iran war.

“These are issues that we know unite Democrats,” Jeffries said. “But I don’t want to get out ahead of the caucus, because there are a whole host of things that need to be worked on.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

A Miami investor who pleaded guilty to making insider trades connected to the parent company of President Trump’s Truth Social platform helped fund a pro-Trump documentary film in hopes of securing a presidential pardon, according to a lawsuit by an L.A. studio that accuses him of threats and extortion.

Michael Shvartsman pleaded guilty in 2024 to insider trading associated with the Trump Media & Technology Group, which federal prosecutors said netted him $18.2 million in ill-gotten gains.

Four months later, Shvartsman helped fund the documentary “The Man You Don’t Know” in an effort to obtain a pardon, according to the lawsuit filed last month in Los Angeles. He denies the allegations.

A company controlled by Shvartsman provided a $425,000 loan in August 2024 to help fund the film, according to the suit. The film featured interviews with Trump’s sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and painted a flattering portrait of the president.

Shvartsman attended the film’s premiere that October at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., where he revealed, according to the lawsuit, that he had provided financing for the movie and “was hoping his participation would enable him to get a pardon.”

The event featured a who’s who of Trump-world insiders, including former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, the late pro wrestler and media personality Hulk Hogan, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., as well as the former and soon-to-be president.

Shvartsman and his associates “arranged meetings” with “contacts and stars” associated with the movie in the hopes of achieving his goal of a pardon, the lawsuit said, though it doesn’t state specifically whom he targeted.

Shvartsman had good reason to seek their help.

Days before the event, he had been sentenced by a federal judge in New York to two years and four months in prison for insider trading connected to the announcement of a merger that would make Trump Media & Technology Group a publicly traded company.

Shvartsman, who is a Canadian citizen, also faced the prospect of deportation after his sentence.

Shvartsman said he “disputes all facts and allegations” in the lawsuit and plans to file a countersuit.

“We are not going to litigate this matter through the press,” he wrote in a message to The Times. “We intend to address the issues through the appropriate legal process, where the relevant facts and documentation can be properly presented and considered.”

Shvartsman’s efforts to mitigate his penalty weren’t limited to the documentary film. A day before his sentencing, the Aleph Institute, a Jewish criminal justice reform group, filed a letter to the federal court in New York laying out a proposed community service plan for Shvartsman to follow. The group had been instrumental in helping secure clemency during Trump’s first term for Philip Esformes, a south Florida man who was serving a 20-year prison sentence for his role in a $1.3-billion Medicare fraud scheme.

But Shvartsman’s story didn’t have a Hollywood ending: He failed to secure a pardon.

He went to prison in January 2025 and was held in federal custody until May 29, 2026, according to Bureau of Prison records. It isn’t clear whether he remains in the U.S.

Though Shvartsman was unsuccessful, dozens of other wealthy convicted individuals have been able to win clemency during Trump’s time in office by spending big bucks on influence campaigns to secure their freedom.

Many of them have ponied up millions of dollars to lobbyists and political insiders who have built a cottage industry out of helping monied convicts secure their freedom.

Some pardon chasers have also made big donations to pro-Trump super PACs as part of their efforts.

Scammers have even tried to get in on the action.

Trump’s pardon czar, Alice Marie Johnson, recently took to social media saying that people have been impersonating her and asking for a “processing fee” to help smooth the path to clemency. She said that neither she nor her office would ever ask for such a payment.

The lawsuit against Shvartsman, brought by the Los Angeles film production company Global Ascension Studios and its chief executive, Joshua Macciello, alleges that Shvartsman and his associates demanded immediate repayment of the loan the day after the 2024 Mar-a-Lago event — nine months before it was due — and threatened Macciello’s “physical safety” if the film company didn’t pay immediately or transfer control of the company to Shvartsman.

The lawsuit alleges that Macciello modified the loan agreement under duress and agreed to give Shvartsman and his company a greater share of the film’s potential proceeds.

It isn’t clear whether the loan has yet been repaid.

The proceeds from the film would prove to be middling.

The film was released days before Trump’s 2024 election victory, but its producers blamed political bias for the movie’s lackluster box office performance after fewer theaters than expected agreed to show it.

“In 37 years, I’ve never seen creative work get censored by theaters in this country,” Arthur Sarkissian, Global Ascension Studios’ former head of production, who was involved in the project, told Deadline at the time.

Sarkissian, best known as a producer of the “Rush Hour” franchise, is also being sued by Global Ascension and Macciello, who accused him of fraud and breach of contract in a lawsuit filed last year in Los Angeles.

Sarkissian has filed a counterclaim against Global Ascension, Macciello and others connected to the film production company, also accusing them of fraud and breach of contract.

The case is ongoing.

Eating breakfast in a South Dakota coffee shop, Gloria Steinem was all too aware of the couple eyeballing her from the next booth. He was sporting chains. She wore leather pants and what Steinem later recalled as “an improbable hairdo.” The place was packed with tough-looking, mostly male bikers pumped about a huge rally they were attending. Steinem, returning from a Sioux powwow honoring ancient tribal women, knew she wasn’t in her element.

Finally, the leather-clad woman came over and spoke up. “I just want to tell you how much Ms. magazine has meant to me over the years — and my husband too,” she told an astonished Steinem.

There was a time, the woman said, when rolling down the road meant perching on her husband’s back seat. But now she had her own sweet ride: “I even put ‘Ms.’ on my license plate, and you should see my grandkids’ faces when Grandma rides up on her purple Harley!”

The image of that breezy, boisterous grandma stayed with Steinem for years. “I’ve come to believe that inside, each of us has a purple motorcycle,” she wrote in her 2015 memoir. “We have only to discover it — and ride.”

Steinem, the co-founder of Ms. Magazine and for six decades a charismatic leader who urged women to pursue self-affirmation, political power and equality both in the workplace and at home, died Wednesday at her home in New York City, according to her foundation’s social media pages. She was 92.

“Gloria lived true to her independent spirit, always with curiosity and a great sense of humor,” the posts said.

An activist, journalist, and relentless traveler who said she went for 20 years without spending more than eight consecutive days in her New York apartment, Steinem described herself as “an entrepreneur of social change.”

“I raise money. I talk. I write. I tell stories. I want to do justice to the women I meet,” she told The New Yorker in 2015.

Steinem, who struggled with stage fright most of her life, talked with women at gigantic conferences and in intimate kaffeeklatsches. At book signings and on barstools, she sought their stories, sometimes re-telling them in her essays and on her countless speaking tours. Her portfolio of issues was vast, from sexual violence, female genital mutilation and racism to the more mundane injustices that helped fuel a movement for sweeping social change.

At one campus visit, the discussion turned to men who expect women to pick up after them. A young Japanese woman, silent for most of the increasingly raucous session, stood up, turned around to address 500 other audience members and said: “When my husband leaves his underwear on the floor, I find it quite useful to nail it to the floor.”

She had never before said a word in public, she told the cheering crowd.

Steinem had a “gift for empathy,” New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote when the feminist icon turned 80 in 2014.

“Women who read about her or saw her on TV felt that if they ran into her on the street, they would really get along with her. And women who actually did run into her on the street felt the same way. More than a half-century into her life as an international celebrity, she remains stupendously approachable, patient with questions, interested in revelations.”

Gloria Steinem, left, and Pat Carbine, two of Ms. magazine’s founding editors, in 1980.

(Dave Pickoff / Associated Press )

Famously attractive, Steinem over the years gave hope to young women who wanted to “stand up for their rights without being called man-haters,” Collins wrote. “She was evidence that it was possible to be true to your sisters while also being really, really attractive to the opposite sex.”

At the same time, she alienated the religious right with her fervent pro-choice advocacy. When Lands’ End featured an interview with Steinem in its 2016 catalog, outraged readers threatened a boycott. Company officials then cut their ties with the woman they had headlined as a “legend.”

Steinem first drew public notice when she was in her 20s and struggling to establish herself as a freelance writer. Her breakthrough story was a funny, scathing account of her two weeks as a Playboy “bunny” — a scantily clad cocktail waitress at Hugh Hefner’s Manhattan nightclub.

In some ways, the story backfired. Steinem became known not as a crusader for women but as a former bunny. For several years, her magazine assignments continued to veer toward “women’s page” topics — in 1964, she wrote about textured stockings for the New York Times — and even after she delved into serious political issues for New York magazine, she wasn’t taken as seriously as she would have liked.

In 1968, a Washington Post columnist described her as “the mini-skirted pinup girl of the intelligentsia.” Two years later, a headline in the Los Angeles Times read, “Gloria: Beautiful Brain in Ditto Body.”

Meanwhile, the women’s liberation movement had propelled itself into the mainstream, ignited by writers like Betty Friedan. For Steinem, though, it became a passion only after she covered a meeting during which women opened up about their illegal abortions. The event was held to protest a legislative hearing on abortion where the only witnesses were 14 men and a nun.

“Suddenly I was no longer learning intellectually what was wrong. I knew,” Steinem recalled in 1983. “I had had an abortion when I was newly out of college, and I told no one. If one in three or four adult women shares this experience, why should we be made to feel criminal and alone?”

Nearly 60 years after her unwanted pregnancy, Steinem dedicated her memoir to the British physician who arranged her abortion after she agreed to two conditions.

The first was that she never reveal his name. (She did, long after his death.)

The second: “You will do what you want to do with your life.”

Born on March 25, 1934, in Toledo, Ohio, Steinem didn’t attend school regularly until seventh grade. Most winters, her father Leo, an ebullient, 300-pound dreamer who was often in debt, would drive the family down back roads in a trailer, stopping here and there to sell antiques he’d picked up along the way.

Ruth Steinem, Gloria’s mother, was a former journalist who was hospitalized for long periods with severe mental health problems. From the age of 11, after her parents divorced and her older sister Susanne left home, Gloria often cared for her mom.

In an essay, “Ruth’s Song (Because She Could Not Sing It),” Steinem recalled her mother cutting her arm when she smashed a window to escape the Nazi invaders that only she could see. “I remember a long Thanksgiving weekend holding on to her with one hand and holding my eighth-grade assignment of ‘Tale of Two Cities’ with the other,” Steinem wrote.

Despite her patchy schooling, Steinem received a scholarship to Smith College, where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa after majoring in government. After spending two years in India on a fellowship, she worked briefly for an international youth organization funded by the CIA.

Basing herself in New York in 1960, she quickly became known for her stylish prose, sharp wit, and striking appearance. Within a decade she was “Gloria-Steinem-the-antiwar-gorgeous- bachelor girl who was pictured with Henry Kissinger in Time and Life…,” according to a breathless 1970 account in the Los Angeles Times.

But she was also the Gloria Steinem who helped start New York magazine, who wrote insightfully about the intersection between racism and sexism, and who in 1971 became the first woman chosen to address an annual banquet of the Harvard Law Review.

She zeroed in on the school’s failings.

“There is a course on international whaling law but none on women’s rights internationally,” she told the black-tie gathering. “An eminent professor of administrative law said as late as last night that he didn’t know what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was. The same man replied to a request that at least one full-time female professor be hired by answering that women faculty brought problems because of ‘sexual vibrations’…”

The following year, Steinem, with several other feminist journalists, founded Ms. Its first, tentative edition, a 40-page insert into New York magazine, sold out in eight days.

The debut issue of Ms. included pieces on gender stereotypes, lesbian relationships, and job discrimination. It also featured an open letter from 53 prominent women — including tennis great Billie Jean King, singer Judy Collins and Steinem — who revealed that they had undergone abortions.

While the magazine’s monthly circulation eventually topped 500,000, it also fueled skeptics. “I’ll give it six months before they run out of things to say,” newscaster Harry Reasoner predicted on national TV.

Ms. also took flak from some of Steinem’s sister feminists, who contended that it cast women as victims. As new waves of feminists confronted different issues, some became exasperated by Steinem’s seemingly perennial role as the face of the women’s movement.

“Guys in the media chose Gloria as our leader,” said feminist writer Susan Brownmiller in 2016. “A lot of us, our hope is that eventually, history will straighten this all out and say, no, Gloria came in a little later, and her very loyal supporters have backtracked that history.”

Steinem remained a contributing editor to Ms. for 15 years.

Gloria Steinem at home in New York City, 2010.

(Annie Leibovitz / Penguin Random House)

Meanwhile, she was crisscrossing the country, campaigning for liberal Democratic candidates, fighting laws restricting abortion, and urging legislators to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment.

“Like Sky Masterson, the wandering gambler in Damon Runyon stories, I’ve been in more hotel rooms than the Gideon Bible,” she wrote, “and he didn’t wash his hair with hotel soap, eat from vending machines, or sit up late organizing with the hotel maids.”

In 2013, President Barack Obama gave Steinem the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

Her books include a 1983 essay collection, “Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions”; a 1986 portrait of Marilyn Monroe; her 2015 memoir, “My Life on The Road”; and works on aging and self-esteem.

Over the years, Steinem had longstanding romantic relationships with a number of men but vowed never to marry or have children.

However, at 66, she broke her vow and married David Bale, a British businessman and animal rights advocate. By then, the institution of marriage had changed for the better, she later explained.

“We spent 30 years in the United States changing the marriage laws,” she said. “If I had married when I was supposed to get married, I would have lost my name, my legal residence, my credit rating, many of my civil rights.”

Three years after their marriage, Bale died of brain cancer. Steinem’s stepchildren include the actor Christian Bale.

At 80, Steinem celebrated her birthday by riding an elephant in Botswana.

In the following years, she campaigned for Hillary Clinton, spoke at the Women’s March on Washington, helped save her hometown’s last abortion clinic and gave numerous interviews denouncing President Trump’s views on women. She was the subject of an off-Broadway play and was honored by Rutgers University with the Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies.

For fun, she danced. When asked by TV hosts, she occasionally demonstrated a well-worn soft shoe routine, though her heart was with the tango.

“It’s a sick, authoritarian dance,” she told a reporter, “but I loved it.”

Chawkins is a former Times staff writer.

For years, Hollywood has talked about a federal film and television tax credit that could help the industry combat the growing number of productions fleeing overseas.

This week, the entertainment business got a glimmer of hope.

After more than a year of quiet work from California lawmakers, industry lobbyists and Hollywood unions to build a bipartisan coalition, President Trump endorsed the effort in a post on Truth Social, providing a major boost to the issue.

If passed, a federal incentive is expected to help draw some productions back to the Golden State, industry experts and advocates said. While it probably won’t immediately end Southern California’s production crisis — as many states now have established film hubs stocked with experienced crews and more generous tax breaks — an added federal credit could certainly help make California more competitive, they said.

“I will put our crews and our talent against any talent anywhere in the world,” said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), a former producer who has been pushing for a national film tax credit. “If we have a level playing field upon which to shoot, where we are not much more expensive than other locations, productions will come back to Los Angeles.”

Trump’s Truth Social post came after a meeting with actor Jon Voight, one of the president’s designated Hollywood ambassadors who has played a key role in lobbying for the film industry and advocating for a federal tax credit. Though Trump has had frosty relations with Hollywood, particularly since many heavyweights did not support his presidential campaign, the industry’s jobs push aligns with his focus on re-shoring work, marking a rare moment of agreement.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he has done “a lot of work” in the last week to get something done on federal tax incentives for the film and television industry.

Trump said he has spoken to streaming giant Netflix; Ari Emanuel, chief executive of TKO Group Holdings Inc.; and “many others,” and that he is hopeful there will be a bipartisan push to revive productions in Hollywood with “big subsidies and big credits.”

“We don’t give anything and we should,” Trump said, referring to proposed tax breaks for U.S. productions. He added that he wants legislation to “match” what other countries are offering.

Now, lawmakers must hammer out the details of that legislation.

The bill will have a Republican sponsor from a state known for film and TV production, but Friedman declined to name the person, saying she was waiting for Republicans to make their internal decision about that lead lawmaker.

The bill is likely to go through the House Committee on Ways and Means. While exact provisions are still being negotiated, the expectation is that the credit will be stackable with states’ incentives — similar to how Canada’s tax credit works. A 20% federal tax credit on all labor costs — including for salaries of actors and crew members — is being discussed.

An earlier proposal from Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) had called for a baseline labor-based tax credit of 15% to 20%, in addition to bonus add-ons for indie productions among others, a Schiff spokesperson said.

Schiff has previously noted that 45% of all U.S. films and scripted TV shows were shot internationally last year, up from about 33% in 2022.

Having Schiff and Trump on the same side of this national tax credit is emblematic of the odd bedfellows the effort has gathered.

The Motion Picture Assn. studio lobbying group has released a statement backing the proposal, as have unions such as the Screen Actors Guild — American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

“I am in strong agreement with the President,” Schiff wrote Monday in a post on X. “Congress should immediately take up and pass a federal film tax incentive to bring back these good-paying jobs that we’ve lost to other countries.”

Production incentive experts say any national film tax credit will need to have a seamless process, one with minimal red tape.

One idea is to make the national production incentive an overlay that’s attached to states’ incentives, so the federal government doesn’t need a separate agency to vet the same criteria, which could slow the process, said Peter Marshall, managing principal of media insurance services at Epic, an insurance broker and consultant.

Parameters will also need to be clear, and the program easy to access, said Kathleen Thompson, vice president of tax incentives at payroll service Cast & Crew.

“There is an excitement and an energy and a hopefulness right now from the production community,” she said. “I’ve certainly gotten notes from clients, potential clients and industry colleagues that are very excited about the possibility of this passing and becoming a reality.”

Stacking a federal tax credit on top of the newly bolstered California production incentives could help give the state an edge when producers are pricing out location shoots.

“California is still the leader in production,” said Joe Chianese, senior vice president at Entertainment Partners, which tracks production incentives worldwide. “Producers would like to stay home if they can, but it boils down to the math.”

But even with the improvements to California’s film and TV tax credits, the state’s program still has limitations.

California has an annual funding cap of $750 million, has designated application windows and does allow the cost of actors’ salaries — a major driver of movie budgets — to be counted toward the tax breaks.

Beyond the program, the Golden State is just more expensive than other U.S. locales, and some filmmakers have criticized the red tape that makes shooting in L.A. more difficult.

“Can we be more competitive with a federal incentive? Absolutely,” Thompson said. “Can it completely turn the tide? I don’t know, but I hope so for our industry and our state.”

Industry stakeholders say they are hoping for quick movement on the issue, particularly since it will probably take more than a year after any tax credit is passed for producers to start making plans to move filming back to the U.S. due to lengthy production timelines for movies and TV shows.

“There is a ticking clock,” said Marshall of Epic. “If something isn’t done by the end of the year or in sight, there will be a further solidification of offshoring.”

For Peter Max-Muller, owner of The Ruby, a North Hollywood contemporary clothing rental business, the loss of film and TV shoots in L.A. is one of many threats his business faces, in addition to the use of AI production.

His sales typically mirror the production data from the nonprofit FilmLA, which recorded a 13% drop in shoot days in L.A. County in the second quarter over the same period a year ago.

The goal of a federal incentive, Max-Muller said, “is that we get that runaway production back.”

It’s why Friedman said she is pushing to get the tax credit legislation done as soon as possible.

“The film industry is deep in the identity of Los Angeles,” she said. “And it’s worth saving.”

Staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

For more than three decades, California and Texas have been like tectonic plates drifting in opposite directions.

California, the ancestral land of Republicans Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, has become a Democratic stronghold. It’s been 20 years since a GOP candidate won statewide office.

Texas, which bred Democratic giants such as Sam Rayburn and Lyndon B. Johnson, has become a Republican fortress. A Democrat hasn’t been elected statewide in more than 30 years.

And yet with the midterm election about to enter its final, post-Labor Day sprint, Texas is home to not one but two competitive contests, for governor and U.S. Senate. It’s a stark contrast with California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears to be a shoo-in for governor and Adam Schiff, in 2024, waltzed into his Senate seat.

There’s still plenty of time between now and election day on Nov. 3. Democrats, to their deep consternation, have repeatedly seen their hopes rise, only to crash once Texans actually turn out to vote.

“You don’t take anything for granted,” said James Aldrete, a Democratic strategist in Austin, who’s watched for years as his party wandered fruitlessly in the campaign desert. “But there is beautiful native wildlife that grows in the desert, and it’s blooming right now.”

The question — for the moment, at least — is why California hasn’t budged while Texas has become a surprise battleground.

The answer involves individual personalities, demographics and political headwinds.

Of the two contests, the fight for Texas’ open Senate seat appears to be much closer. Election handicappers rate it a toss-up.

The Democrat, state Rep. James Talarico, is a highly gifted campaigner and prodigious fundraiser. But arguably the best thing he has going for his candidacy is his Republican opponent, Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose history of scandal, shady dealings and moral lapses trail him like dirty footprints on a white carpet.

Paxton stomped incumbent John Cornyn, with the help of President Trump, in a vicious GOP primary that left ill will among a number of Republicans. Had Cornyn won, many doubt the Senate seat would be in play.

‘A big ask’

In the race for governor, Republican Greg Abbott is facing Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa as he seeks an unprecedented fourth term — “a big ask of voters,” in the words of J. Miles Coleman, who analyzes elections at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Sabato’s Crystal Ball, the center’s forecasting project, recently moved the gubernatorial race to “likely Republican,” a shift away from “Safe Republican.”

Other election handicappers have done the same.

Texas has long fancied itself a place apart; secession is one recurring fantasy. But for all its perceived go-your-own-way independence, the state isn’t immune from broader trends, which helps explain why it’s suddenly in play.

“One of the external factors that’s making Texas competitive is the degree of wind in Democratic sails,” said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin.

Whether it’s anti-establishment anger, directed at the party in power, or frustration with Trump, his war-making and failure to deliver the sterling economy he promised, “when you think of the problems Republicans are having at the national level … that’s helping Democrats here as well,” Henson said.

(Trump’s taint is also a problem for California Republican Steve Hilton, running for governor in a state where the president’s approval rating rests at the subbasement level.)

By the numbers

Henson, who conducts polling statewide, said another reason Texas is more competitive than California is simple mathematics: “Democrats [haven’t] fallen quite as far in Texas as Republicans have in California.”

Texas doesn’t register voters by party. But weighting political surveys by demographics and following election results, Henson expects about a 10% Republican turnout advantage in November. By contrast, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in California by nearly 2 to 1.

Yet another reason Texas appears to have grown more competitive is the apparent discontent of Latino voters, an increasingly important part of the state’s burgeoning electorate.

Though Latinos shifted strongly in Trump’s favor in 2024, many have grown disillusioned in the nearly two years since. “They’re moving away from both parties,” said Mike Madrid, a California strategist who’s spent decades studying the Latino vote. “When the environment is bad, they’re punishing whatever party is power.”

Two years ago, it was Democrats. Now it’s Republicans.

In recent years, as the country cleaved, California emerged as the unofficial capital of blue America, offering a political, social and cultural counterweight to Texas, the unofficial capital of red America. The two states anchor the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, and are key to their financial well-being and the success of their candidates nationwide.

A Democratic toehold in Texas would instantly scramble long-standing political calculations, starting with the 2028 presidential race.

“It changes the narrative. It changes the demographic strategy,” Madrid said. “It changes the 270 [electoral college] map. It changes the whole strategy.”

In short, a November win would be more than symbolic, or gratification after years of Democratic futility. It would be a political earthquake.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Whistleblower says USPS defied court to push ‘untested’ portal for Trump mail voting order
The deep dive: A conservative California upbringing paved Natalie Harp’s way to Trump
The L.A. Times Special:Don’t look now, but suddenly the U.S. Senate is in play

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Steve Cooley is florid-faced and unequivocal as he responds to a question during a public forum at USC last June. Asked about Proposition 66, the initiative to amend California’s three-strikes law on the November ballot, the Los Angeles County district attorney essentially has two things to say: He hates it, and he will work for its defeat.

Then he lays out his case opposing the ponderously titled “Limitations on Three Strikes Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute”: Only one sex crime against a child will be affected. It eliminates several crimes that can trigger a third-strike sentence. And because it’s retroactive, thousands of prisoners will have to be resentenced within 180 days of its becoming law. “This initiative is a bad, bad idea,” Cooley says.

Intently scribbling notes just a few feet away is 53-year-old Sam Clauder. At 6-foot-3 and 270 big-bellied pounds, Clauder is dressed in a suit and tie instead of his more typical attire of a blue John Kerry-for-President gimme cap, Hawaiian shirt and Bermuda shorts. Rarely looking up as he writes, Clauder gives no clue that he’s at the forum to scout the opposition or that he wrote the initial draft of the proposition that Cooley is trashing.

If you’d known Clauder years ago, you’d find that hard to believe. In November 1994, Clauder was among the 72% of Californians who voted in favor of the three-strikes law, sending a law-and-order message that defined the decade. The vote reaffirmed the same law that had been passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Pete Wilson eight months earlier, but this version had more teeth. Any attempts to amend the three-strikes law, now that it had been approved as an initiative, would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature instead of a simple majority.

In 1994, Clauder had done more than vote for three strikes. He had worked as a “ballot access consultant,” coordinating the gathering of petition signatures for statewide initiatives. But three strikes was different. He believed that the law’s passage was essential for public safety, believed it so strongly that in one 10-day period he oversaw the gathering of 12,000 signatures.

During the next two years, however, Clauder began hearing horror stories of people who were being sentenced for 25 years to life in prison for petty crimes. Not only had he personally favored the law, as a consultant he says he had “made money off the backs of these people.” He decided to set things right. In this he is not alone.

From the beginning, the three-strikes law has been shaped by personal stories, some tragic, others epiphanies. Fresno photographer Mike Reynolds helped start the movement after the murder of his 18-year-old daughter. Three strikes was further fueled by public reaction to one of the most publicized crimes in recent California history–the abduction and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, a brutal, twice-convicted kidnapper.

This year’s attempt to reform the three-strikes law on its 10th anniversary also is rife with pain and loss and, most of all, a change of heart. Two self-described ragtag volunteer activists worked for years in anonymity to reform it. Polly Klaas’ grandfather has become its powerful advocate. A wealthy Sacramento insurance broker with a son in prison stepped in to personally bankroll it.

All four supported the original three-strikes law. All four have changed their minds.

For Sam Clauder and many others, the official ballot argument in favor of the 1994 law sounded right on the money. “Three strikes keeps career criminals who rape women, molest children and commit murder behind bars where they belong,” it read.

What many voters didn’t recognize, however, was that they also were voting to place a man such as Willie Turner in prison for 25 years to life. His third crime? Attempting to buy a macadamia nut disguised as a $5 rock of cocaine from an undercover cop. They didn’t realize that Rene Landa would receive a third strike for stealing a spare tire, or Johnny Quirino for shoplifting some razor blades, or Scott Benscotter for stealing a pair of sneakers, or Robert Di Blasi for shoplifting $2.69 worth of AA batteries, or Eric Simmons for being in possession of three stolen ceiling fans, or Joey Arthur Fernandez for aiding and abetting the theft of baby formula and Tylenol.

Most of these men have long criminal histories. The petty nature of their third strike sometimes masks the serious nature of their previous crimes. But many also have no record of violence. They are simply society’s natural-born losers–kinetic speed freaks and crackheads, washed-out winos and small-time thieves–Fellini’s freaks, Charles Bukowski’s barflies, junkies and addicts who got their first two strikes by committing burglaries to support their habits, often decades earlier.

Newsweek has called California’s law “the toughest” in the nation. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reacted to such sentences by declaring California “the only state in [the union] in which a misdemeanor could receive such a severe sentence.” California’s three-strikes law, in fact, is the only one of 26 three-strikes states that doesn’t require a violent crime conviction to trigger a third strike. The state’s 7,400 third-strikers are more than half the total number of those imprisoned for third strikes in the U.S. Of those Californians, 57% are now serving sentences based on a nonviolent third crime–among them 357 for petty theft and 678 for drug possession. About 35,000 other prisoners have had their sentences doubled for second strikes under another provision of the law.

Getting Proposition 66 on the ballot has been a great victory for Clauder and other reformers–the only one that California’s three-strikes opponents have had in a long, frustrating decade of failed attempts. There’s no guarantee that the initiative will pass: Virtually the entire criminal justice system in California is opposing Proposition 66, and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer have both signed the official ballot argument against it.

Nevertheless, there are signs that this year could be different. In a Field Poll conducted last month, 69% of likely voters supported Proposition 66, including 60% of Republicans and 59% of conservatives, and 78% said that Schwarzenegger and Lockyer’s opposition would not affect their vote.

Opponents such as L. Douglas Pipes, a Contra Costa County senior deputy district attorney who analyzed the initiative, have warned that it could result in as many as 26,000 second- and third-strikers being resentenced soon after its passage. That situation, he says, could release thousands of prisoners and throw California’s court and corrections systems and county jails into chaos.

A legal opinion commissioned by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, however, maintains that only third-strikers would be affected. Using Department of Corrections figures, that comes out to about 4,200 inmates who would be eligible for revised sentences.

In 1994, Sam Clauder was a 43-year-old ex-private eye and aspiring producer/writer/director/actor. Smart and hyper-garrulous, he radiated a boyish naivete and a profound sense of right and wrong.

Born in Houston, Clauder was raised in an Assemblies of God Pentecostal sect, “far to the right of Jerry Falwell,” he says. He once stole a piece of gum from a local store and, racked with guilt, immediately returned, showed the clerk the chewed mass inside his mouth and told him he needed to pay for it. His father, a rigid man, was a Houston police officer before moving his family to Orange County and becoming active in the John Birch Society.

At 16, Clauder got “fed up with the hypocrisy of the church” and began experimenting with Hinduism and other religious faiths. In 1970, while a student at a local community college, he began hanging out with Vietnam veterans. Listening to stories of the horrors they had experienced and also committed in war led to his reexamining and then rejecting the conservative political values he’d always known. By 1971 he had become a political activist, volunteering to work on ballot initiatives to save the California coastline and to legalize marijuana. For the next 30 years, as Clauder tells it, he dabbled in the movies, gathered petition signatures and worked in Texas as a licensed private bail bondsman and bounty hunter.

Late in 1994, as Clauder was advising author and activist Jack Herer on an initiative to decriminalize marijuana, Herer began hammering away at him for contributing to the passage of the three-strikes law. Shortly after, Clauder realized that “Jack was right.” No one incident brought about his epiphany, just a cumulative awareness of people’s victimless crimes that he didn’t think should be against the law in the first place. “I was flabbergasted,” he says, “and so angry that I made a promise that I was going to do everything in my power to make up for that error.”

Three years later, Clauder received a visit from Jim Benson, who had heard that Clauder was an experienced hand in the initiative process. Benson asked him how to get a three-strikes reform proposition on the ballot.

Trim and gray-haired, Benson is a slow-talking, soft-spoken native of Ohio who also had supported and voted for the law. A self-described political moderate, he previously had worked for Reform Party presidential candidates John Anderson and Ross Perot. He also served as chair of the Reform Party in Orange County, and was a candidate for a Santa Ana state Assembly seat and a member of the Orange County Democratic Central Committee.

But in the spring of 1998 Benson spoke with some Green Party activists at a Cinco de Mayo festival in Santa Ana who told him about the eyebrow-raising sentences being handed down. “I thought that they surely had to be nuts,” Benson says. Later he told a friend about the encounter. “They’re right,” his friend replied. “I know someone who just received 25-to-life for some marijuana offense.”

“That was not what I had voted for,” Benson says, “and I knew I had to do something about it. I believe strongly in keeping serious criminals who’ve committed repeat serious crimes in prison forever. But I also know what it’s like to be addicted to alcohol and drugs. And I know that with treatment and determination, it’s possible to recover.”

As the vice chairman of Proposition 66’s sponsoring organization, the Orange County-based Citizens Against Violent Crime, Benson is responsible for running the day-to-day campaign. Like Clauder, he’s an unlikely crusader. At 41, he’s a recovering alcoholic who has been sober for 22 years. He started drinking gin at 14 and was downing two fifths a day when he was forced, he says, “to quit or die.” He had attended a small Ohio college for a year, and afterward worked as a limo and taxi driver, auto mechanic, cash register clerk and dealer of baseball cards and rare coins.

At their first meeting, Benson and Clauder talked an entire morning about what it would take to get an initiative on the ballot–about half a million dollars and at least several million more to run a statewide campaign against what surely would be powerful opposition from conservative politicians, their liberal counterparts worried about being labeled “soft on crime,” and the powerful special interests within what amounts to a statewide criminal justice industry.

In the fall of 1999, Clauder read a three-strikes commentary in the Los Angeles Times written by Polly Klaas’ grandfather, Joe Klaas. Clauder got in touch with Klaas, a now-retired 84-year-old resident of Pebble Beach, and he agreed to become the reform effort’s public face and chief spokesman.

Klaas has traveled thousands of miles through the state in his ’85 Buick Regal, trying to get the three-strikes law amended. Now he says he’s “too old to drive eight hours a day.” Instead he spends at least 20 hours a week at his computer or on the phone, speaking almost daily with leaders of the reform effort.

A former stringer for the Associated Press who also worked as a talk-radio host and station manager, Klaas had campaigned for the passage of three strikes alongside his son and Polly’s father, Marc Klaas. But then he began looking into the initiative’s fine print with a cooler eye.

In late February 1994, Joe Klaas talked to a reporter in Petaluma who told him about some of the more draconian provisions of the law. Then he decided to read the proposal and check it against a California law book. As he did, he realized that not only did it not take a violent crime to trigger a third strike, but that any one of California’s 500-plus felonies could trigger the sentence.

Klaas then spoke with someone in the legislative analyst’s office who explained that the bill also included minor misdemeanors that could be “enhanced” to felonies and fall under the law. Klaas was horrified. “This isn’t what everybody thinks it is,” he thought. “Nobody’s ever mentioning these nonviolent crimes.” Klaas’ realization came too late to make much difference, but soon after, Joe and Marc Klaas opposed the version of the law on the ballot and Joe became its fiercest critic both during the campaign and after it was approved.

It might seem incongruous that a man who had lost his granddaughter to a demented murderer would become an implacable foe of three strikes. But only if you’d never met Joe Klaas, an idealist from a different time. At the outbreak of World War II in Europe, he quit the University of Washington, joined England’s Royal Air Force and fought as a Spitfire pilot. After joining the U.S. forces, he was shot down over North Africa and spent the rest of the war as a POW, seeing, he says, “Allied prisoners gunned down not 50 feet” from him.

But there was more than that. For many years he had volunteered at San Quentin, Soledad and Vacaville prisons to coordinate 12-step recovery programs for inmates. (He was forced to stop because of the warped convict logic that held Polly responsible for the passage of three strikes. If he continued volunteering, prison officials told him, he’d be a marked man.)

Just how strongly Klaas opposed three strikes was visible one morning in 2000 as he spoke to the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. “I want to state up front that the murder, rape and kidnapping of my granddaughter, Polly Klaas, was exploited by this ‘three-strikes’ bill–a bill which didn’t stand a chance in hell of passing before Polly’s killing,” Klaas said.

“As a former prisoner of the Nazis,” he continued, “I can say that taking 25 years of somebody’s life for committing a nonviolent crime is violence almost on the level with murder. [Sentencing someone] to 25-to-life because he made a false application for a real estate loan, or for taking aspirin out of a bottle and putting the bottle back on the shelf in a drugstore–now that is violence.”

Despite Klaas’ passion, his son Marc has become a staunch opponent of Proposition 66, believing, as he recently told the Sacramento Bee, that “certain people are hard-wired for crime” and need to be locked up for decades, even if their third strike is a petty crime, so that they don’t “revictimize.” Their rift is so painful that Joe Klaas refuses to talk about it, other than to say, “We can’t be in the same town together because he’s so mad at me for not switching with him against [Proposition 66].”

Geri Silva, a founding member and former state chair of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes, has called Klaas’ emergence in the reform struggle significant: “Joe Klaas wasn’t just some guy off the street. He came from the other side. He could have been out there talking about how if we’d had this three-strikes law earlier, his granddaughter would still be alive. Instead he was aligning himself with us. And that was major.”

In 2003, Benson and Joe Klaas began a fundraising drive, sending out letters and e-mails signed by Klaas and actor/activist Ed Asner. Jerry Keenan, a wealthy owner of a Sacramento auto insurance firm who previously had made a token contribution, got a letter and decided to essentially bankroll the initiative.

“I went numb,” Benson says. “It was so entirely unexpected. I thought, maybe we can actually do this thing.” Keenan’s check was for $300,000, a down payment on the $1.6 million he has contributed so far. Benson, who had been aiming to get the initiative on the ballot in 2006, turned his sights on 2004.

Keenan and his wife, Cynthia, had voted for the three-strikes law. But “the more we learned about how it was being misused,” Keenan says, “the more we became determined to modify the law.” They learned about it in a very personal way.

One night in 1999, the Keenans’ then-21-year-old son, Richard, smoked some grass, drank beer with his friends and climbed into his gold Lexus with four of them. His driver’s license had been suspended after he’d been caught with a small amount of marijuana in his car, but Richard, as his lawyers tell it, was unaware that the suspension had gone into effect. He cranked up the Lexus to about 20 miles above the 55 mph speed limit on an undulating back road, and the Lexus flipped over. Two of his passengers–both 19 years old–died.

Richard Keenan pleaded guilty to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter, plus one count of causing great bodily injury, and received an eight-year prison sentence in 2000. “Great bodily injury” is a “strikable” offense, and should Keenan commit a second felony, he could receive a second strike and his sentence would be doubled.

“When Richard was linked to three strikes,” Jerry Keenan says, “it opened my eyes. Something was horribly wrong if a three-strikes law could affect someone like Richard.” A precise, soft-spoken man, Keenan has reluctantly put himself in the public limelight.

Perhaps not coincidentally, about the time that Keenan helped fund the initiative, a new provision was written into the proposed proposition. If great bodily injury happened accidentally, it read, without the intent to commit harm, the conviction would not count as a strike.

The addition of the provision has led to accusations that Jerry Keenan is trying to purchase a law, and the family of one of his son’s victims has publicly objected.

Buying legislation, however, is what California initiatives have been about for decades. At the turn of the 20th century, the state’s good-government Progressives sought to take power away from the robber barons and railroad titans and place it in the hands of the people. But that experiment in democracy has morphed into a multimillion-dollar industry where campaign consulting firms can make as much as $7 million spearheading a single initiative.

In 1994, when Mike Reynolds’ three-strikes campaign was desperate for cash, the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. stepped in to contribute $101,000. The National Rifle Assn. contributed at least $90,000 and U.S. senatorial candidate Michael Huffington donated $350,000. That was $541,000 out of the campaign’s $1.6 million in total spending–key portions of it coming at a time when Reynolds’ campaign was barely afloat. At the time, voters were concerned about gun control. Three strikes enabled the NRA to change the public conversation from gun control to its theme of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and Huffington to prove his law-and-order bona fides in a law-and-order year. (He lost.)

California’s three-strikes law also was very good for the prison guards’ union. Increasing numbers of prisoners held for vastly longer periods of time require more guards, new prisons and lucrative overtime pay. The guards’ union “and others came in and bought the three-strikes law by donating money that enabled it to pass,” Keenan says. “I’m not trying to buy a new law, just modify the current one.”

Steve Cooley says he realizes the law has been applied unfairly, and he blames his predecessor and other prosecutors who used it to pump up their “get-tough” credentials. “Disproportional, bizarre, unusual and draconian” are some of the adjectives Cooley uses to describe the three-strikes policy of former L.A. Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti.

“His policy was to prosecute petty crimes as three strikes,” Cooley says at the USC forum. “Mine has been exactly the opposite: You cannot pursue ‘got ya’ prosecutions and maintain a credible criminal justice system.”

Whether the state is maintaining a credible justice system, however, is a larger question than three-strikes reform.

The chairman of an investigative panel appointed by the governor recently described the state’s corrections department management as “deficient and dysfunctional.” The panel’s report cited “too much political interference, too much union control and too little management courage, accountability and transparency.” In April, the Department of Corrections declared a state of emergency for five prisons due to overcrowding–despite a $5.8 billion annual corrections budget and the building of 21 new prisons during the last two decades at a cost of more than $4 billion. A judge is now threatening to place the adult prison system under federal receivership.

Nevertheless, Gov. Schwarzenegger is taking a leading role in opposing the initiative. Joe Klaas finds this “amazing” given that it is “something [that] could save so much money by no longer putting petty criminals behind bars for 25 years to life.”

According to a report by the state legislative analyst’s office, Proposition 66’s passage would, in fact, result in state “prison operations savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars in the first couple of years, growing to as much as several hundred millions in ongoing savings when the full impact of the measure is realized in about a decade.” In addition, the report states, “The lower prison population resulting from this measure would potentially result in capital outlay savings . . . associated with prison construction and renovations.” State and local costs for the courts and county jails would increase, however.

Cooley’s opposition is equally surprising. But he’s a veteran of 32 years as a prosecutor and is a member in good standing of the state’s criminal justice industry, with its $17.5 billion annual budget and the political juice to literally dictate crime and punishment policy.

He doesn’t see the proposition as a remedy for the three-strikes excesses of which he accuses Garcetti, or other excesses across the state. He would instead get the California District Attorneys Assn., which is fiercely battling the initiative, to support a three-strikes reform bill in the state Legislature. But getting a two-thirds vote to soften the controversial hard-line law is unlikely. Why would district attorneys want to give up a sledgehammer used to intimidate defendants into accepting harsh plea bargains? Cooley is his own man, but he’s no maverick.

After the forum, Clauder’s appraisal of Cooley’s position is that he’s been “doing a good job implementing a bad law.” And the three-strikes policy of Cooley’s office has, in fact, not been much different in its bare-bones essentials than the reform initiative he is now vehemently opposing.

Before his election in 2000, Cooley declared, “If the potential third strike is a ‘violent or serious’ felony, the case should be . . . pursued as a third strike. If it is not a ‘violent or serious’ felony, the case . . . should not be pursued as a third strike.” Cooley proved true to his word. Mirroring a statewide trend, third-strike convictions in L.A. County dropped from 526 in the peak year of 1997 to 113 in 2003 under Cooley.

So why his blanket opposition? One reason, Clauder suggests, is that “Cooley’s present policy is Cooley’s policy, he has control over it, it’s his decision to use it or not. He won’t have that power if Proposition 66 passes.” Cooley says he simply thinks the initiative is bad, citing one provision that would eliminate a district attorney’s ability to get multiple strike convictions in the same proceeding.

In any case, given the numerous failed legislative attempts to reform mandatory minimum sentences such as three strikes in California or the Rockefeller drug laws in New York, Clauder probably has it right: “You can’t rely on politicians to correct the law. You have to correct it by initiative. Only then will policy follow.”

“The phone is ringing off the wall,” Clauder says, and he is “breathing fire,” fielding calls from people who, like him, are unhappy that the final version of Proposition 66 doesn’t apply retroactively to second-strikers. He’s still actively supporting the proposition, but he has now formed his own organization, “Yes on 66.” Its major mission will be to influence the debate so that when Proposition 66 is adjudicated–should it pass–a judge might rule that including second-strikers was the voters’ intent.

Jim Benson, meanwhile, is working with Joe Klaas on the campaign. So far, the proposition’s supporters include the California Federation of Labor and the California State Employees Assn. Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News and San Diego Union-Tribune have published editorials in favor of it.

In August, Klaas had what he thought was a heart attack during a meeting in Monterey. Doctors couldn’t find anything wrong, and he is now attributing it to work “overload.” “I’m 84, and everybody I knew who should be 84 is dead,” he says.

Jerry Keenan says he is only “among the people who have financed” a new organization called “Fix Three Strikes, Yes on 66,” designed to pull together several organizations supporting the proposition. “Fix Three Strikes” also is discussing raising several million dollars–in addition to the $1.6 million that Keenan already has donated–to buy television ads when the campaign reaches its apex in the fall. They’ve hired the top-gun political consulting and advertising firm Zimmerman and Markman–which produced a number of anti-Bush television commercials for MoveOn.org–to create the ads.

Jerry and Cynthia Keenan visit their son every weekend at the minimum-security Folsom prison ranch, a vast improvement from the three years of hard time he served. “The other side fought against Richard serving his time at the ranch, but he’s doing much better now,” Keenan says.

As for the 57% of prisoners whose third strike was for a nonviolent crime, they wait for the voters of California to decide whether or not they’ll be spending the rest of their lives in prison.

Researcher Jessica Gelt contributed to this story.

Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has urged a United States judge to dismiss the criminal drug trafficking charges against him, arguing he should be immune from prosecution as the head of a sovereign country.

Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, made the appeal in a Manhattan district court on Wednesday.

His legal team has petitioned District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to dismiss the case, which will test the willingness of US courts to apply international law to criminal cases.

Maduro was abducted and imprisoned on January 3, after US President Donald Trump authorised a military raid in Caracas. The former Venezuelan leader, who has been held in a Brooklyn federal jail, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial on June 1, 2027, if his effort to dismiss the case is unsuccessful.

The principle that sitting heads of state are immune from prosecution abroad is a longstanding tenet of international law, seen as fundamental to diplomacy.

Judge Hellerstein had given Pollack a Wednesday deadline to file his motion to dismiss the case.

Pollack has argued that Hellerstein lacks jurisdiction, both because sovereign heads of state enjoy complete immunity and because the acts that Maduro is accused of would have been part of his official duties.

“This unprecedented prosecution violates the absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction to which heads of state and foreign officials acting in their official capacities have been entitled for hundreds of years,” Pollack wrote.

Pollack added that Maduro was falsely accused and “vehemently denies” the allegations.

A spokesperson for the Manhattan US Attorney’s office, which brought the charges, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Maduro faces uphill battle

Legal experts have told the Reuters news agency that Maduro faces an uphill battle.

Washington has not recognised Maduro as Venezuela’s president for years, due to disputed elections. Courts tend to defer to the US president and his cabinet in disputes over who is recognised as a foreign country’s leader.

US criminal cases involving heads of foreign states are extremely rare, but precedent offers little encouragement for Maduro. In 1990, a federal judge in Miami rejected former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega’s attempt to assert head-of-state immunity, in part because he never officially held the title of president.

The US stopped recognising Maduro in 2019, when he was inaugurated for a second time after a 2018 election that critics say was rigged. Washington also called his 2024 re-election fraudulent.

Maduro says both votes were fair and has long accused the US of seeking his ouster to gain control of the South American country’s oil wealth.

Pollack, however, wrote that Washington’s assessment that Maduro lacked legitimacy was not relevant.

“Unlike in Noriega, the Executive Branch does not dispute that Mr Maduro was Venezuela’s head of state, but instead merely claims that, after 2019, he did not occupy that position legitimately,” Pollack wrote.

Venezuela run by Maduro’s vice president

Since Maduro’s abduction, his former vice president and socialist ally, Delcy Rodriguez, has run Venezuela as its interim leader.

She has also increased cooperation with the Trump administration. Last month, the two countries reached an unprecedented deal that would see the US take over about one-fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Pollack wrote that it was “incongruous” for the US to recognise Rodriguez, who was appointed by Maduro, and not Maduro himself. He pointed to statements by Rodriguez and officials in her government, made in January and February, indicating that they still considered Maduro Venezuela’s legitimate head of state.

Rodriguez’s government has since gone silent on the matter. Some murals of Maduro in Caracas have been painted over in recent months.

Prosecutors have until October 2 to respond to Maduro’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Hellerstein will hold a hearing on the dismissal effort on November 17.

ANCHORAGE — He wielded extraordinary power in Washington for more than three decades, eventually holding sway over nearly $800 billion a year in federal spending.

But outside the halls of the U.S. Senate, which is a world of personal wealth so rarified some call it “the Millionaires’ Club,” Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) had struggled financially.

Then, in 1997, he got serious about making money. And in almost no time, he too was a millionaire — thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help.

Added together, Stevens’ new partnerships and investments provide a step-by-step guide to building a personal fortune — if you happen to be one of the country’s most influential senators.

They also illustrate how lax ethics rules allow members of Congress and their families to profit from personal business dealings with special interests.

Among the ways that Stevens became wealthy:

* Armed with the power his committee posts give him over the Pentagon, Stevens helped save a $450-million military housing contract for an Anchorage businessman. The same businessman made Stevens a partner in a series of real estate investments that turned the senator’s $50,000 stake into at least $750,000 in six years.

* An Alaska Native company that Stevens helped create got millions of dollars in defense contracts through preferences he wrote into law. Now the company pays $6 million a year to lease an office building owned by the senator and his business partners. Stevens continues to push legislation that benefits the company.

* An Alaskan communications company benefited from the senator’s activities on the Commerce Committee. His wife, Catherine, earned tens of thousands of dollars from an inside deal involving the company’s stock.

Stevens, in a written response to questions submitted by The Times, said that in all these cases his official actions were motivated by a desire to help Alaska, and that he played no role in the day-to-day management of the ventures into which he put money.

“I am a passive investor,” Stevens said of his real estate dealings. “I am not now nor have I been involved in buying or selling properties, negotiating leases or making other management decisions.”

All in the Family

In these deals and others, Stevens’ brother-in-law, William H. Bittner, played a pivotal role. An Anchorage lawyer and lobbyist, Bittner represents major business interests for whom the senator has repeatedly gone to bat. In one instance, Stevens engineered a $9.6-million federal appropriation that chiefly benefited a Bittner client, part of South Korea’s Hyundai conglomerate.

Stevens tucked a single line into a must-pass appropriations bill that used federal tax dollars to buy the company out of a coal-loading facility in Seward.

Stevens said he did it to lower the company’s costs and keep it from canceling an agreement to buy Alaskan coal. Bittner did not respond to questions from The Times.

Stevens’ relationship with Bittner fits an increasingly widespread pattern in Washington: Senior senators do favors for special interests that pay hundreds of thousand of dollars in lobbying and consulting fees to the senators’ children, spouses and other relatives.

As The Times documented in a series of articles in the summer, Sens. John B. Breaux (D-La.), Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) did favors for companies and groups that paid their sons as lobbyists and consultants. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pushed through federal land trades and other provisions benefiting Nevada interests that employ his sons and son-in-law.

The Times also reported that Stevens had continually supported interests that paid his youngest son, Ben, hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant.

The senators all said their decisions on policy issues and legislation had not been influenced by their relatives.

But Stevens’ dealings have carried him a step further. His official actions have helped individuals and companies from which he himself draws financial benefits, a six-month Times examination found.

His required financial statements have fallen short of complete disclosure — especially on the activities of a small investment corporation owned by his wife and her family, a company that is covered by the reporting rules.

The Senate has few ethics rules governing such arrangements. Although accepting expensive gifts and speaking fees is banned, the conflict-of-interest rules are much less explicit. For example, nothing clearly bars a senator from sponsoring legislation that benefits the clients of family members who lobby. Nor are lawmakers prohibited from going into business with people receiving legislative favors.

Mainly, the Senate relies on an ill-defined injunction not to bring shame upon the body.

Senate Ethics Committee Chairman George Voinovich (R-Ohio) declined to discuss the issues raised by The Times articles.

House Ethics Committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) said he hoped to convene an advisory panel of current and former House Ethics Committee members next year to examine a range of ethics questions, including how to address the issue of lobbying by relatives.

“I do think we ought to revisit this,” he said. He declined to comment on the issue of lawmakers’ financial partners.

Lawmakers should be careful about their business relationships, John D. Saxon, a former Senate Ethics Committee counsel, said, speaking generally and not about Stevens in particular.

“It’s a very slippery slope for a member of Congress to be entangled with someone in a business dealing and then use their official position to help them, even if it’s on something completely different,” he said.

‘Stevens Money’

Today, Stevens is the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, and as president pro tempore stands just behind the vice president and the speaker of the House in the constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office.

For more than 20 years, he has been chairman or ranking member of the Senate’s Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Since 1997, he has been chairman or ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, which must approve every dollar of federal discretionary spending each year.

Stevens’ position as a senior member of the Commerce Committee adds to his clout — especially in telecommunications policy, which is under the committee’s jurisdiction.

In Alaska, Stevens exerts unparalleled influence. No state is so dependent on federal dollars and decisions. The federal government still owns 60% of all its land, generates one-third of all jobs, and holds the keys to economic growth through regulation of its major industries — oil and gas, fishing, timber and tourism.

Federal spending in Alaska, known locally as “Stevens money,” runs as much as 70% above the national average on a per capita basis.

Since his first day in the Senate in 1968, Stevens has delivered for Alaska.

He has won tax breaks for Native businesses, bailouts for fishermen, a pipeline for an oil consortium and restoration of an abandoned Army post as a tourist attraction for a Yukon village.

He got $28 million for a rail terminal open only during the summer and $40 million for a commercial space satellite facility.

Almost every institution, region and segment of the population in the state has benefited from Stevens’ efforts, from its schools and social programs to its transportation system, its urban areas and the far-flung villages of Alaska’s Native peoples.

But during the period Stevens has grown wealthy, some longtime supporters say, the senator has become less willing to hear their views.

“I’ve been here a long time, and always had a great deal of respect for Sen. Stevens’ enormous power and the good he’s done for Alaska,” Terry Haines, a veteran commercial fisherman from Kodiak Island, said recently. “But lately he’s become extremely rigid and doesn’t seem to be listening to his constituents much.”

Hard Times

Theodore Fulton Stevens was born Nov. 18, 1923, in Indianapolis. At the outset of the Great Depression, when Stevens was 6 years old, his parents divorced, according to his campaign biography.

Stevens went to live with his grandparents after the divorce, helping out by selling newspapers and working evenings and weekends in a drugstore. He later moved in with an aunt and uncle in Manhattan Beach, Calif., where he graduated from high school. Both his father and grandfather died of cancer, Stevens has said.

Stevens joined the Army Air Corps during World War II, flying cargo planes “over the Hump” in the Himalayas — some of the most dangerous missions of the war. He won two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, his biography says.

The biography describes how he graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law School. After working in the 1952 Eisenhower campaign, he was hired by a Washington lawyer, but soon took a new job as a lawyer in Alaska, which was still a territory.

He played a leading role in the successful campaign for statehood, but Alaska’s voters rejected Stevens the first two times he ran for the Senate.

Winning a seat in the state Legislature, he became House majority leader and go-to man for Gov. Walter J. Hickel. In 1968, when Sen. E.L. “Bob” Bartlett died unexpectedly, Hickel picked his ally to fill the vacancy.

In the Senate at last, Stevens worked hard to master legislative details and committee politics.

But increasing political success was accompanied by personal tragedy.

In 1978, his first wife, Ann, died along with four others when the executive jet carrying them home crashed at the Anchorage airport. Stevens was one of two survivors.

At that point, the Stevens’ five children were adults. Two years later, he remarried, and soon had a daughter, Lily, who recently graduated from college.

In the 1980s, Stevens and his new wife, the former Catherine Bittner, suffered a serious financial reversal.

Along with her younger brother, William Bittner, and other partners, Stevens invested in the construction of a $2-million crab boat, records show. Before it was finished, costs soared and the crab market crashed, plunging Stevens into debt.

The unexpected inheritance of a 54-foot yacht helped Stevens to regain his financial footing. Records show the boat was a bequest from the late Charles Willis “Bill” Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a longtime friend of Stevens’. Stevens sold the boat for about $400,000, according to a source involved in the transaction who did not want to be named.

Stevens’ financial problems underscored the disparity between his personal situation and that of his wealthy Senate colleagues.

In a news interview in the late 1980s, he lashed out at Alaska voters for failing to appreciate the personal and financial sacrifices he had made for them.

A $50,000 Investment

In 1997, Stevens began making up for lost time.

“Money was never what Ted Stevens was about,” one close associate said of Stevens’ sudden focus on accumulating wealth. The associate attributed it to Stevens’ age — he turned 80 last month — and to concern about his family.

Whatever the reasons for the change, sometime in 1997 — acting at the senator’s request — brother-in-law Bittner contacted a friend, Anchorage real estate developer Jonathan B. Rubini, about investment opportunities for the senator, Rubini said.

At the time, Stevens was making about $130,000 a year as a senator, and his wife reported annual earnings of about $100,000.

Rubini said he would be honored to help, the developer recalled recently during extensive interviews in his Anchorage office.

A lawyer and a Democrat known for representing liberal clients, Rubini had a gift for engineering complex deals.

Rubini and his partner, Leonard B. Hyde, made it a practice to form a separate syndicate of investors for each project. Bittner had often been among those participants. Rubini arranged for Stevens to put up $50,000, giving him a 7.7% interest in a new syndicate called JLS Properties.

Rubini, Hyde and another partner who came in on the deal were required to personally guarantee, if necessary, debts the partnership took on. They also agreed to contribute more capital if needed.

Stevens was not asked to guarantee notes or promise more money because he was brought in as a passive investor, Rubini said. The senator said he asked for that status because it shielded him from the kind of open-ended financial obligation that had caused his “bad experience” in the crab boat venture.

The deal began in characteristic Rubini fashion, with the purchase of an $11-million collection of what he called “ragtag” properties, whose out-of-state owners wanted to unload. Rubini quickly resold several of the properties to pay down debt.

Among the properties retained were a small office park near the Anchorage airport and a modest two-story office building downtown. Within three years, Rubini said, Stevens’ equity climbed to about $250,000.

Stevens also invested $50,000 in a separate Rubini syndicate to acquire an apartment complex in Fairbanks in 1999, records show. Stevens’ equity in that property has grown too, Rubini said.

A Federal Contract

Stevens was soon in a position to do a favor for Rubini.

When Elmendorf Air Force Base, immediately north of Anchorage, was selected to participate in a new Pentagon program to privatize base housing, Rubini and another set of partners bid on the $450-million contract in 2000.

The chosen developer would take title to the existing housing, upgrade and expand it, then rent the houses back to service families. At 828 units, the Elmendorf contract was far larger than anything Rubini had built before — “a big reach for us,” as he put it.

Yet with low-interest government construction loans and the Air Force pledging to pay tenants’ housing allowances directly to the contractor for the next 50 years, it looked like a moneymaker.

Bittner became an investor in the Elmendorf group that Rubini put together, records show. Stevens did not, and he said Monday that he had been unaware of Bittner’s involvement.

The senator said he “strongly supported” privatization because it improved housing for military families and “it would greatly enhance the likelihood that Elmendorf would not be closed in the next round of base closures.”

When Rubini sought more time to prepare his bid, Air Force officials noted in their records, he sent the senator a copy of the request.

“I purposely CC’d Sen. Stevens to send a signal to the Air Force that we would raise the issue with the Alaska delegation if the Air Force acted unreasonably,” Rubini said.

Although it was less than he wanted, Rubini was given a two-week extension.

With only the final paperwork to wrap up, Rubini was told he’d won.

Then, in September 2000, days before the deal was to become final, the Air Force reneged. One government memo said the Air Force thought Rubini’s group “lacked capacity and adequate financing” — claims Rubini strenuously rejects.

Rubini, whose group had already spent $1 million on preparation work, fought back. He filed a formal protest and also wrote to Stevens, explaining the problem and requesting help. Then he flew to Washington. First, he tried to talk to Air Force officials, who refused to see him. Next, he visited Stevens on Capitol Hill.

The meeting went so well that Stevens invited Rubini home, where they watched one of the presidential candidate debates between Al Gore and George W. Bush, Rubini said.

Military Offensive

Stevens said he decided to get involved with the Elmendorf project.

“My involvement with the Elmendorf project was motivated to ensure that the Air Force moved forward,” he said in his written response.

In addition, he said, he was “looking out for an Alaskan company that was getting short shrift from the Department of Defense.”

Stevens did not answer questions about the specific actions he took. He was quoted in an August Anchorage Daily News article as saying he called Air Force generals. The article reported on his relationship with Rubini.

Whatever he did, the Air Force began to feel some heat.

As chairman of Appropriations, Stevens is an ex officio member of its Military Construction Subcommittee. The chairman of that subcommittee, Conrad R. Burns (R-Mont.), is one of Stevens’ fishing buddies.

In October 2000, Burns wrote to the secretary of the Air Force, F. Whitten Peters, threatening to take away the Elmendorf privatization money because of the glitch in awarding the contract.

Burns arranged for a similar letter to go to the Air Force from the chairman of the corresponding House committee, and House aides said they knew Stevens was interested in the matter.

Burns did not respond to calls or written questions about his actions.

Meanwhile, Rubini tried one more move: joining forces with the only other Elmendorf bidder — Hunt Building Corp. of El Paso. Hunt was an established builder of military housing, though the government had forced the company to pay $8 million in compensation for construction problems on an earlier project.

In early December 2000, the Air Force put aside its reservations and decided Rubini and his new partner were acceptable.

Rubini said he did not know specifically what Stevens did on the Elmendorf project. Whatever it was, “Sen. Stevens would have stepped up to assist any Alaska business,” he said.

Air Force officials say they are happy with the work Rubini’s firm has done at Elmendorf, and recently announced the Rubini group would get to do a second round of housing upgrades without further competition — this phase 50% larger than the first.

Inside Track

Stevens’ efforts to help Rubini with Elmendorf came just as Rubini was making a decision that transformed Stevens from a modestly successful investor into a millionaire.

In October 2000, while Rubini was enlisting the senator’s help with the Air Force, the developer acquired 30 acres in midtown Anchorage that he planned to cover with gleaming office towers.

Like Elmendorf, this deal was a big step up for Rubini — larger both in size and potential profits than his earlier ventures.

And Rubini chose to make Stevens and JLS Properties part of it. He said JLS had accrued equity in the properties it already owned and thus could help with the new financing.

Rubini could have financed the new development in many ways. He could have used the financial resources of almost any of his numerous successful holdings. Or, as he frequently did in such cases, he could have attracted an entirely new set of investors.

Why did he choose to use JLS to help with financing instead of one of the other options? It was just a decision he made, Rubini said.

Once again, the senator did not have to agree to guarantee the new venture’s debts, as the other JLS partners were required to do.

The first new building to be constructed, called Centerpoint I, is a striking $35-million edifice with commanding views of snow-capped mountains. The remainder of the 30-acre parcel is being developed as Centerpoint II. Stevens is part of that project too.

Stevens has reported that his investments in JLS, Centerpoint I and Centerpoint II, all stemming from his initial $50,000 investment, are now worth between $750,000 and $1.5 million.

Rubini said there was no connection between Stevens’ intervention on Elmendorf and Rubini’s decision to move the senator into the Centerpoint deals.

“Clearly, a phone call from Sen. Stevens does not hurt,” Rubini said, referring to the senator’s contacts with the Air Force on his behalf.

“But there was no quid pro quo, plain and simple,” he said.

Lifetime Annuity

Today, Centerpoint I is fully occupied as the new headquarters of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which is paying $6 million a year on a 20-year lease.

Arctic Slope is no ordinary tenant. A $1-billion-a-year business, it is the largest Alaskan-owned company in the state. More important, the company — along with 12 other regional Native corporations — was created through legislation the senator took the lead in drafting. And it has prospered through his continuing efforts in the Senate.

Arctic Slope and the other Native regional corporations were born in 1971 as part of a landmark bill called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, hailed as a humanitarian alternative to the failures of traditional reservations.

Under the act, about 40 million acres and almost $1 billion in working capital went to Native corporations and to some 200 much smaller village bodies to settle their claims to land. They were to help their shareholders, the Native people living in their regions, by making investments, starting businesses and in other ways generating economic activity.

Many of the Native corporations have found it hard to fulfill their mission, but Arctic Slope, which represents Inupiat Eskimos on the oil-rich North Slope, gradually built a strong base providing support services to the giant oil companies at Prudhoe Bay.

And Stevens is now fighting to authorize oil extraction from the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where Arctic Slope owns petroleum rights to 92,000 acres.

Thanks to Stevens, Arctic Slope and the other Native corporations also enjoy preferences when seeking federal contracts that go well beyond anything available to blacks or Latinos, even though Arctic Slope ranks among the nation’s 500 largest privately owned companies.

One set of preferences that Stevens inserted into his annual defense appropriations bills recently enabled Arctic Slope and another Native corporation to land a $2-billion Pentagon deal without competitive bidding.

Now money is flowing the other way — to Stevens.

A company executive, Conrad Bagne, said Arctic Slope did not find out about Stevens’ ownership in Centerpoint until the company had finalized the deal. He said Stevens’ involvement had no effect on the company’s decision to sign the lease and that there was no impropriety.

“No one is more committed to public service than Sen. Stevens,” Bagne said.

Stevens now has a personal stake in his tenant’s future. At the same time, he continues to aid the company’s bottom line through his position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This year, for example, he pushed through legislation renewing the federal defense contract preferences.

In addition, Stevens has inserted a provision in this year’s pending appropriations bill that directs federal agencies to consult with Arctic Slope and the other Native corporations on equal footing with tribal governments. This gives Arctic Slope, for one, new legal standing when pushing to open the Arctic wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling — a position opposed by at least some tribal leaders.

“I have and will continue to work with all Alaska Native corporations — both individually and collectively — in my official capacity,” said Stevens, noting that he does not deal directly with Arctic Slope on its lease.

An Arctic Slope subsidiary has paid Bittner $120,000 since 2002 to lobby on appropriations and government contracts.

Hidden Interest

Business interests that look to her husband for support have also enriched Catherine Stevens in a series of transactions that went through Chamer Co., the private family investment firm run by Bittner.

Sen. Stevens did not report some of these deals on his financial disclosure reports; others were reported only sketchily — without the details required by law.

One of the transactions was a quick stock deal involving the Alaska Communications Systems Group that earned Catherine Stevens at least $47,000, records show.

The company has benefited from the senator’s influence over communications policy as a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

For example, Stevens pushed through legislation in 1996 that created a subsidy for remote telephone service, and he has fought efforts to dilute Alaska’s sizable share of the subsidy. Alaska Communications considers the subsidy, called the universal service fund, an important revenue source.

Alaska Communications Chairman Charles Robinson said, “The universal service fund is important to every telephone company in Alaska.” He said Stevens had “done a great job in preserving it.”

The senator said his actions had “benefited all Alaskans and all Alaska communications companies.”

Stevens stands to be an even more valuable ally in 2005, when he’s scheduled to take over as Commerce Committee chairman.

Robinson combined the Fairbanks and Anchorage phone companies to create Alaska Communications in 1999, and took it public in the fall of that year.

As is common before companies go public, a select group of insiders was allowed to buy stock at a bargain price, in this instance $6.15 a share, the documents show. In this group were several financiers and others involved in creating the company, including Bittner, who was and is the company’s Washington lobbyist.

Though she was not on record as an officer or financier for the company, Catherine Stevens ended up with some of the bargain shares. Robinson said he knew she had shares but did not remember how she obtained them.

Alaska Communications issued 42,248 shares to Chamer Co., which Catherine Stevens owns with Bittner, their sister and their mother. She purchased 16,250 of those shares and sold them a year later, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ted Stevens did not report the shares on his ethics report for 1999, the year Chamer acquired them.

Ethics rules require disclosure of activity by a family-owned business, in detail and in the same year a transaction occurs.

The deal was not reported until 2000, after Catherine Stevens had sold her shares, most of them at $9.25, for a profit of at least $47,000.

Rubini, the developer of Centerpoint I, said Chamer also had an interest in that project. He said Chamer put up $250,000 for a 3% short-term stake in Centerpoint I that earned a 15% return on investment.

Records show Chamer also invested $125,000 in an earlier Rubini syndicate.

Stevens did not disclose either of these investments on his Senate financial forms.

Although Senate ethics rules encompass his wife’s financial activities as well as his own, Stevens sought to distance himself from Chamer.

“I have no interest in that company, do not participate in its meetings, nor do I participate in any decisions related to its business activities,” he said Monday. His wife did not respond to telephone messages on Tuesday.

Back in Washington

Stevens continues to push for money and other benefits for Alaskan interests — including nearly $400 million in pending legislation to help tourism, education, the environment, scientific research, roads, fisheries and the war against fetal alcohol syndrome.

There’s also $2.5 million to survey the seabed for a fiber-optic cable connecting Kodiak Island, Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula; Alaska Communications Systems serves both Anchorage and Kodiak.

*

Researcher Mark Madden in Washington assisted in this report. Staff writer Judy Pasternak in Washington also contributed.

The ruling follows a 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court that found Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship was illegal.

A United States federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest effort to roll back birthright citizenship, after the Supreme Court ruled that his last attempt violated the Constitution.

District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday against Trump’s new executive order, which was issued on August 6.

The new order took aim at what Trump has called “birth tourism”, the practice of intentionally giving birth on foreign soil.

It sought to deny citizenship to children of foreign nationals in certain groups, including those accused of engaging in a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship or classified as an “alien enemy”.

Boardman, however, said the order was unconstitutional for the same reason Trump’s previous effort failed. She cited the Supreme Court’s June decision in the case Barbara v Trump.

The order “is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth”, she wrote.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”

In the Barbara case, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that birthright citizenship was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Birthright citizenship confers automatic citizenship on anyone born in the US, outside of a handful of narrow exceptions, such as the children of diplomats or invading armies.

The constitutional basis for birthright citizenship has been upheld in several Supreme Court cases over the years, most notably in US v Wong Kim Ark, the case of an American man born to Chinese parents.

But Trump campaigned for a second term as president on the pledge to crack down on immigration into the country.

One of his promises was to reform the concept of birthright citizenship. Trump and his allies have argued that children of temporary or undocumented immigrants do not qualify for the right, as they are not under the “jurisdiction” of the US.

Since the Supreme Court defeat in June, Trump and his allies have continued to probe for ways to challenge the constitutional protections for birthright citizenship.

Wednesday’s legal challenge was brought by immigrant rights advocates and families, including groups like the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.

They had previously won an injunction from Boardman last year, blocking the Trump administration from enforcing his initial executive order about birthright citizenship.

Last week, Boardman instructed the plaintiffs to revise their complaint to specifically address the second executive order, rather than relying on the same material used for the first.

But she signalled scepticism at the time about the constitutionality of Trump’s latest attempt, calling it “unprecedented”.

“The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth’,” she wrote in Wednesday’s decision.

Gov. George Deukmejian named on Monday Ventura County Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Yegan to join the state 2nd District Court of Appeal, fulfilling the judge’s longtime dream of becoming an appeals court justice.

If a judicial review panel confirms Yegan’s nomination to the court’s 6th Division on Dec. 27, he will replace Justice Richard W. Abbe, who retired Nov. 28 after eight years on the three-member court.

“If I get confirmed on the 27th, I’ll take the oath right on the spot and hope to report to work the next day,” said Yegan, 43, of Westlake.

The review panel, composed of Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Lucas, Atty. Gen. John K. Van De Kamp and presiding 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Lester Roth, is scheduled to meet next week in Los Angeles to discuss Yegan’s qualifications.

If confirmed, he will consider appeals cases from Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties with Justices Steven J. Stone and Arthur Gilbert, who have served on the 6th Division bench since it was established in 1982.

“Without even thinking about it, I’m really ecstatic about the appointment,” said Gilbert, who has reviewed Yegan’s Superior Court opinions on appeal and worked with him when Yegan served as a temporary appeals justice in the summer of 1986.

“I think he’s as good as you can get. He’s just first-rate,” Gilbert said. “He supports his point of view with well-reasoned statements of decision on the Superior Court, and he did the same thing when he was here.”

Stone said Yegan has a reputation for being able to handle all levels of appeals work, from doing legal research to writing the final draft of opinions.

“I have a lot of respect for Ken and I think that he will work very well with us,” Stone said. “I’m looking forward to it.”

Yegan said that Deukmejian called him Friday to offer him the seat. He said the governor swore him to secrecy until Monday, but gave him permission to tell his family.

“My wife was home with my oldest daughter and she was screaming, and my daughter was screaming,” Yegan said. “After they calmed down a little bit she asked me if I could pick up my youngest daughter from ballet and asked if I could go to the store and pick up some things. . . .and that’s when I knew things hadn’t changed.”

The focus of Judge Yegan’s work has not changed much from his first days in law. He said he has been fascinated by appeals work ever since law school.

“I took all the courses I could in law school in appellate practice,” Yegan said. “It’s intellectually challenging and it’s very stimulating to figure out where the facts meet the law and. . . .which is the better-reasoned opinion.”

Yegan graduated in 1972 from the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and began work as a deputy in the Ventura County public defender’s office, handling trials and appellate cases.

Beginning in 1975 he worked as a senior attorney in the appeals court’s 5th Division in Los Angeles, researching cases and helping justices write opinions. In January, 1983, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. appointed him to the Ventura County Municipal Court.

Deukmejian elevated him to the Superior Court in July 1986, where he tried criminal, civil and cases appealed from Municipal Court.

In recent months, Yegan said, letters urging his nomination have flowed into the governor’s office from County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, Sheriff John V. Gillespie, three Supreme Court justices and a variety of appeals court justices, trial court judges and lawyers.

Abbe said of Yegan’s appointment: “His work when he was. . . .here was excellent. He was knowledgeable, he was able to evaluate cases quickly and accurately and make sensible decisions.”

DES MOINES — A feud began brewing Saturday between the presidential campaigns of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) after published accounts that Biden had used part of a speech by a prominent British politician without giving him credit.

Biden acknowledged using the Briton’s lines without attribution. He said it had occurred only once, that he had been pressed for time and that “if I’d have thought, I would have attributed it to him.” But Biden said he had done no wrong, was not sorry–and had not even made a mistake.

Nevertheless, Biden said he would not do it again.

Sources in Biden’s campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they suspected Gephardt’s organization of pointing out to reporters that Biden had used lines virtually verbatim from a British television commercial containing excerpts from a speech by Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Joseph Trippi, Gephardt’s deputy national campaign manager, said: “It wasn’t us.”

Still, the incident served to further sour relations between the Biden and Gephardt campaigns.

“It is entirely possible,” said Eric Woolson, Biden’s press secretary in Iowa, “that this will only add to whatever less-than-great feelings that exist between the two campaigns right now. It is obvious from our standpoint that one of the other campaigns feels like Joe Biden is gaining on them.”

If Biden’s opponents and media commentators seize on this episode as a case of plagiarism, it would pose a threat to Biden’s candidacy because it would raise the issue of character, the same issue that drove then-front-runner Gary Hart from the Democratic presidential race last May.

The disclosure of Hart’s rendezvous with model Donna Rice focused attention on what his critics regarded as a character defect–womanizing. If the Biden episode is viewed as plagiarism, it would tend to support allegations that his personality is flawed by a lack of verbal discipline.

In his eagerness to get attention for his candidacy, Biden’s critics contend, he indulges in wisecracks, hyperbole and a lack of candor.

For example, as recently as Friday, at a forum for candidates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Biden, along with the other Democratic candidates present, opposed tuition tax credits. Biden said he had never voted for them.

However, according to a legislative report card issued by the National Education Assn., Biden voted in 1978 against an amendment that would have deleted tuition tax credits.

Didn’t Recall Vote

After the forum, Biden said he did not remember such a vote.

The dispute Saturday over Biden’s use of part of the Kinnock TV commercial came after newspapers, including the Des Moines Register and the New York Times, published stories pointing out that Biden had taken lines from Kinnock for his closing statement in a debate at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 23.

The British Labor Party broadcast the Kinnock commercial during its campaign last May against Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Tories. Despite Labor’s loss, the commercial, put together by the director of the movie “Chariots of Fire” and using music written by the composer of the “Chariots of Fire” theme, was credited with boosting Kinnock, the party’s leader, by nearly 20% in the polls.

Videotapes of the commercial, considered a media classic, were given to Biden and a number of other candidates and journalists by William Schneider, political consultant for the Los Angeles Times, who was in London to write about the British election.

Biden ‘Truly Moved’

In a telephone interview with The Times, Biden said the commercial “truly moved me.”

He cited Kinnock’s eloquence with the music as background. Speaking to an audience in his native Wales, the British political leader asked: “Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?” Pointing to his wife, he went on: “Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?”

Then, referring to Welsh coal miners among his ancestors, he asked why they had not prospered. “Did they lack talent? Those people who could sing and play and recite and write poetry? Those people who could make wonderful, beautiful things with their hands? Those people who could dream dreams, see visions? Why didn’t they get it? Was it because they were weak? Those people who could work eight hours underground and then come up and play football? Weak?

“Does anybody really think that they didn’t get what we had because they didn’t have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.”

A Democratic Platform

Those lines, Biden said, “remind me of what the Democratic Party stands for–that we give people a platform, a place to stand.”

In his closing statement at the Iowa State Fair debate, Biden began:

“I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?”

Indicating his wife, he added: “Why is it that my wife, who is sitting out there in the audience, is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I’m the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?”

Then, referring to his Irish kin, he said: “Those same people who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me how to sing verse? Is it because they didn’t work hard? My ancestors, who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? No, it’s not because they weren’t as smart. It’s not because they didn’t work as hard. It’s because they didn’t have a platform upon which to stand.”

In his interview with The Times, Biden conceded that he had not given Kinnock credit for the lines during his appearance at the fair.

“It was a two-minute closing,” Biden said. “There wasn’t a single thing wrong with what I did. The only thing that made it happen was time–the absolute two minutes. . . . If I’d have thought, I would have attributed it to him.”

Biden said the parallels between himself and Kinnock are true.

“So what if I didn’t attribute it to Kinnock? I can’t quite understand this. If I was making up who I was, then that’s one thing,” he said. “I’m quite frankly confused by the whole thing. Even if I didn’t (cite Kinnock), I do not understand what the big deal is. I guess I’m beginning to understand.”

In retrospect, Biden said, he would rather that he had credited Kinnock.

He agreed it would have been better to do so. Biden said he would go on using Kinnock’s lines–and to give him credit each time. “At a minimum I’m going say, ‘To paraphrase Neil Kinnock. . . .’

‘It Wasn’t Wrong’

“Am I sorry? No. Why would I be? First, it wasn’t wrong, secondly it wasn’t a mistake. And thirdly, it’s much to do about nothing.”

Biden called the dispute “a cheap shot.”

He said he had used Kinnock’s lines before his Iowa State Fair appearance and has used them in his speeches since–each time with full credit. At the state fair, Biden said, was the only time he had not cited his source.

Biden staffers produced an audio tape of Biden’s crediting Kinnock in Okoboji, Iowa, on Aug. 29. On the slightly garbled tape, Biden can be heard to say: “There was an advertisement in the last election (in Britain) and I was sent a copy of it. This advertisement for Neil Kinnock, the Labor Party candidate, expressed for me the best way to quickly say” what it is like to be a Democrat.

“And I apply it to myself,” Biden says on the tape.

Credit on Videotape

The Biden staffers also planned to produce a videotape of his appearance in Sioux City, Iowa, on Aug. 14, during a reception at the Siouxland Senior Center, where he spoke before a crowd of about 300. The Sooland Cable station filmed his address, in which he also is said to have credited Kinnock.

The Boston Globe on Aug. 30 said Biden acknowledged Kinnock when he used his lines in an address in New Hampshire. “Biden premiered his new theme, with credits to Neil Kinnock, the Labor Party leader,” the Globe story says.

Biden counts using Kinnock’s lines–with credit–about 20 times.

Although the Iowa fair appearance was a much larger gathering–nationally televised by C-SPAN, a cable network, and attended by numerous national reporters–Biden estimated that 20% of those in attendance had already heard him give Kinnock credit just a week earlier at a large Democratic Party event, called the Iowa Corn Boil.

In its story about Biden’s fair appearance, the Des Moines Register said it had been given a videotape by “an aide to one of Biden’s opponents, who spoke on the condition that he would not be named.” The Register called it “a novel use of video technology, to try to discredit a candidate.”

Staff writer Robert Shogan contributed to this story.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — A judge who vacated the conviction of former U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in 2023 lacked the jurisdiction to do so, a federal appeals court ruled.

The case of Bergdahl, who walked off an Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was captured by the Taliban, has stretched for years. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday reinstates Bergdahl’s dishonorable discharge from the military and other punishment.

“Obviously, we are disappointed by the outcome,” said Eugene R. Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, The New York Times reported. “This entire controversy has lasted a very long time. But it continues to be an important case, not only for Sergeant Bergdahl but for the integrity of the military justice system.”

Fidell said Bergdahl can request a rehearing before the same panel or seek a review by the entire appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the ruling Tuesday, the judges said the case “presents nuanced questions regarding jurisdiction and the evolving relationship between [federal district] courts and military courts.”

“Jurisdiction here turns on whether the remedy sought falls within a district court’s power to grant,” the ruling said. “Because Article III district courts lack jurisdiction on collateral review to vacate court-martial judgments, the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Bergdahl’s claims. Therefore, we remand the case to the District Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”

In July 2023, federal district court Judge Reggie Walton vacated all judgments against Bergdahl after Oct. 16, 2017.

That is the date Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for his actions in Afghanistan — and the date the military judge in that court martial, Jeffery Nance, applied to become an immigration judge during President Donald Trump‘s first term, Walton’s ruling said. The Justice Department later hired Nance.

During his first presidential campaign, Trump called Bergdahl “a dirty, rotten traitor” and called for him to be executed or returned to the Taliban.

Nance refused a defense request to dismiss the case against Bergdahl because of those remarks, saying he was “completely unaffected” by them and that Bergdahl would still have a fair sentencing hearing. That hearing took place at the end of October 2023.

Walton, in his 2023 ruling, said that based on Nance’s application as an immigration court judge, any reasonable person could conclude that Nance’s impartiality was jeopardized.

An Army investigation found in 2015 that Bergdahl intended to hike to another Army post and report issues in his unit when he left his base in Afghanistan in 2009. He was captured not long after leaving and held and tortured by the Taliban over five years. In 2014, President Barack Obama secured Bergdahl’s release in a prison exchange.

WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday to censure Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) following a House Ethics Committee investigation that concluded he engaged in persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct toward two young female staffers in his office.

A censure registers the House’s deep disapproval of a lawmaker’s conduct that does not meet the threshold for expulsion from office.

The 413-2 vote was just the latest instance of the House grappling with revelations about lawmakers’ behavior toward female staffers, a trend that prompted House leaders to launch a bipartisan review this year focused on making Capitol Hill a safer job environment for women.

Rep. Michael Guest, the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, said the Edwards case did not involve what he called “quid pro quo sexual harassment,” but rather conduct and behavior that created a hostile work environment.

“While Representative Edwards denies that his conduct was intended to be sexual or romantic, his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable person to interpret it as such,” Guest said.

Guest said that behavior included providing the aides with lavish gifts, making comments about their appearance and dress, sending notes regarding his affection and inviting them to intimate dinners and vacations. He also said Edwards was aware that the women were uncomfortable with his behavior.

Edwards apologized to the two women, who are no longer on his staff, for actions that put them in an uncomfortable position. He said his intentions were “only grounded in what I understood our friendship to be” and said he admired them. He also apologized to his wife and family, saying they carried a burden they did not create or deserve.

But he also forcefully rejected the committee’s most damaging conclusions and the recommendation that he be censured. He emphasized that the investigative report itself concluded there was no evidence he engaged in sexual activity or explicitly propositioned any staff member.

“I am imperfect. I have made mistakes, but I do not believe I committed sexual harassment,” Edwards said on the House floor. “The factual findings of this investigation do not justify branding me as though I did.”

Edwards was one of the two lawmakers who voted against the resolution. The other was Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.).

Edwards told reporters after the vote that he had expected the result would not go his way. House Speaker Mike Johnson sat with Edwards for a few minutes before the vote and told him how he thought it would go.

“It would not have been politically expedient for anyone to vote against a resolution accusing someone of sexual harassment,” Edwards said.

Edwards stood in the well of the House as the censure resolution was read. When he left the chamber, he remained highly critical of the Ethics Committee’s findings and at one point said the investigation was “very much akin to a Russian show trial.”

Edwards becomes the 29th member in the history of the House to be censured. He was asked about that distinction after the vote and said he lived a terrific life before he got into politics.

“I look forward to getting my life back,” Edwards said.

Edwards is serving his second term in Congress representing a district in western North Carolina. He chose not to seek reelection after the committee issued its report.

Edwards is the latest in a line of ethics cases this Congress

Earlier this year, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales faced calls for their expulsion before they stepped down.

And last month, the Ethics Committee announced it was reviewing allegations that Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) may have engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer. He said he would cooperate with the investigation but his actions were consensual in nature and didn’t violate the law or House Ethics rules. He also apologized to his family and constituents.

House members are prohibited from engaging in sexual harassment or making unwanted advances toward their subordinates. The Ethics Committee said that despite the absence of an explicit proposition, a reasonable person could interpret Edwards’ “intimate and effusive attentions, where he prioritized the personal over the professional, as thinly veiled advances.”

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, the committee’s ranking Democratic member, said the investigation spanned more than four months and included interviews of 16 people and a review of nearly 1,500 pages of documents.

He said Edwards provided the two women with jewelry, designer purses, shoes and flowers and commented on their appearance. He also sent deeply personal letters and even skipped a vote series to decorate a Christmas tree at the home of one of the staffers.

“These are not innocuous, isolated instances,” DeSaulnier said. “They are part of a sustained, unprofessional and inappropriate conduct by Representative Edwards toward two young women he employed.”

Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.) said Edwards’ behavior was “outlandish and disturbing.”

“If we don’t take action today, there is no opportunity for these women to receive justice,” Leger Fernandez said.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Senator Thom Tillis accuses Pentagon chief of ‘inept mismanagement’ as US military is strained by war on Iran.

United States Senator Thom Tillis has called on President Donald Trump to fire Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth for creating a “leadership void” within the military amid the ongoing war with Iran.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Tillis contrasted Hegseth unfavourably with former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who submitted his resignation on Monday amid reported disagreements with the Pentagon chief.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force,” the North Carolina senator wrote.

“I urge the President to find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent rather than diminish it.”

Tillis is a member of Trump’s Republican Party. But in recent years, he has become an increasingly vocal critic from within the party over policies he fears harm democracy.

In June 2025, amid criticism from Trump, Tillis announced he would not be seeking re-election in November’s congressional midterm polls. His term ends in January.

Early in Trump’s second term as president, Tillis was among the senators who voted to confirm Hegseth, a military veteran and former TV host, despite criticisms of his conduct towards women and his past work.

Tillis only confirmed his vote in favour of Hegseth at the last minute, appearing to share some of the concerns being debated in the Senate.

Since taking office as defence secretary, Hegseth has pursued controversial changes to the Pentagon, including attempts to limit journalistic access to the Defence Department.

He has also undertaken a wide-ranging effort to root out what he calls “wokeness” from the military.

That effort has reportedly included firing top military leaders, blocking promotions, removing transgender service members and reviewing admissions standards for top military academies.

In Wednesday’s post, Tillis pointed to some of those efforts, questioning why Hegseth appeared fixated on culture war issues rather than modernising the military.

He pointed to evolving forms of warfare in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and in the US-Israeli war against Iran.

“Our understanding and assumptions of warfare are being challenged in places like Ukraine and Iran, and Dan [Driscoll] understands the old way of doing business no longer applies,” said Tillis.

The senator then proceeded to imply that Driscoll’s departure was a direct result of Hegseth’s mismanagement.

“If we had a Secretary of Defense who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement. Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks,” Tillis added.

Hegseth has faced growing scrutiny in recent months as the US struggles to achieve its goals in the war on Iran, launched on February 28. The war hit its six-month mark last week with no end in sight.

Media reports indicate that the war has left the Pentagon struggling with shrinking munitions stockpiles that could hinder the US military in future actions.

The war has also taken a toll on the popularity of the Trump administration, which has seen approval numbers sink ahead of the November congressional election.

Since the war began, fuel prices have skyrocketed, and the conflict has spread across the Middle East.

More than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling of the war, according to a University of Massachusetts poll released on August 31.

BOSTON — Climate change has been the backdrop to Charles Hughes’ entire life, from kindergarten lessons about disappearing habitats to wildfire smoke billowing through the air he breathed while growing up in Colorado. But now that he’s a college student in Massachusetts, he said global warming is rarely a top issue.

“Honestly, it doesn’t come up as much,” said Hughes, who chairs the state’s chapter of the College Democrats.

What a difference six years makes.

During President Trump’s first term and especially during the Democratic primaries to determine who would run against him in 2020, Democrats spoke constantly about climate change. They used it to rally young voters such as Hughes, fueling protests and sweeping demands to remake the economy with proposals like the Green New Deal.

But there has been a national shift in the conversation that is sharp enough for some researchers to coin the term “climate hushing” to describe it. The Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank, urged the party to stop mentioning climate change because it is not a priority for voters. The Sunrise Movement, a left-wing group that pushed global warming as a top issue for young people, switched its mission last fall to a broader mandate of fighting the Republican president.

The shift was encapsulated by the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts on Tuesday as the incumbent, Ed Markey, 80, fended off a challenge from U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, 47. Markey still talked about sponsoring the Green New Deal, but focused more on other issues to burnish his left-wing bona fides and prove to voters that he is not too old for the job.

It was the latest example of how climate change has been eclipsed by issues such as affordability, U.S. support for Israel and, above all, how to confront Trump.

“Six years ago, Green New Deal was every phrase out of Ed Markey’s mouth every chance he got,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a veteran Democratic strategist in Massachusetts. That wasn’t the case this cycle. “It’s about who’s best to fight. Period, full stop. Everything falls under that.”

‘People are increasingly freaked out about other issues’

Even if the political discussion on climate change has quieted, the planet has not. Scientists say there is an increasing chance that by the end of the year, 2026 could be the hottest year on record, or at least come close. A strengthening El Nino is forecast to be off the charts, spiking global temperatures.

Some advocates expect the issue to return to center stage if Democrats retake the U.S. House in November and climate-sparked disasters dominate the winter.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a prominent Democratic voice on climate change, said in an interview that ignoring the issue is a major strategic “blunder.”

“Climate change has moved from the science department into the economics department,” he said. “It’s now battering people’s home insurance, property values, pocketbook concerns. So I think it’s a very powerful argument.”

Trump has falsely claimed climate change is “a hoax,” and his administration has undone policies one by one that would make it less damaging in the future.

The Sunrise Movement, founded in 2017 to mobilize young voters over climate issues, announced in October that it was shifting to a broader fight against “fascism.” The group’s executive director, Aru Shiney-Ajay, said that was a prescient move because of reports that federal agents infiltrated protest meetings during Trump’s immigration raids in Minneapolis.

“We just live in a significantly more authoritarian country. Because of that, a lot of the Democratic primaries are about more existential questions,” Shiney-Ajay, whose network generally backs left-wing Democrats, said in an interview. “It has felt less like people care less about climate and more like people are increasingly freaked out about other issues.”

About 6 in 10 Democrats say climate change is “a very big problem” for the country, according to a Pew Research Center poll from April. That is roughly the same as in 2016. Still, climate has often taken a back seat to other issues in Democratic voters’ priorities, such as inflation, healthcare affordability and the role of money in politics.

Affordability concerns have dominated the political debate this year.

McKenzie Wilson of Blue Rose Research, a Democratic data firm, said voters have called for sweeping changes in response to economic discontent, demonstrating a level of anger not seen in years.

“In that kind of environment it’s hard to think about long-term, existential problems,” Wilson said. “If we don’t talk and focus our attention on the number one thing the electorate wants to talk about, as we saw in 2024, we’re not going to be connecting with the electorate.”

‘Don’t say climate change’

That view was summed up by the Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank that last year released a provocative suggestion: “The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change.”

It contended that voters saw it as such an intimidating, complex issue that Democrats were more likely to win by focusing on other subjects — thus enabling them to regain power and tackle the crisis that they were not talking about.

Leah Stokes, a political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara and author of “The Carbon Wave,” a book about Democratic President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, said it was “galling” when politicians made the issue less of a priority.

“The climate crisis is accelerating and we can’t really not talk about it for like a decade, because the planet will be even more on fire if we do that,” she said.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, agreed with those concerns.

“What happens over the course of the next decade will profoundly shape the habitability of the planet for literally thousands of years to come,” he said.

Some are making climate an affordability issue

Climate has come up as part of the national backlash to data centers, but it is only one part of the conversation about the projects’ impact. Many climate advocates are adjusting how they talk about the issue, stressing how green energy can lower prices and ease insurance costs.

“What we’re seeing right now is, whether you’re advocating for healthcare reform or climate action or some niche tech issue, everything is filtered through some cost frame,” said Jared Leopold, a veteran Democratic strategist who has long focused on climate change.

That is how the Green New Deal came up at a recent debate between Markey and Moulton, when a voter asked how each candidate would reduce energy prices. Notably, the questioner asked about increasing nuclear or gas generation, not clean energy, to deal with cost. Markey turned the opportunity into a slam against the president.

“There was a plan in place in order to have a strong, clean affordable energy future for our commonwealth,” Markey said, “and Trump attacked it.”

Tatishe Nteta, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said that is how Markey has used climate change this election — to signal his willingness to fight Trump as well as his alliance with the left flank of the Democratic Party, which has run up a series of primary wins this year. But other issues have become even more useful in doing that.

“The definition in where you’re at in terms of a progressive candidate and a progressive elected official is your viewpoint on Israel,” Nteta said. “You’re not hearing this in most races, that I’m the candidate who’s going to protect and save our planet.”

Massachusetts’ summer has been the hottest that Eileen Cefail can recall in the 30 years she has worked in the Roofers Local 33 office. “The roofers are tough as nails, and they work so hard, and their work is so grueling,” she said. “This heat has been horrendous for them.”

Cefail is backing Markey in the primary, but climate, she said, was not the main reason.

“He’s always been a union guy,” Cefail said. “He’s just for the labor.”

Riccardi, McDermott and Willingham write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver and McDermott from Providence, R.I. Associated Press writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump’s face has officially found its way onto the country’s currency.

On Tuesday at 12pm Eastern Time (16:00 GMT), the US Mint began circulating – and selling – a “once-in-a-generation” $1 coin bearing Trump’s likeness to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The gold-coloured coins feature Trump’s portrait on one side, alongside inscriptions of “LIBERTY” and “IN GOD WE TRUST”. On the reverse is an illustration of the US presidential seal with “250” inscribed on its shield.

The US Mint says the coins “capture the spirit, pride, and legacy of a nation approaching its landmark anniversary”.

It’s the first time in nearly 100 years that a living person has been featured on US currency, drawing a heavy dose of criticism, since such honours are largely reserved for long-dead dignitaries.

How did this $1 coin come to be? Here’s what you need to know:

Why is this being done?

Since Trump returned to the White House last year, the administration has taken steps to put his name or image on an array of buildings and items, including the Kennedy Center, the US Institute of Peace, National Parks passes, a limited-edition passport and a $1m “gold card” visa that was announced last year.

The Trump administration has tied some of those efforts to celebrations of the country’s semiquincentennial, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

On July 15, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent first announced the coin in a post on social media. Bessent said the coin “celebrates the strength of American values, and the promise of a nation dedicated to preserving freedom for all”.

The Trump administration has also pointed to another anniversary coin as a precedent for the Trump-branded $1 piece.

In 1926, for the 150th anniversary of the country, the US Mint struck a coin featuring side-by-side portraits of George Washington and Calvin Coolidge, a president who was in office at the time.

But critics have pointed out that the 1926 coin was commemorative and not intended for circulation as currency.

Are there other proposals for Trump-themed currency?

In May, Bessent also said preparations were under way to print a new $250 banknote featuring Trump’s face.

Bessent added that the Trump administration was seeking congressional approval for the new bill.

How much are the new coins?

Despite the coin being valued at $1, consumers can purchase a 25-coin roll for $61 or a 100-coin bag for $154.50 — a significant mark-up.

While the coins are being sold at a premium, the US Mint emphasises they are not solely decorative.

They are valid currency and can be used to make everyday purchases, just like a $1 bill.

Is it legal?

US federal law states: “Only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities.”

Congress passed that law in 1866 after a Department of the Treasury official, Spencer M Clark, put his own face on a note valued at five cents, angering lawmakers.

However, during his first term, Trump signed legislation known as the Circulating Collection Coin Redesign Act of 2020 (CCRA), which gave the Treasury the authority to mint $1 coins “with designs emblematic of the United States semiquincentennial”.

That law prohibits the portrait of “any person, living or dead” on the reverse side of those coins. However, Trump’s image on the new $1 coin appears on the obverse — the front of the coin — meaning it likely complies with the law.

What opposition does this face?

Late last year, Democratic Senators Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced legislation that would block Trump from placing his face on the coin.

“While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king,” Cortez Masto said. “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living Presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.” Their bill did not become law.

The Treasury Department and US Mint did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey secured the Democratic nomination in Massachusetts’ Senate primary Tuesday, once again fending off a push for generational change as he seeks a third term.

Markey, 80, defeated U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, 47, who had attempted to argue that it was time to do away with the “status quo” in his pursuit to oust the octogenarian.

Yet Markey successfully pointed to Moulton’s more moderate positions to argue that it was Moulton — not the older incumbent — who was out of touch with the state’s voters. Perhaps no other issue defined the race more than transgender rights, and Markey repeatedly hit Moulton for previously saying he would not want his daughters to play against transgender athletes.

“Massachusetts needs a senator who stands up and fights back, a senator who never forgets who they are fighting for,” Markey said during his victory speech. “That has been the mission of my life, and it always will be.”

In heavily Democratic Massachusetts, the primary is considered the most critical election hurdle, where Democratic winners are expected to prevail in the general election in November. Markey will face Republican John Deaton, who lost to Sen. Elizabeth Warren by about 20 points in 2024 and was unopposed in his primary Tuesday.

Markey has been a fixture in Massachusetts politics since the 1970s, prompting Moulton to make his “status quo” arguments on the campaign trail and to question Markey’s accomplishments during his lengthy time in office.

“Generational change isn’t about compromising, to do the small things better,” Markey said Tuesday. “It’s about fighting to do the big things best.”

In a concession speech, Moulton said he would now support Markey.

“Challenging the establishment and calling for a new generation of leadership isn’t easy. But it is necessary,” Moulton told supporters. “We started conversations that needed to happen.”

“We didn’t achieve our goal tonight, but I am confident others will be inspired to buck the system when they’re told to wait their turn,” he added.

The Senate race was not the only generational challenge for Democrats on the ballot. Similar dynamics played out in several congressional races, but ultimately, the older incumbents won Tuesday. In the 8th Congressional District, longtime incumbent Rep. Stephen Lynch defeated Patrick Roath. And in the 1st Congressional District of western Massachusetts, Rep. Richard Neal defeated public school teacher Jeromie Whalen to advance to the general election.

During the campaign Markey repeatedly pointed out that Moulton, in 2024, raised eyebrows among some in the party for saying he did not want his daughters playing sports against transgender girls.

Critics said he was echoing President Trump’s talking points against allowing transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports.

Moulton later apologized for his remarks, saying it was not his intention to hurt the transgender community and stressing his support for other transgender rights bills.

“If you’re in the trans community or you’re a trans kid feeling the weight of the Trump administration and the Supreme Court, you matter,” Moulton said during an August debate. “You’re valued, and I will always have your back.”

Moulton, who enlisted in the Marines after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and served four tours of duty in Iraq, was first elected to Massachusetts’ 6th Congressional District in 2014. He launched a 2020 presidential campaign but dropped it after a few months.

Markey was elected to the Senate in 2013. Before that he represented Massachusetts’ 7th Congressional District from 1976 to 2013.

Markey notably fended off a challenge in 2020 from Rep. Joe Kennedy III, a younger rival from one of the nation’s most famous political families. Markey did so by aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Antoine Hilaire, a 76-year-old Democrat who voted for Markey in Brockton on Tuesday, said being older can be a positive because it offers people experience and wisdom.

“If the older one is doing the better job, I don’t know,” he said. “He’s doing a good job. It’s not a big, big, big problem.”

Longtime Democratic House incumbents also defeated younger challengers

Lynch, 71, has held the 8th District seat in south Boston since 2001. He won Tuesday’s primary against Roath, a 39-year-old lawyer who contended that it is time to end “wait-your-turn” politics. Lynch stressed the value of experience inside Congress.

Lynch has fended off other youth challenges in the past, but Roath’s campaign hoped for a boost of excitement after longtime Democratic incumbent U.S. Rep. John Larson was defeated by former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in August in neighboring Connecticut. Like Roath, Bronin called for the need for generational change while running against an establishment politician.

In the 1st District Democratic primary in western Massachusetts, Neal, 77, bested Whalen, 39.

Neal, known as the dean of the New England House delegation, was first elected in 1988. Whalen ran to the left of Neal, calling for Medicare for All and questioning whether Neal has done enough to oppose Trump’s agenda.

Whalen was endorsed by Our Revolution, a progressive organization founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Leah Willingham in Brockton contributed to this report.

Sept. 2 (UPI) — Patagonia, an outdoor apparel company, announced Wednesday it sued the Trump administration for cuts dramatically shrinking the size of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.

This is the second time Patagonia has sued the administration, the company said. In 2017, during Trump’s first term, it became the first company to sue a sitting president over public land after the president issued orders shrinking Bears Ears by 85% and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, also in Utah, by nearly half.

The case was not decided by the time of the 2020 election, and President Joe Biden restored both monuments to their original size in 2021.

On July 13, Trump issued orders to shrink them again — Bears Ears by about 91% this time and Grand Staircase-Escalante by about 90%. This amounts to nearly 3 million acres of land that will lose monument-related protections, the company said in a press release.

“Slashing Bears Ears and dismantling the Bears Ears commission is a betrayal of Tribal sovereignty and needlessly throws away years of effort to create the first Tribal co-management structure of a national monument in U.S. history,” Ryan Gellert, Patagonia CEO, said in a statement. “Patagonia worked with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, scientists, conservation groups, outdoor industry advocates and more to establish the monument in 2016, and we are committed to defending it today and into the future.”

President Barack Obama designated the Bears Ears monument in late 2016, following a proposal by five Tribal entities: the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and the Pueblo of Zuni. A coalition of these groups co-manages the monument with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Patagonia says the U.S. Antiquities Act gives presidents the power to designate national monuments but not to undo them. However, the Trump administration, as well as others including Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, say the monuments violate that act, which they say limits the designation to the smallest parcel of land necessary for the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

The Trump administration argued that term “objects of historic or scientific interest” in the Antiquities Act has been stretched to include landscapes and biodiversity — and should not.

When signing the new orders in July, Trump criticized the size of the monuments, claiming that the public cannot hunt, fish or “virtually not even walk” on the land. However, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management explicitly say people can hike, hunt and fish in both monuments, as well as take part in other forms of outdoor recreation.

The Center for Western Priorities said in July that Trump’s orders could open the land for sale or lease oil, gas, mining or logging companies within 60 days.