politics

Tehran, Iran – Iranians are stocking up on food and medicines as fears grow that the country will face dire shortages as the United States tightens an embargo on the country.

The Iranian government had managed to keep household staples flowing during the early months of the war. But a US naval blockade and pivot to draconian sanctions have led to fears that imports will be limited.

More recently, the US announced a ban on Iranian airlines worldwide and is pressing other countries to cut trade ties with Iran in a bid to isolate the country.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly last week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian condemned Washington for its blockade on his country, saying it will prevent food and medicine from reaching the Iranian people.

On Saturday, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s offer for a seven-day truce that would see it reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for economic relief and other conditions.

As the war enters its eighth month and hopes for a diplomatic solution dim, Al Jazeera looks at how some Iranians are faring under a US embargo.

Consumers

Tehran’s stores remain stocked, but shoppers are keeping an eye on shop shelves. Their anxiety has deepened since a flurry of social media posts urging people to ensure they have several days of food before a possible new round of fighting with the US.

At one shopping centre, Ali, 51, was loading a trolley packed with rice, flour, pasta, pulses, cooking oil and canned food.

He is stocking up because he is convinced that Iran’s adversary is seeking to “starve” the people to push them to turn on their government.

“This is not a war in the traditional sense. It targets the people to put pressure on the authorities,” he said.

With flights to some nearby countries suspended, imports of certain medicines and mobile phone headsets are hard to find. The prices of those still available in shops have been pushed up.

Haj Pasandideh, a 71-year-old grocer, said he believed warehouses were well-stocked with basic goods at the moment. But the problem lies in the daily price increases due to Iran’s weakening rial, prompting him to bulk-buy goods before the expected hikes.

He sometimes caps cooking oil at one bottle per sale to ensure as many customers can purchase the goods as possible.

Exporters crushed

Farmers are also on edge due to the embargo, unable to ship out their produce and forced to sell to local markets.

The war has worsened the economic situation, even after years of sanctions that have pushed the country from being a regional exporter of agricultural and food products to being one of the region’s main importers.

Mehran, an apple grower, told Al Jazeera that due to the difficulties of exporting, he had sold only a third of this year’s harvest, all of it inside Iran.

Some neighbouring countries have halted trade with Iran in recent months, he said, while trucks now spend days at crossings they once cleared in a day, causing fruit to spoil before it reaches buyers.

“The blockade has not only closed the sea and air but also the land routes but in an undeclared manner,” he said.

Pharmaceutical shortages

The war has also deepened an already-dire shortage of medications. Some pharmacies Al Jazeera visited in southern Tehran had run out of infant formula and dozens of other types of medications.

Although officials have assured Iranians that substitute products were available, pharmacy staff expressed concern about the increasing number of customers searching for infant formula in vain.

“Imported medicines are disappearing fast, and lately people have been coming in to buy certain items before they need them for fear they will run out in future,” Mahsa, a 23-year-old pharmacy assistant, told Al Jazeera.

She said the health authorities had introduced “smart systems” to track the quantity and type of medication each person buys.

Breaking the blockade

The prospect of a prolonged siege and deteriorating economic conditions have driven some Iranians to call for a military solution.

On Tehran’s main thoroughfare, several people told Al Jazeera that another round of fighting with the US was unavoidable. Some urged the government to break the blockade by force before it is tightened further.

Mohsen, a 23-year-old economics student, believes Washington’s goal is to strangle the Iranian economy and the cost will ultimately be felt by Iranian citizens.

Iran possesses many strong cards that it must use to break the air and sea blockade before they develop into a land blockade that would completely choke Tehran, he said.

Alireza Taghavinia, an Iranian international relations expert, told Al Jazeera that the gap between Washington and Tehran was too wide to be bridged. “The siege imposed by force will only be lifted by force,” he said.

In a worst-case scenario, falling living standards could bring protesters onto the streets, he added.

“The enemy is counting on stirring up chaos inside Iran because it believes no military strike will achieve its objectives without internal unrest,” he said.

Federal investigators have sent Los Angeles County elections officials at least five grand jury subpoenas for individual voter records as part of a criminal investigation into illegal voting, according to partially redacted records reviewed by The Times.

The subpoenas — released in response to a public records request — appear related to a nationwide effort by the Trump administration to identify noncitizens who have illegally cast ballots in U.S. elections.

The subpoenas were issued in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They were sent to L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan’s office at the request of prosecutors in the office of First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli.

“The enclosed subpoena has been issued in connection with an official criminal investigation being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations,” Assistant. U.S. Atty. Michael Wheat — based out of the district’s Orange County office — wrote in a letter accompanying a Sept. 10 subpoena.

Wheat wrote that a custodian of records from Logan’s office must either appear before the grand jury to present the records or deliver the materials to a special agent from Homeland Security Investigations.

Four of the subpoenas — one issued on July 13 and three on Sept. 10 — request “any and all original and non-redacted voter records” from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present for a list of individual voters stretching across two pages. The lists were redacted by Los Angeles County officials, and it is unclear how many individuals each list contained.

Each of those subpoenas notes that records to be produced include information on individual voters, such as their “registration file” and “addresses listed, history and method of voting, [and] any and all attestation regarding citizenship status.”

A fifth subpoena, issued July 31, appears to request similar information for a single voter, and notes that the voter’s “ballot content or vote selections” should not be included.

Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for Essayli’s office, declined to comment on the investigations Monday.

The Times first reported the existence of the subpoenas, but not details from the records themselves, last week, after Logan confirmed that his office was complying with the federal inquiry despite having concerns that investigators may be using incorrect or outdated information to produce their lists of voters to investigate.

“We’re responding appropriately as directed through a subpoena, but that doesn’t afford the dialogue for us to get the background on what they’re looking for and how they came up with the names that they did,” Logan said. “There’s really no information being provided to us on that.”

President Trump has alleged for years that illegal voting by noncitizens is widespread, though experts say the problem — which they acknowledge occurs — is exceedingly rare. Homeland Security officials have been leading a campaign in recent months to identify such fraud nationwide, and the subpoenas received by L.A. County appear to match others received by elections officials elsewhere in the country.

Essayli — a Trump loyalist who has not been confirmed to lead the Los Angeles prosecutor’s office by the U.S. Senate and whose de facto leadership has been contested in court — has been vocal about his office’s pursuit of voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

His office has announced two voter fraud cases in recent weeks, including one involving the arrest of 30-year-old Honduran national on two felony charges of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship and fraudulently registering to vote. That man, Darwin Jonathan Rivera-Flores, has pleaded not guilty and is out on bond pending trial.

Rivera-Flores and his attorney declined to comment.

The Justice Department also recently announced it had charged 16 noncitizens in six other states with illegal voting and other election-related crimes.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin publicly claimed in July — without providing evidence — that there may be more than 190,000 such voters on California rolls, a claim California officials dismissed as baseless.

Three of the five subpoenas received by Logan’s office ask that the voter information be shared with Al Rossi, the acting assistant head of Homeland Security Investigations in Los Angeles.

Reached by phone, Rossi referred questions to an agency spokesperson, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Wheat had asked that the subpoenas be kept secret, so as not to impede an open investigation. Logan’s office released the records in accordance with California public records law, but redacted the names of voters on the grounds that doing so “protects those individuals from undue attention, harassment, intimidation, or possible harm” and “protects the integrity” of the investigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld Trump’s expanded use of government data to search for noncitizens who are registered to vote. A lower court order had blocked use of the data over concerns — shared by the Supreme Court’s liberal wing — that the data are error-prone.

Voting rights experts have expressed concern that misuse of the data could lead to legitimate voters being purged from rolls.

States across the country, including California, have successfully fought off lawsuits from the Trump administration demanding the states’ complete voter rolls.

It is unclear why a subpoena for a single voter’s information would come between subpoenas for information on longer lists of voters. But it lines up with the case against Rivera-Flores.

In an affidavit filed with a criminal complaint against Rivera-Flores, Special Agent Christopher Kuzma — the same agent listed on the July 31 subpoena requesting a single voter’s information — said he received a series of texts he believed were from Rivera-Flores, who had previously been issued a misdemeanor citation on suspicion of disrupting immigration law enforcement operations at the federal building in Camarillo.

One text sent in April 2026 stated, “Your not the good guy I can’t wait until the mid terms you dont have qualified immunity then we can start and indict all you guys one bye one.”

Kuzma said in his affidavit that he took the message to mean Rivera-Flores “has both an interest in the voting process and an intent to participate in the election process.”

According to the affidavit, Kuzma said he conducted several record checks through public databases, including on the California secretary of state’s website, which “disclosed an online voter registration record” for a “Darwin Rivera” at Rivera-Flores’ address.

In July 2026, Kuzma said in the affidavit, he reviewed records from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office for “Darwin J Rivera,” which showed the applicant had checked a box stating he was a U.S. citizen.

Kuzma’s affidavit said in August 2026 he received certified voter registration records from Los Angeles County.

The spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a question about whether Kuzma’s July 31 subpoena was specific to Rivera-Flores, but the office has previously said Wheat is prosecuting the case.

When Rivera-Flores’ arrest was announced, Essayli said it was “the first of many to come.”

In May, when Samuel Gonzalez Terrones was diagnosed with depression and schizophrenia, he started seeing a therapist and taking medication that he hoped would finally alleviate the dark thoughts that had begun creeping up so frequently he would sometimes seek help by calling the police on himself.

A month later, his mom, Minerva Terrones Dominguez, 54, had just hopped off a bus on her way to a grocery store in San Bernardino when immigration agents arrested her for being in the country illegally. While she languished in detention, the family said, Samuel grew increasingly despondent.

To help pay for an immigration lawyer, his siblings and dad had taken up extra shifts at their jobs. But because Samuel’s condition meant he couldn’t hold a steady job, he spent more and more time alone at home in Rialto.

“My mom was the one who would take care of him when he would have those bad thoughts,” said his older sister Sari Gonzalez, 32. “Everybody would be at work or at school, so my mom was the only one that would be here to calm him down, to say, ‘Your siblings will be here in a bit, just wait.’”

The lawyer, Arturo Burga, had figured out a way to free Minerva from detention and allow her to stay permanently in the U.S. The legal pathway, called cancellation of removal, hinged on proving that her deportation would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen: Samuel.

They never got to file the paperwork.

Samuel Gonzalez Terrones, 21.

(Gonzalez family)

At 3:55 a.m. on Aug. 12, San Bernardino police responded to a railroad crossing. Samuel was pronounced dead at the scene, according to a San Bernardino County coroner’s news release. He was 21.

In a letter Samuel wrote before his death, an excerpt of which was shared with The Times, he talked about his mother’s detention. He said her being taken away by Immigration and Customs Enforcement made him feel like he’d hit “one last wall.”

“To the ICE agent who took away my mother: I hope it was worth it,” Samuel wrote. “I can’t handle anymore injustices in this world.”

Motivations for suicide are often complex and unknowable, and it’s unclear how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies may have moved an immigrant or family member to harm themselves. But immigrant advocates say they have heard of such deaths.

This month, a 20-year-old Haitian man in Springfield, Ohio, walked into oncoming traffic after the Trump administration ended his Temporary Protected Status and ICE fitted him with an ankle monitor.

In May, the Associated Press found that at least 10 detainees had died by suicide since President Trump took office — a pace that far exceeds the growth in the detainee population.

ICE did not respond to requests for comment.

Samuel’s family describes him, the second youngest of seven siblings, as a caring and generous person who, at his best, was quick to laugh, loved chocolate conchas and video games, and dreamed of becoming a graphic designer.

He kept a dark aesthetic, with a lip piercing and nails frequently painted black or red. But he also had a lighter side, Sari said, as evidenced by the Hannah Montana stickers decorating his bedroom wall.

When the siblings were younger, they worked out together and would challenge each other to see how many pull-ups they could do. They liked hanging out at a skate park, laughing as he guided Sari’s small dog, Polar, down a rail on a board.

His mental health struggles started in 2021, when he was a freshman at Cajon High School. Little by little, he lost his passion for the gym, Sari said, and everything else.

An undated photo of Samuel Gonzalez Terrones.

(Gonzalez family)

Sari said she and her siblings each played a different role in helping Samuel through his struggles. He and his younger sister played video games. Sari would talk to him about adulthood. Their older brother would take him to church. On good days, their father would bring him along to landscaping jobs.

“He really did try to get better,” she said. “He held on for a really long time, and I’m proud of him for being so strong.”

The day Minerva was detained, Samuel and Sari were at home.

According to a federal court petition seeking Minerva’s release from ICE custody, federal agents stopped her, said she “looked like someone” they were seeking and mocked her when they found her EBT card while searching her belongings.

Minerva has lived in the U.S. for 33 years, had never been arrested or convicted of a crime and had never been in removal proceedings, according to her lawyer.

Sari said an ICE agent called her and said she had an hour to pick up her mother’s things from the agency’s local office and to say goodbye before ICE moved her to a detention center.

Samuel was inconsolable. “I’ve never seen him cry like that,” Sari said.

Sari took up extra hours at the plastics factory where she works as a machine operator. On Sundays, her only day off each week, she would take Samuel and their youngest sister to visit their mom at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The drive was 45 minutes without traffic, but they’d always arrive three hours early to join other families on the wait list to see loved ones.

On the way to the facility, Samuel was visibly happy. But on the way home, Sari said, all would be crying.

Friends and relatives attend the graveside service for Samuel Gonzalez Terrones.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The extra expense of legal representation left the family struggling to pay for bills and food. In the evenings, Samuel stopping spending time with his siblings and retreated to his bedroom.

Burga, the lawyer, alerted ICE of Samuel’s death via email and requested Minerva’s emergency release under humanitarian grounds. He said the ICE deportation officer who replied struck a softer tone than usual, offering sincere condolences to the family.

“Our office was devastated,” said Amber Burga, executive director of the law firm. “I thought to myself, it takes somebody committing suicide for them to have compassion.”

Sari waited two weeks to tell Minerva. She waited, in part, because her mom had an upcoming court hearing and she didn’t want grief to cloud her thinking.

Sari was given 10 minutes in a visitation room to break the news about Samuel’s death to her mother.

“It was just me, my aunt and the officer who was watching,” she said. “When I told her, they wouldn’t even let me hug her while my mom was crying. They told me, ‘You can’t hug her. You can’t touch her.’”

Three days later, on Aug. 31, a federal judge — who didn’t know about Samuel’s death — issued an order granting her petition for release from detention, finding that she had been held illegally “based solely on DHS’s mistake.”

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff wrote that when Minerva was detained, another federal judge had already declared it unlawful for Homeland Security to require mandatory detention for people who, like her, had entered the U.S. illegally.

Minerva had been arrested without a warrant, and an immigration judge had not determined whether she was a flight risk or a danger to the public.

Referring to Minerva and similar cases, Mircheff wrote, “Hundreds, if not thousands of individuals were held without process that was owed to them.”

Lawyers for the federal government had argued that Minerva could simply wait until she had been detained for six months, at which point she’d be entitled to a bond hearing, court records show. That suggestion didn’t fly with Mircheff, either.

“It is beyond cruel to suggest that this Court would let her sit in custody another four months,” she wrote.

Minerva is still in deportation proceedings. Without Samuel, she no longer qualifies for the legal pathway her lawyers had built a case around. Sari said she’s now considering joining the U.S. military to access the immigration benefits available for undocumented parents of enlisted members.

The family started a fundraiser to cover the cost of Samuel’s funeral.

Samuel’s parents, siblings, and a few dozen other family members and friends arrived on Sept. 22 at noon to bury him at the Rialto Park Cemetery. Each person held a white, long-stemmed rose.

Sari sobbed. Minerva looked on at the black casket holding her youngest boy, the goofball who loved his family, the one who had longed for her support while she was detained.

Times staff photographer Gina Ferazzi contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Under a light rain on Sunday at the Australian ambassador’s residence in Washington, CNN hosted its third annual tennis tournament, the Kangaroo Cup, pitting Beltway journalists against administration officials. The event aims to inject some levity into an historically adversarial relationship, reminding both sides of the spirit of the game. Themed drinks and tennis whites set the tone.

White House officials played with grace. But the mood this year was altogether different down Pennsylvania Avenue. Despite a federal judge demanding the administration reverse course on President Trump’s punitive actions toward his disfavored news outlets — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — he has refused to resume full access to the storied cable news channel, dismissing its reporters as “fake news.”

It is only the latest attack on press freedom by a president whose drive to punish critics and exert influence over the media appears to be growing.

During last week’s lavish state visit for Xi Jinping, Trump praised China for having “the friendliest press corps” and dismissed their repression of speech, despite the World Press Freedom Index ranking China among the world’s worst offenders — at the bottom of the list, alongside North Korea and Eritrea — for restrictions on journalists.

Five times in the last two months, the president has sneered at and insulted female reporters, mocking their appearance or dismissing their credentials.

He has declined to name a successor for his former press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, whose final news conference, on Aug. 27, was one of only a handful of briefings held throughout the summer. His administration launched its own streaming service last week, called Trump TV, in an attempt to circumvent traditional cable news. And on Monday, he posted renderings of the White House briefing room reconverted to its former use as a presidential pool and spa.

Trump’s escalating attacks on the press come just weeks before the midterm elections, as former officials and election experts warn the administration could seek to undermine confidence in the results. They also come at a precarious moment for public trust in the media, with more Americans saying limits on the press can be justified to combat misinformation.

A Pew Research Center survey released earlier this month found that 73% of Americans regard a free press as “very” or “extremely” important to society. Yet the country remains deeply divided over whether journalists should be barred from reporting “inaccurate” information, with a majority, 53%, supporting limits in some circumstances — even if it means the government itself would have the final say in determining what is true.

Trump’s attempt to bar three outlets from the White House grounds came just three days after the Pew poll was released.

“Plenty of presidents have complained about the press before. And presidents have restricted certain forms of press access or press action during wartime,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the History Department at Washington University in St. Louis. “In the moment — and especially afterward — Americans condemned this as antithetical to the constitutional protections for press freedom and the national commitment to an open democracy.

“What I find most striking about Trump’s press action is that he has made it unabashedly personal,” Kastor added. “He doesn’t like the way media outlets are covering him, so he is going to punish them.”

President Nixon famously limited White House access for the Washington Post over its coverage of the Watergate scandal. But he never attempted to bar press credentials completely — and ultimately authorized the conversion of the pool facility into the briefing room that exists today.

Other presidents have jostled with the press. President Obama was accused of limiting access to independent photojournalists, and famously favored nontraditional media outlets at the advent of the social media age. President George W. Bush limited his personal interactions with the press and curtailed access to government records.

Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, once stated he “deplored” the “putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.”

Yet, “it is however an evil for which there is no remedy,” he also said. “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Trump’s particular style — as a showman and his own spokesman — makes his relationship with the media innately personal, said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College and author of “The New Imperial Presidency.”

“Presidents almost always feel that bad press is a feature of their staff’s poor communication of their policies — not that the policies themselves are unpopular or ill-advised,” Rudalevige said.

“Since President Trump does so much of his communication, though, this deflection is less available,” he added, and “thus the problem is with the press itself, not the policy or its purveyor.”

CNN’s legal fight continues, even after securing temporary reprieve from a judicial restraining order. So does the Associated Press’ lawsuit over the administration’s effort last year to punish the wire service for refusing to adopt Trump’s preferred name, “Gulf of America,” for the internationally recognized Gulf of Mexico.

While he keeps losing in court on 1st Amendment grounds, the president keeps testing new limits, looking for what will stick.

On the tennis court Sunday, at least, his administration won.

Sept. 24, 2026 9:29 PM PT

PITTSBURGH — James Copenhaver, one of three campaign rally attendees shot in 2024 during an assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump, has died in Pittsburgh, his lawyer said Thursday. He was 76.

Copenhaver was in the bleachers during the event in Butler, Pa., when a 20-year-old gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop, grazing Trump’s right ear with one bullet. Copenhaver was struck in the arm and in the abdomen, wounds that left him with lingering injuries and walking with a cane.

Two other attendees were also shot: David Dutch, who survived, and Corey Comperatore, who shielded his family from gunfire and was killed.

Copenhaver died Wednesday at Allegheny Health Network’s West Penn Hospital in Pittsburgh, according to a statement from the Allegheny County medical examiner cited in local media accounts.

Copenhaver’s lawyer, Joseph Feldman, said in a statement issued on behalf of the family that he died surrounded by loved ones. The statement did not specify whether his death was directly related to the injuries he suffered at the rally.

Copenhaver and his wife, Marianne Copenhaver, sued the federal government in June, alleging that the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security had “utterly failed” to provide appropriate security at the rally. Copenhaver’s injuries required multiple surgeries, including a transection of his colon, and he had lingering kidney and other damage, including a loss of feeling in his leg. The lawsuit described the wounds as “debilitating, grievous, permanent and life altering.”

The family’s statement Thursday called Copenhaver above all else a devoted husband, father and grandfather who instilled the values of hard work, integrity and the service to others in his children.

“James’s dedication to this great country was a defining part of his life,” it said. “As a veteran, he proudly served our nation in the armed forces, and his love of country never wavered. James was a true American patriot who believed deeply in the freedoms and ideals upon which this nation was founded, and he embodied the very best traits of our great nation.”

In a statement posted to social media, President Trump on Thursday called Copenhaver “a true American Patriot.”

“Jim showed tremendous bravery, courageously continuing to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, and maintaining a positive spirit despite unimaginable hardships,” Trump wrote.

Johnson and Smyth write for the Associated Press.

A proposal to tax California’s billionaires has fractured Democratic politics, repelled some of the state’s richest residents and exploded into a costly battle that’s overshadowing even the gubernatorial election.

Known as Proposition 40, the ballot measure is also dividing the very industry it’s supposed to help. The healthcare workers union behind the initiative, which would authorize a wealth tax on billionaires, says the levy would raise sorely needed funds to shore up health coverage.

By contrast, leading California hospital and doctor groups are opposing the measure ahead of the November vote. They say the one-time 5% levy on the state’s wealthiest is a risky gambit with an uncertain path to victory — as well as a distraction from other proposals to shore up healthcare.

“This is an experiment on a taxation scheme that’s not been done before, and it puts healthcare in a more vulnerable position as a result,” California Medical Assn. Chief Executive Dustin Corcoran said at a recent briefing in Sacramento. “It’s not a healthcare ballot measure.”

Less than six weeks before election day, polls show a divided electorate. But whatever the outcome, the fight is exposing a broader problem confronting California: how to preserve one of the nation’s largest expansions of publicly funded healthcare as a big chunk of the money that helped pay for it disappears.

Over the last decade, California increased access to publicly funded healthcare by broadening eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, and other types of insurance, allowing millions more residents to gain coverage. The number of people without insurance fell to 2.4 million in 2024 from about 6.5 million in 2011.

Now, that trend is expected to reverse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Trump’s budget bill last year will lead to $1 trillion in healthcare-related cuts over a decade. Earlier this week, the Trump administration said it recently removed 760,000 people from Obamacare plans across the nation, alleging that some were enrolled improperly and others don’t exist.

Combined with strict work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and a pullback in state spending pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the changes are projected to push California’s uninsured population under the age of 65 to 4.6 million by 2030, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

“Without trying to be melodramatic, when millions of people lose coverage, it is entirely predictable that thousands will die unnecessarily because of foregone treatment,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, the healthcare-workers union pushing the billionaire tax.

“There is an absolute consensus on what the problem is, and there’s a consensus that there’s no other solution on the table,” he said in an interview at Bloomberg’s San Francisco offices.

Even before the budget cuts start to bite, financial strains are mounting at institutions such as Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in South Los Angeles.

MLKCH’s waiting room is now mostly used for treating patients, with 16 wooden cubicles functioning as care rooms. Sick or injured people are also cared for in the hospital’s front hallways and in what used to be the meditation chapel and the gift shop.

The hospital opened in 2015 with an emergency department built for 25,000 visits annually. In 2024, it handled 130,000. Dr. Elaine Batchlor, its CEO, said further funding reductions “would threaten the sustainability of the hospital.”

Batchlor isn’t taking a position on Proposition 40 and has been looking for other sources of revenue. SEIU-UHW’s Regan argues there’s no other way to raise the money needed to fill the massive gap.

The California Budget & Policy Center estimates the state stands to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medi-Cal funding each year. Asking California lawmakers for that amount is a “fool’s errand,” Regan said. “And on top of that, the only people the legislature will tax are ordinary people.”

The union estimates the levy would raise $100 billion over five years, with 90% earmarked to shore up health coverage amid impending budget cuts.

Critics dispute the projection. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the tax would probably raise tens of billions of dollars, but potentially reduce income-tax revenue in the long run, as some ultrawealthy residents depart the state.

Recent polls show an increasingly contested path for Proposition 40. A recent UC Berkeley-Politico poll found 45% of likely voters in favor, but opposition has increased since early this year and now stands at 43%. A separate Public Policy Institute of California survey put support at 52% and opposition at 46%.

Led by Sergey Brin, wealthy opponents have poured almost $230 million into funding Building a Better California, according to a filing late Thursday. That’s helping them flood the airwaves with anti tax advertising. There are also two competing ballot measures designed to torpedo Proposition 40 if they pass.

Billionaires aren’t the only detractors. Critics have also assailed Proposition 40 for carving out an exception to California’s constitutional funding rules to steer most proceeds to healthcare. While the state generally earmarks at least 40% of General Fund revenue to public schools and community colleges, the billionaire-tax proposal excludes the new levy from that calculation.

Corcoran, the medical association chief, argues that even if Proposition 40 passes in November, legal challenges would potentially delay its implementation for years.

“There’s a lot that we can do looking ahead to 2028 when these cuts start taking greater effect that frankly would provide more immediate relief than Proposition 40 would,” he said. His group and others are pushing instead for large corporations to help cover the cost of public insurance for their workers.

Regan called that proposal “the worst public policy on planet Earth,” saying costs will be passed on to consumers and that it essentially acts as a payroll tax on low-wage workers.

He also disputed the notion the billionaire tax would lead the ultrawealthy to leave the state, pointing to Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang, who earlier this year said he would be “perfectly fine” with the levy. As for legal challenges to the billionaire tax, Regan said he believes they can be resolved in 12 months.

The uncertain funding picture has many hospitals bracing for cuts.

James Suver, CEO of Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles, said he’s not betting on proceeds from the billionaire tax. He’s weighing options that include pausing maternity care again, cutting physician recruitment and reducing emergency-room service.

“Our future under the most likely scenario is not looking very good,” Suver said. “We’re beyond doing minor nips and tucks to be able to offset some of the changes that I suspect may be happening in the future.”

Clanton writes for Bloomberg. Kara Wetzel of Bloomberg contributed.

The California attorney general will help oversee healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente’s medical arbitration system to ensure it operates fairly under legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed late Sunday.

Patients, their families and lawyers have complained that Kaiser’s private and confidential system of handling medical malpractice complaints is designed to favor the health plan over those bringing the claims.

Under legislation known as Assembly Bill 1770, the attorney general will decide what actions justice officials should take to ensure private arbitrations required by any health plan are handled fairly and in line with state law.

To do that work, the state plans to add as many as four deputy attorneys general, a legal analyst and three legal secretaries, according to a legislative analyst’s report.

“We look forward to continuing to resolve claims through an independently administered system that provides a fair and efficient process for members and patients,” Kaiser Permanente said in a statement Monday.

Roughly 1 of every 4 Californians get healthcare from Kaiser. To join the plan, each one had to check a box, agreeing to use arbitration to settle any dispute.

Many companies and other organizations, including some hospitals and physician groups, require customers or patients to take their complaints to private arbitration rather than to court.

But unlike most other companies, which send claims to large arbitration firms, Kaiser created its own system.

Under Kaiser’s system, once a neutral arbitrator is selected, either party can opt to disqualify that person without cause. There is no limit on the number of disqualifications.

While the health plan designed the system to be fair, patients and their lawyers have alleged that Kaiser’s greater knowledge of arbitrators’ past rulings and its ability to veto arbitrators gives it an advantage to pick favorable judges.

Critics also say the hourly fees paid to arbitrators provide them with a financial incentive to rule in Kaiser’s favor so they will be selected for future cases. Most of the arbitrators are retired judges.

Kaiser has previously defended its arbitration system, saying it was fair for both patients and for the nonprofit.

The bill was authored by Assemblyman Robert Garcia (D-Rancho Cucamonga), a longtime Kaiser member.

Support for it was led by Stephen Martinez, a retired aerospace engineer from Bellflower, who with his wife, Lindalee Iverson, spent $350,000 to bring two arbitration cases against Kaiser. The arbitrator ruled against the couple in both cases.

Iverson died of cancer in 2023.

Martinez told legislators at a hearing this year how his wife had found a lump in her breast and asked for an appointment with her longtime caregiver at Kaiser to examine it. Instead she was sent to a physician assistant, who dismissed it, he said. Later, it was found to be cancer that had spread.

A chief breast surgeon at Kaiser and another surgeon who had retired from that job both testified that the Kaiser physician assistant failed to follow the health system’s guidelines.

Kaiser’s expert argued that the physician assistant did an appropriate exam and that his low suspicion of breast cancer was reasonable. The neutral arbitrator sided with the health plan’s expert.

Martinez has spent years trying to get legislation to make the system more fair.

“I’m elated,” Martinez said of Newsom’s signing of the bill, which was named Lindalee’s Law. “It’s been a long road.”

According to the annual report prepared by the independent administrator of Kaiser’s system, the “most common” complaint the office heard last year was about the neutral arbitrator.

“Most complained that the arbitrator was biased, partisan, unjust, and in Kaiser’s favor,” the report said.

Hate speech against Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in the United States has risen sharply online, according to a report that traces the surge to US President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and rhetoric, economic anxiety, and the South Asian community’s growing visibility in US life.

The report, titled “The Rising Tide of Anti-South Asian Hate in the United States”, by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH), published on Sunday, found that the monthly volume of hate towards South Asians in the US on the social media platform X rose 240 percent between January 2024 and June 2026, from 12,904 posts to 43,843.

Researchers identified more than 542,000 hateful posts on the platform between January 2025 and June 2026 alone towards people from South Asia living in the US, with five of the six highest-volume months falling at the end of that period.

The researchers used the United Nations definition of hate speech. They tracked recurring anti-South Asian slurs and narratives online, reviewing posts to exclude criticism that did not meet the UN threshold.

They found that nearly half of the hate posts on X accused South Asians of invading the US, stealing jobs or threatening the country demographically, while the derogatory slur “pajeet” and its variants showed up in 30 percent of hateful posts on X and 45 percent on fringe platforms.

Posts depicting South Asians as dirty or unhygienic grew by 171 percent on X, “the fastest of all narratives”.

The hate frequently collapsed South Asian ethnic and religious groups into one, with Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis conflated with one another, and Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians also treated as a monolith.

So why now?

Racism against Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis has a long history in the US, but researchers argue the current surge reflects a confluence of longstanding prejudices and new political and economic pressures.

The report points to the H-1B visa programme, which allows US employers to hire skilled foreign workers, as a major flashpoint. Indians account for more than 70 percent of H-1B visa holders, and researchers linked several spikes in anti-South Asian hate to political fights over the programme, such as when Trump imposed a $100,000 payment requirement on certain new H-1B petitions in September 2025.

“Such actions serve a powerful symbolic function, in the bargain reinforcing the hostility of Trump’s base toward South Asians,” said the report.

The report makes the same argument about the administration’s rhetoric, highlighting Trump’s speech at an AI summit in July 2025, in which he criticised US technology companies for outsourcing jobs to India, after which researchers saw a sharp spike in anti-South Asian rhetoric online.

As more recent examples, the report points to a since-deleted September 2026 Department of Homeland Security post titled “Transformers: Age of Deportations”, featuring a Sikh man identified as “Mr Singh” and telling him to “get off our roads”.

Days later, the Department of Education posted “Make College Football Great Again”, after Texas Republican Bo French had complained about the presence of South Asians at a University of Texas football game.

The report argues that such rhetoric reinforces the idea of South Asians as outsiders who “can never truly belong in the country”.

From ‘model minority’ to job thieves

Economic resentment is another factor, researchers wrote, with the success of some South Asians increasingly being weaponised against them.

Indian Americans once stereotyped as a “model minority” are now portrayed as “opportunists and cheats”, and South Asians are used more broadly as a scapegoat for anger over jobs and the economy.

This comes as South Asians have become increasingly visible in US politics, from former Vice President Kamala Harris and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani to Vice President JD Vance’s wife, Usha Vance, and politician Vivek Ramaswamy. The report documents racist attacks against figures across party lines and highlights how, for example, Mamdani’s primary and mayoral victories triggered spikes in anti-South Asian and Islamophobic abuse.

Researchers say both trends are now also tied up with “anxieties on the part of the majority about loss of status”, and feed the “Great Replacement Theory”, a conspiracy about the white population in Western countries being replaced by an orchestrated takeover.

Social media has also turned those narratives into targeted harassment.

Researchers found X accounts doxxing South Asians accused of taking jobs or committing visa fraud, while influencers have confronted people at their homes and workplaces and posted the encounters online. Doxxing refers to exposing a person’s private details, such as their home address, online.

In one example, right-wing influencer Sara Gonzalez posted a video to more than half a million followers in which the report says she harassed a South Asian person she accused of exploiting the H-1B programme.

Meanwhile, generative AI has made that content even easier to produce, researchers say, depicting South Asians as  “filthy and unclean, sexually predatory, culturally backward, or a demographic threat”.

While the report tracks hate largely through what is happening online, researchers write that online hate “does not exist in isolation from offline forms of hostility”. It cites a July incident in which an Indian Muslim mall employee in Utah was repeatedly stabbed in an attack that federal prosecutors charged as a hate crime. In September, a Sikh truck driver was stabbed 17 times at a Wyoming truck stop.

“Online and offline hate can reinforce one another”, the researchers wrote, “as narratives, stereotypes, and forms of demonization move between digital platforms, political discourse, media, and everyday life”.

Amid tight Iowa midterm races, President Trump emphasises steel industry revival with project announcement.

Just weeks before the midterm elections, United States President Donald Trump has announced that a Minnesota-based steel manufacturer intends to build a $15bn steel mill project in Iowa, as the White House tries to highlight its focus on domestic manufacturing.

On Monday, joined by executives from Mesabi Metallics, which recently opened Minnesota’s first new iron ore mine in 50 years, Trump announced the project. It is expected to begin production in 2030 and could bring more than 1,700 jobs to the region, with an initial production capacity of 7.5 million tonnes per year.

The first phase of construction for the project will generate 5,000–6,000 construction jobs, a White House official told Al Jazeera.

The plant in Iowa will use iron ore from the Mesabi Iron Range in nearby Minnesota. Mesabi, which is owned by Indian conglomerate Essar Group, invested more than $2.5bn to build the mine in Minnesota.

“President Trump is delivering on his promise to rebuild American industry, re-shore manufacturing, and create new jobs. Today’s announcement underscores the president’s historic efforts to revitalize the US steel industry—supporting local communities, strengthening supply chains, and protecting our national security,” White House Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

The steel industry has loomed over the first half of Trump’s second term in office. The president imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium imports last year in an effort to boost domestic production, but also threatened to increase prices of products that use those materials, from soda cans to washing machines to cars.

“These are your 232 tariffs, the steel tariffs at work. Without those tariffs, this mine does not get built, and this steel plant does not get built”, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in the Oval Office on Monday.

Trump also solidified the US government’s stake in US Steel, which was acquired by Japan’s Nippon Steel in June 2025. As part of the deal, the US government received a so-called “golden share”, which gives the president the authority to appoint a board member to weigh in on decisions that would impact domestic steel production.

Midterm stakes

The announcement comes a little more than a month ahead of the US midterm elections, and the economy is top of mind for US voters.

Among Republicans, Trump is losing steam on his handling of economic issues, with a new September 21 Ipsos poll finding that 56 percent approve of his handling of the economy, down from 80 percent.

Iowa is in play as a seat Democrats could flip in the midterm elections, with Republican Ashley Hinson facing Democrat Josh Turek in November and with polls suggesting a tight race.

Hinson joined the president in the Oval Office for the announcement.

A poll conducted by the Republican-aligned pollster the Trafalgar Group showed Hinson with a two-point lead, while an InsiderAdvantage poll, which is considered more nonpartisan, found Turek leading by two points.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday is expected to approve a bipartisan bill that would give the NCAA and its member conferences the authority to enforce uniform national rules on college athletics.

If the bill is passed by the Senate, it would move to the House and, if approved, on to President Trump for his signature to become law.

What the Protect College Sports Act would do

Under the Protect College Sports Act — co-authored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — the NCAA would be granted a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the organization to create standardized rules around athlete eligibility, limit conference realignment and prevent the creation of a super league — a private-equity model for college sports that would replace NCAA subdivisions.

The bill is also an attempt to codify the $2.8-billion antitrust settlement reached last year in House vs. NCAA, which allowed Division 1 schools to share revenue with their current players and compensate past players. The new bill would increase the revenue sharing cap to around $50 million per school from $21.5 million, albeit with a more strict and enforceable model.

Under Name, Image and Likeness deals, wealthier schools were able to circumvent the “soft” $21.5-million cap by lining up lucrative corporate sponsorships and endorsements for prospective athletes. The bill would allow the NCAA to crack down on attempts to bypass the limit by incorporating booster or affiliated-entity money into total revenue sharing calculations, while also giving schools an additional $27 million in the funding cap to retain current athletes.

Potential boost for smaller schools

A potential consequence of the bill could be that big-name programs lose their ability to draw the best college athletes with promises of massive compensation, allowing smaller programs to compete under NCAA regulations.

The NCAA and its affiliates have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for congressional intervention on its rule-making power over the last seven years. Supporters of the bill, including Cruz, have said the bill would bring order and consistent regulation to college sports.

“If we’re going to be having a national competition … it is only Congress that can establish a clear and enforceable legal rule book,” Cruz said on the Senate floor last week.

Influential figures in college sports, including former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban and ESPN analyst Pat McAfee, have publicly called on Congress to pass the measure. It has also drawn support from 24 of the NCAA’s athletic conferences.

“Congress does need to fix the mess in the courts and create a national framework so the people inside college sports can enforce fair rules,” Saban said during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee hearing in June. “Without that legal certainty, every rule becomes another lawsuit, every standard becomes another risk, and the system keeps drifting toward a professional model.”

What the opponents say

The legislation is not without its opponents. Some players, labor organizations and members of Congress argue that the bill would prevent highly sought-after college athletes from participating in their own negotiation process.

“What this bill does, at its core, is protect a system of exploitation,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an AFL-CIO trade union press release. “This bill protects the billions of dollars that coaches and executives are making by suppressing compensation for some of the most highly valued athletes in the world.”

The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have also brought forward concerns that the bill does not allow Black athletes — who make up a majority of players in the football and basketball programs — into the collective bargaining process.

The NCAA plans to enforce a five-year eligibility rule, cap agent fees at 5%, put penalties on second transfers and codify student-athlete protections, such as 10-year degree completion assistance and post-eligibility healthcare. If the bill passes, all challenges to these rules would have to be handled in federal court.

Some senior Republican officials in the House, including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), have expressed some hesitance in passing the legislation without clarity as to whether student-athletes will be considered employees and if further limits should be placed on international student-athletes. If changes are made in the House, the bill would be returned to the Senate for another vote.

Support from Trump

Trump, on the other hand, has expressed strong support for the bill.

“THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT is a great Bill, and the Senate will hopefully stay in D.C. until it passes,” he wrote on Truth Social last month. “Without this Bill, millions of young Athletes will be hurt, programs will be canceled … the fans will be robbed, and Universities will go broke”

DOTHAN, Ala. — People crowded shoulder to shoulder upstairs in a south Alabama coffee shop, in a region sometimes called the reddest in the heavily conservative state.

They were there to hear Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee for governor and the last Democrat to hold statewide office in Alabama.

“Alabama has been under Republican control for almost two decades. We’re not getting any better,” said Jeff Scroggins, 61, a government contractor from Slocomb who was part of the crowd that came to Mural City Coffee Company and said he is voting for the Democrat.

Scroggins, who usually votes Democratic, called himself the “black sheep of the family” in supporting Jones this fall against Republican U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, but said there are more Democrats and “stubborn independents” in the state than people realize.

Jones and other Democrats running in Alabama and neighboring states are banking on it.

“People want change,” Jones said after an hour of talking with people who came to see him. “That is the real key. People are not satisfied with their government of Alabama.”

Democrats sense a shift among voters

Deep South Democrats, largely absent from statewide offices, are aiming for a comeback this year. They are seeking to mobilize Black voters who are angered about the Republican moves to dismantle minority congressional districts, as well as voters who are frustrated with high gas prices, the Iran war, data centers and other issues.

Jones is trying to win a rematch with Tuberville after the Republican ousted him in a 2020 Senate race. Jones would be the first Democrat since 1998 to win an Alabama governor’s race.

In Mississippi, prosecutor Scott Colom is trying to unseat Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith and become the state’s first newly elected U.S. senator since 1946. In Georgia, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is trying to reverse a losing streak in races for governor that began for Democrats in 2002. Elsewhere, Democrats are trying to pull off U.S. Senate upsets in Louisiana and South Carolina.

In Alabama, Jones’ town halls have attracted hopeful Democrats, some independents and even a few Republicans. Their concerns mirror those of voters nationwide: the rising cost of living, worries over data centers and the affordability of healthcare, issues they say have gone unaddressed by the Republicans who control the state.

Some said state policies, including an abortion ban that makes no exemption for rape, have been too extreme. Others said some comments by Tuberville, such as calling Islam “a cult,” are embarrassing to the state.

Still, the math across the Deep South has been difficult for Democrats. Other than Jones’ victory in the special U.S. Senate election, the last Democrat holding statewide office in Alabama was defeated in 2012. Statewide Democratic candidates have hit a ceiling of around 40% of the vote in recent elections.

The results are similar in most other Deep South states. In Georgia, U.S. Sens. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, who is seeking reelection this year, offer a bright spot for Democrats.

Jones noted that Alabama saw a surge in the number of people voting in the Democratic primary. While about 58% of primary voters were Republican, the Democratic primary vote doubled since 2022. Some counties, including a tech hub in north Alabama, saw more Democratic votes than Republican.

Optimistic about their chances, Democrats are running candidates in all major state races for the first time in years.

“The numbers are there,” Jones said. “It’s a question of getting those voters out.”

Republican gerrymandering creates a backlash

In nearby Troy, a crowd gathered on the campus of Troy University to hear Jones speak alongside Shomari Figures, one of Alabama’s two Black U.S. House members. The district was substantially redrawn by Republicans after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year gutted the Voting Rights Act.

Figures said there is an excitement he has not felt since Jones’ 2017 Senate victory. Figures won election two years ago after a federal court ruled that Alabama had been illegally diluting the voting power of Black Alabamians and ordered new district lines. The Supreme Court’s reversal this year allowed state Republicans to reshape the district and substantially reduce the percentage of Black voters who align with Democrats.

Figures said the goal of the redraw was obvious: to reduce Black representation.

“But we are going to win it in November,” he said.

Figures has often emphasized the economic needs of the district at a time when affordability is one of the main topics of the midterms. He noted that the individual median income in Alabama is $34,000.

“Let that sink in — $34,000 before taxes, before rent, before water, before lights, before gas, before cellphone, before health insurance, before car insurance, before childcare, before food,” he said.

Alabama is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, a decision that Jones and Figures said leaves thousands of working people without access to healthcare coverage.

Figures faces Trump-endorsed Republican Rhett Marques, a state lawmaker. Marques framed the race as “common sense” versus “craziness.” Both have raised about $1.3 million so far.

In Mississippi, Colom looks to make history

Colom echoes many of Jones’ and Figures’ arguments in his bid against Hyde-Smith.

“We’ve been gifted an opportunity,” he said, pointing to Mississippi’s large base of Black Democratic voters, Hyde-Smith’s relatively low profile in her first full Senate term and voters’ frustrations over the economy.

With the largest share of Black voters of any state, Mississippi’s general elections have been closer for years than its immediate Southern neighbors. Trump won by double digits in each of his three presidential contests, but in 2023 Republican Gov. Tate Reeves managed to win reelection by a margin of just 3 percentage points.

Colom insists he can close the gap by increasing Black turnout and peeling off enough disenchanted white voters from Republicans. It is the same kind of electoral math that propelled Ossoff and Warnock in Georgia.

“For me, it can’t be just about getting a Senate majority,” Colom said. “It’s got to be about having a party that represents rural America again, suburban America, urban America — a party that makes sure we actually deliver for voters in ways that make their lives better, and we don’t come up with excuses as to why we can’t do it.”

Republicans say they aren’t worried

Alabama’s Republican Party chairman, Scott Stadthagen, said Democratic priorities, in his opinion, “are far outside the views of conservative Alabamians.” He said there has been previous chatter of a Democratic resurgence, and “each election cycle, we remain the brightest red state in the decidedly conservative southeastern United States.”

Tuberville has declined Jones’ challenge to debate. Expressing confidence about November, Tuberville said he is running “against an ideology that’s not very compatible with the people of Alabama.” He will appear with Trump at a rally in Mobile next week.

“I’ve been representing Alabama for six years, and we’ll turn it over to the voters here in about six, seven weeks and see what they say,” Tuberville told reporters.

As the November election draws closer, Democratic candidates are attracting impressive crowds.

To Sam Phillips, who attended the rallies in Dothan and Troy, the crowds and energy felt different from previous election years.

“It doesn’t get any redder than here, and there was a whole lot of excitement in both places,” the 67-year-old said. “So I feel optimistic.”

Gwendolyn Davis, a 67-year-old retired special education teacher, left the town hall in Troy with an armful of yard signs for Figures and Jones. She said she is determined to reach people who have been sitting out elections.

“If we don’t get people out to vote, it will be kind of heartbreaking,” she said.

Chandler and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Kennedy Center officials were long aware of serious structural issues that they cited as new problems after the abrupt decision to close the performing arts venue this month, a group of former employees allege in a letter to Congress.

The center’s executive director and chief operating officer, Matt Floca, did not treat the roofing issues as priorities and in April halted a funded plan to address them, according to the letter Thursday signed by David Seide, a lawyer representing the anonymous whistleblowers.

Floca denied their allegations, saying recent investigations of the leaks exposed new hazards at the building.

In a September court declaration, Floca noted there were “acute risks to public safety” when the aging building temporarily closed its doors after an inspection of a deteriorating roof terrace canopy and a partial ceiling collapse. The former employees, however, claim those “acute” issues were known previously by Floca, who joined the Kennedy Center as vice president of facilities in 2024.

“More than one year ago, Mr. Floca had requested and received the needed funds to remediate the New Problems he references,” Seide wrote, citing President Trump’s tax cut and spending bill that he signed in the summer of 2025. “Yet six months ago – with the funds in hand – he stopped the remediation process from moving forward.” In the legislation, Congress earmarked $257 million for the Kennedy Center.

The letter, first reported by The New York Times, is the latest in a series of tensions over an iconic Potomac River waterfront building that has become a focus of the Republican president in his remaking of the nation’s capital in his second term. Trump has installed his own leadership to the center’s governing board and had his name placed on the building before a judge ruled the new lettering was illegally added and ordered it removed.

The Trump-aligned board voted earlier this month to close the center indefinitely for repairs hours after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper blocked its plans to return Trump’s name to the building.

Cooper has told the center that it must give 30 days’ notice before making any major physical changes to the building, including demolishing it, as Trump has threatened. The Kennedy Center leadership also must file a status report no later than Friday on the temporary closure and emergency repairs.

Asked for a response to the whistleblowers’ claims, a Kennedy Center spokesperson sent a written statement from Floca, who said the safety of patrons, artists and staff is his priority.

“The Kennedy Center has known for years that the roof overhang leaked,” he wrote. “What we did not know until this summer was how far the damage had spread inside it.”

Floca added that rather than halting design plans in April as the whistleblowers alleged, he had reassigned the work to a more comprehensive plan because the contractor’s quote for the initial plans were nearly three times the expected cost.

“That was a change in the approach to procuring and delivering the work, not a determination that the work was unnecessary,” Floca wrote.

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote Floca on Thursday after receiving the whistleblower letter. Whitehouse said the documents showed Kennedy Center leadership had “hoarded” congressionally appropriated funding for repairs “while blaming previous leadership for the state of repairs.”

“My initial investigation into misconduct at the Center focused on cronyism and corruption, with documents demonstrating considerable excessive and self-serving spending under President Trump’s chairmanship,” Whitehouse said. “The documents that I attach today seem to reveal deeper financial mismanagement.”

A spokesperson for the committee’s Republican majority did not immediately reply to a request for comment Saturday.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Long before he was the top official at the U.S. Postal Service, David Steiner was a corporate executive surfing mid-oughts television when he came across Donald Trump on “The Apprentice.”

He was unimpressed.

“If that is leadership, if that’s what we’re telling people that our culture and our media portrays as leadership, we’re screwed,” Steiner, then the CEO of Waste Management, said during a 2007 speech at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. “If that’s leadership, count me out.”

“And for God’s sake,” he added to laughter, “if I have to get my hair to look like that, if I have to do that to be a leader, you can definitely count me out.”

Nearly two decades later, Trump has migrated from reality television to the presidency. And onetime detractors — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, for example — now loyally execute his agenda.

Trump’s effort to use the Postal Service as a tool to reshape American elections is testing whether Steiner will follow a similar path.

Independent or a Trump ‘pawn’?

When Trump signed an executive order restricting mail ballots this year, Steiner moved quickly to finalize a rule implementing the measure, arguing he had little choice. But after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the effort, Steiner told The Associated Press that work had stopped on one of the plan’s most controversial elements, a government portal for voter rolls.

He refused to endorse the Republican president’s order as sound policy, saying he was focused on implementation and letting the courts ultimately decide the matter.

“I don’t get to decide what rules that are put on us that I decide to accept or not accept,” he said. “We are an independent agency of the executive branch.”

The episode prompted fierce criticism of Steiner for allowing Trump to deploy an agency designed to be shielded from politics.

Jena Griswold, Colorado’s Democratic secretary of state, called him a “Trump lackey.” Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, recently asked Congress to deploy observers to ensure postal workers can scan envelopes holding mail ballots without disruption, saying the Trump administration “has attempted to weaponize federal agencies to interfere in our elections, and the leadership at USPS is going along with it.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., accused Steiner of being a Trump “pawn” during a congressional hearing this summer. Dozens of congressional Democrats have pressed Steiner to reveal his interactions with the White House during the development of the mail ballot rule.

Some Republicans have joined in the criticism. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, incensed by abandoned mail, called for Steiner’s resignation and introduced legislation to block him from receiving a bonus.

During a lengthy interview, Steiner seemed surprised at points by his reception in Washington. He insisted he wasn’t a “political person” and said he had no intention of stepping down despite the criticism. He dismissed heated congressional appearances as “theater” at odds with more substantive private interactions on Capitol Hill.

Steiner was chagrined, however, at the mention of his 2007 remarks on Trump, delivered well before he launched a political career. Steiner recalled speaking at the university but said he didn’t remember his comments, acknowledging a tendency to be “flippant.”

“That’s funny,” he said. “I don’t recall it.”

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment on Steiner’s remarks or his stewardship of the Postal Service.

Steiner didn’t follow the traditional path to power in Trump’s Washington

The Postal Service dates to Benjamin Franklin, the first postmaster general, whose portrait and bust are displayed in Steiner’s office overlooking the Washington Wharf. The agency has more than 630,000 employees, dwarfing many Cabinet departments.

While the quickest way to top jobs in Trump’s Washington is often by writing big checks, the 66-year-old Steiner doesn’t appear to have followed that course. He has largely donated to Republicans but also gave to John Kerry’s Democratic presidential campaign in 2004. Unlike his predecessor as postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, Steiner was not a major GOP donor or Trump backer.

Born in Oakland, California, as one of eight children to a father who spent his career at Chevron, Steiner worked in corporate and securities law before moving to Waste Management in 2000. He became CEO in 2004 and ran the company for 12 years. He was also a longtime director at FedEx, where board chairman Brad Martin recalled him as “outcome oriented” and rarely political.

“He’s going to follow the rules. He’s going to follow the law,” Martin said. “I don’t recall us ever talking politics.”

By the time a headhunter contacted Steiner about the postmaster general job, he was largely removed from daily corporate life and initially demurred.

“I talked to my wife, and we both agreed I was happily retired,” he said.

He changed his mind, he said, during a visit to the beaches of Normandy, feeling a sense of civic duty.

Now at the Postal Service, he earns about $346,000 in annual salary along with a relocation bonus that amounts to half his salary, far less than the $17 million in compensation he earned during his final year at Waste Management. His current role is designed to exist one layer removed from the political process, reporting to a board of governors that is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

He was hired in 2025 by a board that was made up of five members, three of whom were Democrats. All but one were appointed by President Joe Biden. That makeup could change as four Trump nominees — all Republicans — await Senate confirmation. Steiner can be fired only by the board.

Steiner said he first met Trump along with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick at the board’s urging after he was already selected as postmaster general. Since then, he described a minimal relationship with the White House.

“We don’t fly on the radar,” he said.

That is, until Trump revived his effort in March to crack down on mail voting. Steiner said he “wasn’t in on the development piece” of the order and first saw it about a month before it was signed.

“They gave it to us to say, ‘Have your lawyers look at it, and how do you operationalize it?’” Steiner said.

The portal spurred a massive development effort inside the Postal Service while some states criticized it as federal overreach. A whistleblower report released by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., argued the system was hastily built and riddled with errors, though Steiner said he was confident it could have been unveiled around Sept. 15.

“The heavy lifting was clearly, clearly the IT work,” Steiner said.

Challenges ahead for the Postal Service

Though the Supreme Court dispensed with the rule, the dynamics for the Postal Service don’t get easier.

The agency posted a $9 billion net loss last year, and Steiner has warned it could soon run out of cash unless Congress lifts a $15 billion borrowing cap. Political hurdles have prevented potential cost savings from cutting service or closing some post offices.

And while Trump’s executive order won’t take effect, the Postal Service will still play a critical role in this year’s elections. There are mounting concerns that mail ballots could be rejected for late postmarks. Steiner encouraged voters to get their ballots in a week before the election to avoid problems.

The Postal Service is a rare corner of government still viewed favorably with more than half of Americans, 56%, saying it was doing an “excellent” or “good” job in a Gallup poll conducted last year. That could change if the agency is seen as increasingly political.

Steiner, however, said Americans will judge the Postal Service by their experience of it.

“What they care about is when they get that wedding invitation after the wedding or when they send a package and it disappears,” he said. “If we want to have the trust of the American public, let’s be the best service provider. Everything else is noise.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

JUNEAU, Alaska — One of the most biting insults in Alaska politics is to be accused of being aligned with the “Lower 48,” code for candidates taking marching orders from powerful forces in the contiguous United States rather than sticking up for Alaskans.

It’s a central theme of the Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, one of a handful expected to determine control of the chamber in the November elections.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan’s campaign has made it a key attack line against Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman. He lumps her in with “Lower 48 liberals” who have opposed expanded oil and gas drilling in a state that has relied heavily on that industry for decades.

Peltola, an Alaska Native, has countered that she “took on” then-President Biden, a fellow Democrat, to help win approval in 2023 of the huge Willow oil project, which environmentalists strongly opposed. She also says she will “take on anyone, including Democrats — anyone in the Lower 48 who doesn’t understand what Alaska needs.”

The pejorative label reflects a mystique about Alaska, which outsiders often refer to as “The Last Frontier.” A state for less than 70 years, Alaska is renowned for its natural beauty, wildlife and vast landscapes. Its rural nature — isolated from the rest of the country and with many of its communities accessible only by air or water — breeds a self-reliance. It’s a place where many residents hunt and fish to fill their freezers for winter and take pride in their independence.

The two major Senate campaigns and some third-party groups have leaned into that sentiment — that Alaska is different — and cast their candidates as authentic voices for Alaskans.

“We love the persona Alaska is a tough place to live,” said Republican Andrew Halcro, a political podcast host and former state lawmaker who has lived in the state nearly all his life.

Abundance of oil and other resources has created friction with federal government

Alaska, rich in natural resources, has long had a love-hate relationship with the federal government, which owns about 60% of the state’s land. That relationship has been especially strained under Democratic presidential administrations that have sought to restrict logging, mining and the availability of areas for oil and gas development over environmental concerns.

Policies can shift dramatically from one administration to the next.

The Democratic Obama and Biden administrations banned leasing on roughly half the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is home to wildlife such as caribou and polar bears and provides habitat for millions of migrating birds. Republican President Trump’s administration has rolled back those and other restrictions as part of a broader push for expanded oil and gas development in Alaska. The administration also is supporting lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The state also has bristled at Democratic efforts to stifle road building and logging in areas such as the Tongass National Forest, a temperate rainforest in southeast Alaska. That dispute dates to the Clinton administration.

Alaska’s share of royalty revenue from oil and minerals on federal land has been another ongoing source of tension. Some lawmakers say the state was promised a larger share at statehood and that the federal government has failed to uphold its end of the deal.

While oil production is a fraction of what it was at its peak in the late 1980s and has fallen in recent years, political leaders have pointed to signs of a turnaround. They cite in part the strong interest from major companies that snatched up leases in a sale earlier this year for the petroleum reserve, home to the Willow project.

Alaska communities have been hit hard by spikes in fuel prices caused by the Iran war. That is especially true for remote communities that must have their fuel flown in or delivered by barge before the rivers ice over.

Oil development is the top issue in this year’s election for Darryl Hugo, who lives in the small North Slope community of Anaktuvuk Pass. He is backing Sullivan and notes that revenue from oil development is largely responsible for his town’s health clinic, school, police and fire departments and water system.

“My region’s economy depends on oil,” he said via a messaging app.

Candidates are seen as trying to stake claim as ‘the real spokesperson for the real Alaska’

Robert Sewell, an independent from the Juneau area, said he sees the “Lower 48” taunts and Peltola trying to distance herself from national Democrats as examples of the candidates “fighting to establish who is the real spokesperson for the real Alaska.”

He also likens it a bit to the schoolyard jeer, “I know you are, but what am I?”

Peltola, during her unsuccessful 2024 congressional reelection campaign, refused to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and said she would not vote for Trump. This year, before Alaska’s August primary, Harris sent a fundraising appeal that offered support of Peltola.

In response, Peltola’s campaign told reporters that she “isn’t seeking endorsements from anyone from the Lower 48.”

In videos highlighting her backing of the Willow oil project, Peltola said she will work with Trump, who handily carried Alaska each of the three times he has run, to advance more oil and gas projects.

“I took on Joe Biden to secure the largest development project in decades,” she said in one video on social media. “And I’ll work with Donald Trump on more.”

Sewell, a Peltola supporter, said he does not begrudge that position. He said he does not think “for one moment that she likes Trump or Trump’s agendas” on other issues.

‘Lower 48’ jabs fill social media and airwaves, but do voters care?

Peltola, who is Yup’ik, is among the roughly 43% of Alaskans born in the state. She grew up fishing on the Kuskokwim River in western Alaska and prominently displays fishing photos on her website. Her campaign slogan, “Fish, Family, Freedom,” is intended to appeal to what she believes are Alaskans’ shared values.

Sullivan, originally from Ohio, came to Alaska in the late 1990s when he was in his early 30s. Now a retired Marine, he served as Alaska attorney general and natural resources commissioner, and was an assistant secretary of state in President George W. Bush’s administration.

Sullivan spokesperson Nate Adams said that for the senator, “being an Alaskan means loving this state, fighting everyday for his fellow Alaskans and making sure Alaskans, not Lower 48 liberals, decide our future.”

The SLF PAC, which supports a Republican Senate majority, has been keying in on that theme. In one of its ads, a speaker says of Peltola, “They dress her up, throw her out on a stream somewhere, make her look like an Alaskan.” Another says: “Mary Peltola sounds like Alaska, but toes a different line in Washington, D.C.”

Peltola’s campaign said Alaskans “won’t be fooled by mudslinging ads.” In a statement, her campaign sought to link Sullivan with “Lower 48 special interest donors.”

Halcro, the former lawmaker and podcaster, said Alaskans have been inundated with such ads and flyers, but he is not sure the messaging over which candidate aligns less with the “Lower 48” is one voters want to hear this year.

“It’s all of this stuff just to make us angry at a time where we really genuinely, genuinely just need stability,” he said. “We just need to elect somebody who’s not going to break anything.”

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping if he wanted to buy weapons from the United States, the U.S. ambassador to China said.

David Perdue said Trump raised the prospect of the arms sales from the U.S. to its ascendant geopolitical rival, an unlikely offer that if consummated would upend generations of U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan and expose U.S. technology to a potential foe. Perdue, speaking to Shannon Bream on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday” days after Trump hosted Xi for a state visit in Washington, didn’t specify when the offer was made.

Perdue said Sunday that Trump, a Republican, was downplaying longstanding U.S. arms sales to Taiwan — which have drawn protest from Beijing for years — by couching it as just one of many sales Washington makes around the world — and even asking Xi if he’d be in the market for U.S. weaponry.

Bream had cited concerns from Republican and Democratic lawmakers over delayed aid packages and weapons orders to Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy that seeks to defend itself from China’s threat to invade the island. Bream asked if the U.S. is denying arms to Taiwan to appease the Chinese president, who visited Trump last week.

Perdue pushed back on the suggestion, stating that Trump “is as strong on Taiwan as I’ve ever seen anybody” and has sold it plenty of weapons. Perdue also said Trump and Xi continue to talk about future U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.

“But President Trump continues to say, ‘Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,’” Perdue said. “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some, at one point.”

The U.S. is bound by its own laws to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself. While not recognizing Taiwan as a country, the U.S. is the island’s strongest informal backer and arms provider. But multiple U.S. leaders have left ambiguous whether they would commit military force to defend the U.S. ally should China invade.

China has pressed Washington to halt the arms sales, most prominently during a previous summit in May between Trump and Xi in Beijing. After that meeting, the United States paused the sale of a record-breaking $14 billion package — and Trump described arms sales to Taiwan as a “very good negotiating chip” with China.

In their private talks at the White House last week, Xi pressed Trump to oppose Taiwan independence, according to Chinese state media.

In Beijing, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun did not confirm Perdue’s remarks when asked about the matter on Monday. But he told reporters that China has always strengthened its national defense capabilities based on its needs and is committed to maintaining world peace and stability.

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — What’s so wrong about requiring every Californian to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote? That’s what Proposition 39 backers ask. And it’s a fair question.

Here are some valid answers:

• It would make California’s already notoriously slow vote count even more pokey.
• It would be an added hassle for citizens attempting to exercise their voting right.
• It would cost taxpayers a bundle, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
• It’s another solution by politicians to a problem that really doesn’t exist.

Practically everyone, regardless of political affiliation, must understand by now that there simply is no evidence of widespread — significant, meaningful — voter cheating in California or anywhere else in America. This despite conspiracy-theorists’ fruitless searching and President Trump’s lies about “rigged” elections.

It’s my belief that the main reason Republicans placed Proposition 39 on the California ballot was to boost GOP voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. And recent independent polling shows that the measure does appeal strongly to Republicans — but not Democrats, who are united in opposition.

The proposition appears to be headed for defeat, largely because Democratic voters in this deep blue state equate it with the discredited president. Trump has turned into poison for Republican candidates in competitive races and any cause that reminds people of him.

That’s why the Proposition 39 campaign last week released a new major TV ad that essentially asks voters to ignore the president.

This is how conservative consultant Jon Fleischman summarized the ad’s message to Democrats in his blog: “You can hate Trump and still back Voter ID.”

Proposition 39 would mainly do two things:

• Require voters to show some government-issued identification each time they vote in person, such as a driver’s license or passport. Don’t have one? The state would issue a free ID card to any voter who asked.
• Californians who cast mail ballots — more than 80% of voters — would be required to write the last four digits of a government ID number on the return envelope. The number would be determined when initially registering to vote.

The measure also would impose some basically noncontroversial mandates that make sense separately. It would require election officials to maintain accurate voter registration files, weeding out people who have moved or died and verifying citizenship. But counties already do that pretty well.

The contrived bogeyman for election fraud scaremongers is the undocumented immigrant community. But these people, living on the edge and hiding from the government, aren’t going to risk deportation by trying to vote in an election they couldn’t care less about. And political candidates aren’t going to waste their time and money on them. Their targets are the large numbers of apathetic legal voters who sit out elections.

Currently, Californians must provide identification when registering and swear under penalty of perjury — a felony — that they are U.S. citizens. And they must record their signatures when registering and scribble it on the back of the ballot envelope when voting by mail.

Requiring me to add a four-digit number on the back of my “absentee” ballot envelope means I’d have to register all over again to record the PIN. And then remember it every election. A pointless pain.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, instigated and authored Proposition 39. “I do believe that voter fraud is a real problem. Absolutely,” he told me.

But he said the proposition has two main goals: 1, to clean up voter files and make sure ballots are properly validated and counted. 2, to increase public confidence in the voting process. “We have a perception problem,” he says. “Voters have low trust” in the election system.

Republicans mistrust a lot; Democrats not so much.

A California poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that 84% of Republican voters had a “major concern” about voter fraud. Only 21% of Democrats did.

Can anyone doubt who’s driving the Republicans’ anxiety? The bellicose president. “Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump has reiterated. “It’s terrible what’s going on.”

This from the hypocrite who mails in his ballots.

Fortunately, Proposition 39’s crafters left mail ballots pretty much alone, except for requiring a nuisance PIN on the ballot envelope.

That “absolutely” will slow down vote counting, says Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee and was the longtime chief elections official of Santa Cruz County. Under Proposition 39, officials not only would need to check voters’ signatures against those on file, but also their PINs.

And voting in person would drag while people dug for an ID and an official checked it, Pellerin says. Some people are bound to be denied their voting right by mistake, she asserts.

Tony Quinn, formerly a GOP redistricting consultant and a longtime political analyst, points out that a disproportionately high portion of in-person voters are Republicans. Proposition 39 is “imposing a burden on them,” he says. “I don’t think the authors realize who’s voting in person these days. They sense illegal aliens.”

The UC institute poll showed Proposition 39 being supported by 39% of likely voters and opposed by 52%. It was backed by 92% of Republicans, but Democrats were 80% against. And they outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 in California.

The proposition also trailed in a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California: 43% yes, 55% no.

In the PPIC poll, Republicans said 39 was by far the most interesting proposition on the ballot.

Trump’s influence? Among the paltry 27% of voters who approve of his job performance, 88% support Proposition 39. But of the 72% who disapprove of the president, 73% oppose the measure.

Trump is toxic.

Proposition 39 is more government regulation for no good reason.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Tax the rich? California voters are divided, according to new poll
Law & Order: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The L.A. Times Special: High cost of living tops voter concerns, Becerra remains front-runner in governor’s race, new poll shows

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Opponents of the billionaire tax on the November ballot have vastly outraised the proposal’s supporters, with the anti-Proposition 40 effort and the backers of two other ballot measures crafted to nullify it raising $187 million compared to the $32 million raised by boosters of the wealth tax, according to campaign finance documents filed with the state.

The reports, filed Thursday, account for donations through Sept. 19 and do not include several million dollars that have poured into campaign coffers in recent days. The numbers are expected to vastly increase before the Nov. 3 election.

The bulk of the money raised by the proponents of Proposition 40, which would enact a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets, appears to have been spent on gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. The campaign had only $207,000 in the bank, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

A leader of the union that crafted the proposal accused wealthy Californians who are spending heavily against the measure of lying to voters. The measure is designed to offset $100 billion in impending federal healthcare funding cuts expected to impacts millions of Californians.

“The billionaires take and take — tax break after tax break — and now they’re spending that money to deceive voters and avoid paying their fair share,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. “Voters want their money back from the billionaires and want local emergency rooms to stay open. California does not need more tax breaks for billionaires. California needs emergency rooms for patients, hospitals that stay open, and healthcare people can access and afford.”

Opponents of the billionaire tax argue that it would do more harm than good.

“The more Californians learn, the more they see Proposition 40 for what it is — a harmful tax scheme that permanently damages the state’s budget and economy with zero accountability or safeguards to ensure funding actually improves care or lowers costs for patients,” said California Medical Assn. President Dr. René Bravo, the leader of one of the groups opposing the billionaire tax.

Proposition 41 would nullify the billionaire tax if, in the event that both measures are approved, it receives more “yes” votes. Proposition 41 would prohibit any new state tax from being excluded from a voter-approved cap that restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend each year.

“Californians deserve better results for their hard-earned tax dollars,” said Molly Weedn, a spokesperson for the Proposition 41 campaign.

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets, and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of Proposition 40. If both measures pass and Proposition 42 receives more “yes” votes, it would nullify the wealth tax.

The proposed billionaire tax has divided California Democrats, with Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing it while the state Democratic party supports it.

In recent polling, a majority of likely voters did not support any of the three proposals.

While 45% of likely voters supported the billionaire tax, 42% opposed it, according to a poll released Friday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. Voters also are torn about the two ballot measures designed to nullify it.

The other measure receiving great attention, Proposition 39, which would require voters to show government-issued ID to cast ballots, faces a similar financial disparity. Opponents to the measure have raised $39.3 million compared to $15.6 million garnered by supporters.

Fifty-two percent of likely California voters oppose the voter ID proposal, while 39% support it and 9% are undecided, according to the Berkeley poll.

In the race to replace Newsom, Democratic former Biden cabinet member Xavier Becerra has raised $35.8 million, while his GOP rival, conservative strategist and television commentator Steve Hilton, has raised $22.3 million.

Becerra remains the front-runner in the governor’s race, which is not surprising since Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. In last week’s Berkeley poll, the Democrat had the support of 58% of likely voters, while 33% backed the Republican.

WASHINGTON — California is sometimes described as the ATM of Democratic politics.

That’s certainly been the case in the most divisive Democratic races this year.

Donors from California have given more to far-left candidates and their moderate opponents in congressional races and U.S. Senate contests than donors from any other state — more than $17 million combined, according to a Times analysis of the most recently available campaign finance filings.

More of that money — nearly $11 million — went to more progressive candidates. That giving came from more than 95,000 individual donors, which was more than double the number of California donors who gave to their more moderate opponents. That includes 18,000 donors who gave to both progressive and moderate candidates.

There was a geographic divide in giving by Californians. The largest share of cash to progressive candidates came from donors in the Bay Area, while the largest share of financial backing to moderate candidates came from donors in the Los Angeles area.

The Times looked at competitive races outside California in which one of the candidates had been endorsed by either the Justice Democrats or the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, as well as key Senate races in Michigan, Minnesota, Florida and Maine that featured a stark ideological divide between top Democratic contenders.

Although these races represent a small fraction of the electoral contests across the country, they were the races in which the future ideological direction of the Democratic Party was most fiercely contested.

Progressive candidates fared better in the majority of these contests.

California donors helped fund the Senate primary victories of progressives Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota — second only to in-state donors in providing cash to each of those candidates.

Progressive House candidates such as Melat Kiros in Colorado and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York were able to defeat more moderate incumbents with heavy support from California donors.

Their efforts weren’t always successful, however.

Former Rep. Cori Bush raked in more cash from California donors than in-state supporters in her bid to unseat incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, the seat she had held previously. But Bell easily cruised to victory in this year’s primary.

And then there was Graham Platner.

California donors gave nearly $2.5 million to his Senate campaign in Maine before he withdrew after he was accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend. He has denied the accusation.

The Times analysis looked at direct contributions to campaigns, which are capped at $7,000 per election cycle. It did not include contributions to party committees or independent committees that could also be spending in these races. The analysis included both bigger contributions required to be disclosed by campaigns as well as small-dollar contributions through the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue.

Flipping the script

Progressive donors said they were motivated to give to candidates who would shake up the Democratic Party’s status quo.

“The Democratic Party has to understand that they can’t keep doing the same thing,” said Rehan Alvi, a real estate investor in El Dorado Hills.

He gave the maximum allowable to support the campaigns of El-Sayed and Bush, and also supported Junaid Ahmed’s failed primary bid in the Illinois 8th Congressional District, as well as Platner’s campaign.

Harry Saddler, a retired designer who lives in San Francisco, said that the state of the party is “enraging.”

“That leads me to think about people who can actually flip the script,” he said.

Joshua Saltman, shown in his Los Angeles home, is one of many Democratic donors from California who have given in divisive Democratic races across the country.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Saddler has written checks to a number of more progressive candidates, including Flanagan, Chevalier, Ahmed and Nida Allam, who lost her primary bid to unseat incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District, though he has also supported some moderate candidates in other races he sees as crucial to Democrats chances at retaking control of one or both chambers of Congress.

That pragmatic approach is part of the reason Joshua Saltman said he has supported a number of moderate candidates.

“The reality of the map is that if Democrats are going to retake the House, it’s not just winning super blue districts,” said Saltman, a former entertainment industry lawyer who now runs a Broadway music festival.

Saltman said that he considers himself to be a more moderate Democrat and is also inclined to give to moderate candidates who he believes “get a little less love” from other donors, particularly in California.

He has written checks to Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed in Michigan; Rep. Angie Craig, who lost to Flanagan in Minnesota; Bell in Missouri and Gov. Janet Mills in Maine, who was Platner’s main competition in the Democratic primary before dropping out of the race.

Alan Burye, a retired accountant who lives just outside San Diego, said he prefers more moderate candidates because he thinks they are more productive politicians.

“The ones who are out on the edges, like Bernie Sanders, really don’t get much done,” Burye said.

He cut checks to Craig in Minnesota and Stevens in Michigan.

Israel’s impact

American support for Israel — in the wake of wars in Gaza and Iran — has been a major point of division among more progressive and moderate candidates and is a key fault line among many donors.

Progressive candidates have been increasingly critical of the actions and influence of the Israeli government as the public, broadly, has adopted a more negative view of the Israeli government.

Politicians who have drawn support in the past from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, have been a particular target of progressive challengers.

“The problem with the Democratic Party is that they’re all just beholden to AIPAC and to corporate interests,” said Alvi, the real estate investor in El Dorado Hills. “I want a candidate who has the courage to speak.”

In Michigan, El-Sayed described AIPAC’s support of Stevens, his moderate opponent, as “legalized bribery.”

El-Sayed has made no secret of his criticism of American foreign aid for Israel and said that he “doesn’t believe in ethno-states” in response to a question in the summer about whether he supports the right of Israel to exist.

El-Sayed’s comments and similar sentiments expressed by other more progressive candidates are part of the reason some donors have given to moderate candidates.

“I feel that people who fundamentally aren’t big fans of Israel aren’t necessarily people I want to give money to,” said Saltman, who gave to Stevens.

Saltman, who was born in Michigan, said that he would still vote for El-Sayed if he lived in the state.

Other donors said they were inspired to give to moderate candidates because of concern that anti-Israel rhetoric could veer into attacks on Jews more broadly.

Los Angeles investor Steve Emerson said his motivation in writing checks to moderate Democrats such as Stevens is “to fight antisemitism.”

El-Sayed, for his part, said in the summer that his criticism of Israel is about foreign policy, not Jewish people.

“Judaism and the Jewish people are a light onto the world,” he said.

For weeks, the streets of Serbia were teeming with young people rallying against the government. At the height of the protests in March 2025, more than 100,000 took to the streets.

The student movement had called for early elections for nearly two years, and President Aleksandar Vucic, who resigned on Sunday, finally heeded their call earlier this month. He announced snap parliamentary elections for October 25.

With the elections originally not due until December 2027, the early vote is seen as an attempt by governing populists to cling to power despite widespread discontent.

Vucic is vying for the prime minister’s post, a role he has held before, appearing to yield to protesters’ demands not out of goodwill but in the hopes of ushering in a result that keeps him in office, analysts say.

But experts warn that elections will hardly solve the underlying political tensions gripping the country, triggered after 16 people were killed in 2024 when a concrete canopy collapsed at a railway station. Student protesters blamed the disaster on government negligence and alleged corruption.

The move “is essentially about reducing political risk”, Viktor Stamenkovic, a researcher at Belgrade’s Institute for Political Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“Given the circumstances, the ruling camp is choosing the electoral sequence it considers least dangerous,” he said, referring to Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party (SNS).

Saving his skin: Elections a cling to power

Vucic could stall no more – both the presidential and parliamentary vote would have had to be held next year.

“Vucic has, for some time, been aware that further delay is unlikely to work in his favour,” Stamenkovic said.

Vucic’s presidential term expires before the mandate of the current parliament, said Stamenkovic. Serbia’s recent political history explains the order of the elections – the parliamentary before the presidential, the analyst added.

Presidential elections can fundamentally alter the parliamentary dynamics that follow – which is how Vucic’s party came to power, Stamenkovic explained.

Vucic cannot run for a third term under Serbia’s constitution, and no other SNS figure is as popular as him.

“In 2012, the presidential victory of the SNS candidate Tomislav Nikolic changed the political momentum so dramatically that the bloc, which had previously appeared capable of forming a parliamentary majority, was ultimately unable to do so,” said Stamenkovic. “The presidential result altered the calculations of the parliamentary parties and paved the way for a government led by SNS.”

Vucic, therefore, has good reason to fear the same scenario being repeated.

Vucic has built a personalised political system centred on himself rather than his party or any successor, said Stamenkovic.

“He therefore has to find a way of transferring his own political strength from the presidency into the parliamentary arena … effectively staking his political future on the parliamentary election.”

For Milica Vojinovic, an investigative reporter at the Serbian outlet KRIK, the goal of the governing party is to stay in power at any cost.

“They [want to] continue their corruption projects, which usually means finding new ways and public procurements through which they can take money… [including from] public budgets,” Vojinovic told Al Jazeera.

She cited irregularities in past elections, such as vote buying by the SNS, documented by election observers and human rights organisations, and feared that the next elections will see an “escalation of these tactics, now that the student movement is actually threatening to win the election and take power from Vucic’s party”.

The vote will not resolve country’s discord

Since 2024, the governing party has lost a sense of political legitimacy, said Stamenkovic.

“Even if – and this is a big if – SNS wins another parliamentary majority, it is difficult to envisage a return to a situation in which it can govern normally and claim the kind of broad social legitimacy it once enjoyed,” he said. “Virtually all polling shows that a majority of the country believes Serbia is heading in the wrong direction and that the time has come for change.”

Mass demonstrations have not taken place in Serbia for some time, as the student movement has shifted from organising large rallies to election campaigning.

The youth movement recently submitted their election list to state election authorities after a jubilant march through the capital of Belgrade, formally entering the race.

Polls show that this vote could bring representatives of the student movement into parliament and state institutions, said the Serbia-based Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA).

“This is important for Serbia’s democracy … [They] will definitely improve the legitimacy of the parliament as the representative body,” the group said.

Transparency and anticorruption are priorities for most citizens, with the social and political reality in the country having changed in the two years since the railway station incident, the organisation added.

Vojinovic, however, predicted that if Vucic’s party continues to hold power, “we are to expect the most repressive measures seen so far against everyone who has been criticising, or in any way opposing, the government”.

Criminal cases have already been brought against some activists in the student movement, as well as a political analyst, she said.

According to Human Rights Watch, foreign agent laws, first introduced by Russia and seen being picked up by other nations, have been used to brand independent civil society, media and other dissenting voices as illegitimate and acting on behalf of foreign interests. Such a law was proposed in Serbia in 2024.

“Recent smear campaigns against my newsroom, as well as other independent media outlets and NGOs, lead us to believe that they may be a precursor to the introduction of a ‘foreign agents law’ in the near future, should Vucic’s party remain in power,” Vojinovic added.

EU rift no matter

Meanwhile, Serbia is no closer to joining the European Union, but that is not a real priority for Vucic, the experts said.

“It is widely understood that Serbia cannot make meaningful progress towards EU membership under the current system of government,” said Stamenkovic. “What matters much more to Vucic is avoiding serious political pressure and criticism from Brussels.”

Ratko Mladic’s funeral illustrates this balancing act: Serbia hosted the semi-official honouring of the former Bosnian Serb army general – who died while serving a life sentence for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia – but Vucic did not attend, he said.

“In some ways, the relationship between Vucic’s government and the EU resembles a couple trapped in a disastrous marriage who nevertheless do not divorce because both sides continue to benefit from the relationship.

“Vucic cooperates with the EU on issues that matter to Brussels, while the EU has for years been willing to overlook a great deal about the increasingly authoritarian nature of his rule,” he added.

The two are also at odds over Russia, which Serbia has ties with.

A public opinion poll in June by the CRTA and Stanford University’s Democracy Action Lab showed that among SNS voters, 15 percent wanted closer ties with the EU while 60 percent favoured relations with Russia.

“There is every reason to expect election day itself to be highly contentious,” said Stamenkovic.

More state money to pay for arts teachers will reach local schools if legislation signed Sunday by Gov. Gavin Newsom works out as intended, but the new law will not resolve a lawsuit accusing the Los Angeles school district of misspending as much as $77 million in its share of the funding.

The aim of Assembly Bill 2440 is to encourage more school systems to use arts funding made available through Proposition 28, which voters passed in November 2022.

“The clear message we heard was that many school districts have been struggling to navigate legal ambiguity regarding compliance with Proposition 28,” said bill author Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) in a recent statement to The Times. He said his goal was to provide “statewide guidance” so that all or most school systems could use the money without concern over violations of spending rules that could result in financial penalties.

Proposition 28 sets aside an amount equal to 1% of the state’s base education funding — close to $1 billion per year — to increase arts education. This extra funding is drawn down from the state’s general fund — so it adds to the total allotted for education.

The initial funding, nearly a billion dollars statewide, went out for the 2023-24 school year and has continued annually. But millions of dollars have not yet been spent, according to early reviews of the data.

Some local officials said they were holding back over concerns that they would inadvertently violate the rules for spending the money — and would then have to pay it back, creating significant financial risk.

This bill had backing from arts organizations, education and school district officials and the California Teachers Assn. No opposition was recorded in the legislative record; nor were there any opposing votes as the bill worked its way through the legislative process.

But then Austin Beutner — the author of Proposition 28 — learned of the measure and stepped forward with concerns. He contendedthe bill would make using the arts money easier, but in wrong ways. He said the bill would undermine the guarantee that new arts funding would reach every school. Also it would in effect eliminate the provision that campuses serving low-income communities receive higher levels of new funding. Moreover — and of key importance — the legislation would allow districts to use the new arts money to replace existing arts funding, leaving students no better off than before, he said.

Beutner had structured Proposition 28 precisely to prevent this supplanting of funds. Districts not willing to provide the required increased instruction at every school would, by design, lose access to the new arts money.

Beutner began to rally opposition, including United Teachers Los Angeles, L.A. mayoral candidate Nithya Raman and San Diego school board President Richard Barrera, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction — and who has the endorsement of the California Teachers Assn.

Beutner also announced his attention to file litigation against the bill.

Muratsuchi said he had no intent to undermine the goals of Proposition 28 — and a compromise soon emerged.

The final version — which has Beutner’s approval — clarifies that small schools or small school districts can pool their money to share an arts teacher, provided that every school gets the additional arts instruction. The bill also gives some legal protection for school districts against financial penalties if their arts funding decreases as a result of factors beyond their control, such as the expiration of a grant.

An LAUSD lawsuit continues

Beutner alleges that L.A. Unified has intentionally misused the new arts money.

Beutner pursued passage of Proposition 28 after serving as superintendent of L.A. Unified. His stint ended in mid-2021 with the expiration of a three-year contract.

“LAUSD has done exactly what the law prohibits,” Beutner alleged in an ongoing lawsuit filed in February 2025. “It has eliminated existing funding sources for existing art teachers, and replaced those funds with Proposition 28 funds, thereby violating the requirement that the funds supplement rather than supplant existing sources.”

The lawsuit lists 37 elementary schools with the same or reduced money for arts instruction from 2022-23 to 2023-24 — when the new funding first arrived — and alleges that most L.A. Unified schools faced a similar funding situation.

Before the lawsuit, but in response to growing criticism, L.A. Unified officials quietly added $30 million to the elementary school arts budget for the 2024-25 school year amid ongoing accusations from Beutner, union leaders and parents.

The district has defended its actions.

“We continue to follow implementation guidance as provided by the state of California to ensure that we are fully complying with the requirements of Prop. 28,” the district said in a statement at the time of the lawsuit, a contention that it has made repeatedly.

Demonstrators protest against UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.

Police in the United Kingdom have arrested more than 50 people protesting in support of the banned Palestine Action group outside a Labour Party conference in the northwestern English city of Liverpool.

The local Merseyside Police confirmed the arrests in a statement published on Sunday.

The police said those taken into custody at the protest, organised by Defend Our Juries, had displayed material in support of Palestine Action, proscribed as a “terrorist” group by the Labour government in July 2025 under the Terrorism Act.

According to the statement, police respected the rights of people to protest lawfully while aiming to keep the peace and ensure the public are safe.

More than 250 protesters sat outside the conference centre holding banners with words supporting the group on Sunday, before dozens of police began making arrests.

English band Massive Attack singer Robert Del Naja was among those arrested.

After asking demonstrators if they were going to continue holding up the signs, officers led people away, telling them they had been arrested under the Terrorism Act.

Reporting from Liverpool, Al Jazeera correspondent Milena Veselinovic said the protesters wanted to put proscription “front and centre of the UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s agenda” on the first day of his party’s annual conference.

“Being arrested is nothing in comparison to what the people in Gaza are going through, and it’s also worth it, because this is about our right to free speech,” one protester told Al Jazeera.

Another said that “there are priests, there are healthcare workers, there are people who deeply care, and deeply care about right and wrong.”

Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, said protesting “is one of the most effective tools” to make government leaders listen and described the arrests as “a truly shameful attack on freedom of speech”.

“The new prime minister can reform our laws so that communities are protected in coming together and demonstrating on the issues they care about. Will he do so?” she said.

Activists also confronted Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband inside a restaurant in Liverpool, demanding that he lift the ban on the group and declare Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The activists left after Miliband reportedly refused to comment.

A civil disobedience campaign has emerged since Palestine Action was outlawed in July 2025, with more than 3,600 people arrested for showing their support for the group, often while holding signs reading, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

The UK Supreme Court is now set to hear the case after London’s Court of Appeal upheld the government ban in June.