politics

Social media influencer Sammy Yahood is known to spread Islamophobic content online.

Australia has cancelled the visa of an Israeli social media influencer who has campaigned against Islam, saying it will not accept visitors to the country who come to spread hatred.

Australian Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said in a statement on Tuesday that “spreading hatred is not a good reason to come” to Australia, hours after influencer Sammy Yahood announced that his visa was cancelled three hours before his flight departed from Israel.

People who want to visit Australia should apply for the correct visa and come for the right reasons, Burke said in a statement to the AFP news agency.

Just hours before his visa was cancelled, Yahood had written on X, “Islam ACCORDING TO ISLAM does not tolerate non-believers, apostates, women’s rights, children’s rights, or gay rights.”

He also referred to Islam as a “disgusting ideology” and an “aggressor”.

Australia tightened its hate crime laws earlier this month in response to a mass shooting at a Jewish celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, which left 15 people dead.

In a recent post, Yahood, a native of the UK and a recent citizen of Israel, had also advocated for the deportation of United States Representative Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American, who is Muslim.

In another, he ridiculed the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, which is responsible for coordinating relief for Palestinians and Palestinian refugees in the occupied West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Israel began bulldozing UNRWA’s headquarters in occupied East Jerusalem last week, a move strongly condemned by the world body and Palestinian leaders, who said the flattening of the site marked a “barbaric new era” of unchecked defiance of international law by Israeli authorities.

Despite the cancellation of his visa to Australia, Yahood said he flew from Israel to Abu Dhabi, but was blocked from getting his connecting flight to Melbourne.

“I have been unlawfully banned from Australia, and I will be taking action,” he wrote on X.

“This is a story about tyranny, censorship and control,” he added in another post.

Yahood’s visa was reportedly cancelled under the same legislation that has been used in the past to reject people’s visas on the grounds of disseminating hatred.

Sky News Australia reported that Minister Burke previously revoked the visitor visa of Israeli-American activist and tech entrepreneur Hillel Fuld over his “Islamophobic rhetoric”, as well as the visa of Simcha Rothman, a lawmaker with Israel’s far-right Mafdal-Religious Zionism party and a member of Netanyahu’s governing coalition, amid concerns that his planned speaking tour in the country would “spread division”.

The conservative Australian Jewish Association, which had invited Yahood to speak at events in Sydney and Melbourne, said it “strongly condemned” the visa decision by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government.

Jan. 26 (UPI) — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Monday that the department canceled all contracts with consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton because of a data leak that included President Donald Trump‘s tax returns.

The department has 31 contracts with Booz Allen for a total of $4.8 million in annual spending and $21 million in total obligations, a press release said.

“President Trump has entrusted his cabinet to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and canceling these contracts is an essential step to increasing Americans’ trust in government,” Bessent said in a statement.

Between 2018 and 2020, a Booz Allen employee, Charles Edward Littlejohn, “stole and leaked the confidential tax returns and return information of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.”

The breach affected about 406,000 taxpayers, including Trump, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

“Booz Allen failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect sensitive data, including the confidential taxpayer information it had access to through its contracts with the Internal Revenue Service,” Bessent said.

Littlejohn pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one charge of disclosure of tax return information and was sentenced to five years in prison. He admitted to leaking Trump’s tax information to The New York Times and leaking other tax information to ProPublica.

Booz Allen’s stock price dipped by 8% on the news, CNBC reported.

A writer for a right-wing website asked the White House spokesperson a leading question about the killing of Alex Pretti by immigration agents in Minnesota, prompting an attack on the “liberal biased media.”

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s promises on affordability in 2024 helped propel him to a second term in the White House.

Since then, Trump says, the problem has been solved: He now calls affordability a hoax perpetrated by Democrats. Yet the high cost of living, especially housing, continues to weigh heavily on voters, and has dragged down the president’s approval ratings.

In a poll conducted this month by the New York Times and Siena University, 58% of respondents said they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy.

How the economy fares in the coming months will play an outsize role in determining whether the Democrats can build on their electoral success in 2025 and seize control of one or both chambers of Congress.

With housing costs so central to voters’ perceptions about the economy, both parties have put forward proposals in recent weeks targeting affordability. Here is a closer look at their competing plans for expanding housing and reining in costs:

How bad is the affordability crisis?

Nationwide, wages have barely crept up over the last decade — rising by 21.24% between 2014 and 2024, according to the Federal Reserve. Over the same period, rent and home sale prices more than doubled, and healthcare and grocery costs rose 71.5% and 37.35%, respectively, according to the Fed.

National home price-to-income ratios are at an all-time high, and coastal states like California and Hawaii are the most extreme examples.

Housing costs in California are about twice the national average, according to the state Legislative Analyst‘s Office, which said prices have increased at “historically rapid rates” in recent years. The median California home sold for $877,285 in 2024, according to the California Assn. of Realtors, compared with about $420,000 nationwide, per Federal Reserve economic data.

California needs to add 180,000 housing units annually to keep up with demand, according to the state Department of Housing. So far, California has fallen short of those goals and has just begun to see success in reducing its homeless population, which sat at 116,000 unsheltered people in 2025.

What do the polls say?

More than two-thirds of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll last month said they felt the economy was getting worse, and 36% expressed approval for the president — the lowest total since his second term began.

The poll found that 47% of U.S. adults now describe current economic conditions as “poor,” up from 40% just a month prior and the highest since Trump took office. Just 21% said economic conditions were either “excellent” or “good,” while 31% described them as “only fair.”

An Associated Press poll found that only 16% of Republicans think Trump has helped “a lot” in fixing cost of living problems.

What have the Democrats proposed?

The party is pushing measures to expand the supply of housing, and cut down on what they call “restrictive” single-family zoning in favor of denser development.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats plan to “supercharge” construction through bills like California Sen. Adam Schiff’s Housing BOOM Act, which he introduced in December.

Schiff said the bill would lower prices by stimulating the development of “millions of affordable homes.” The proposal would expand low-income housing tax credits, set aside funds for rental assistance and homelessness, and provide $10 billion in housing subsidies for “middle-income” workers such as teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The measure has not been heard in committee, and faces long odds in the Republican-controlled body, though Schiff said inaction on the proposal could be used against opponents.

And the Republicans?

A group of 190 House Republicans this month unveiled a successor proposal to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the sprawling tax and spending plan approved and signed into law by Trump in July.

The Republican Study Committee described the proposal as an affordability package aimed at lowering down payments, enacting mortgage reforms and creating more tax breaks.

Leaders of the group said it would reduce the budget deficit by $1 trillion and could pass with a simple majority.

“This blueprint … locks in President Trump’s deregulatory agenda through the only process Democrats can’t block: reconciliation,” said Rep. August Pfluger (R-Tex.), who chairs the group. “We have 11 months of guaranteed majorities. We’re not wasting a single day.”

Though the proposal has not yet been introduced as legislation, Republicans said it would include a mechanism to revoke funding from blue states over rent control and immigration policy, which they calculated would save $48 billion.

President Trump has endorsed a $200-billion mortgage bond stimulus, which he said would drive down mortgage rates and monthly payments. And the White House, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two enterprises that back most U.S. mortgages — continues to push the idea of portable and assumable mortgages.

Trump said the move would allow buyers to keep their existing mortgage rate or enable new homeowners to assume a previous owner’s mortgage.

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, has launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over the Fed’s renovation costs, as Trump bashed him over “his never ending quest to keep interest rates high.”

The president also vowed to revoke federal funding to states over a wealth of issues such as childcare and immigration policy.

“This is not about any particular policy that they think is harmful,” Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) said. “This is about Trump’s always trying to find a way to punish blue states.”

Is there any alignment?

The two parties are cooperating on companion measures in the House and Senate.

The bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act seeks to expand housing supply by easing regulatory barriers. It passed the Senate unanimously and has support from the White House, but House Republicans have balked, and it has yet to receive a floor vote.

A bipartisan proposal — the Housing in the 21st Century Act — was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a 50-1 vote in December. It also has yet to receive a floor vote.

The bill is similar to its twin in the Senate, with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) working across the aisle with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). If approved, it would cut permitting times, support manufactured-housing development and expand financing tools for low-income housing developers.

There was also a recent moment of unusual alignment between the president and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who both promised to crack down on corporate home buying.

What do the experts say?

Housing experts recoiled at GOP proposals to bar housing dollars from sanctuary jurisdictions and cities that impose rent control.

“Any conditioning on HUD funding that sets up rules that explicitly carve out blue cities is going to be really catastrophic for California’s larger urban areas,” said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

More than 35 cities in California have rent control policies, according to the California Apartment Assn. The state passed its own rent stabilization law in 2019, and lawmakers approved a California sanctuary law in 2017 that prohibits state resources from aiding federal immigration enforcement.

The agenda comes on the heels of a series of HUD spending cuts, including a 30% cap on permanent housing investments and the end of a federal emergency housing voucher program that local homelessness officials estimate would put 14,500 people on the streets.

In Los Angeles County, HUD dollars make up about 28% of homelessness funding.

“It would undermine a lot of the bipartisan efforts that are happening in the House and the Senate to move evidence-backed policy to increase housing supply and stabilize rents and home prices,” Garcia said.

The president’s mortgage directives also prompted skepticism from some experts.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pressed to get into the riskier parts of the mortgage market back in the housing bubble and that was a part of the problem,” said Eric McGhee, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California.

In late 2024, shortly after her husband, Donald Trump, was reelected as the 47th president of the United States, Melania Trump saw an opportunity: a documentary centered on her life.

The film, a follow-up to her eponymous memoir, would offer a window into the first lady’s private, sphinx-like world, in contrast to that of her bombastic, spotlight-seeking husband.

To direct the film, a fly-on-the-wall chronicle of the 20 days leading up to the inauguration, Melania turned to an unlikely choice: Brett Ratner, who only a few years earlier had been all but banished from Hollywood.

The controversial filmmaker had been recommended by her agent and “senior advisor” Marc Beckman, who had a long-standing relationship with Ratner.

“He’s one of the most talented directors of our lifetime,” said Beckman, who negotiated the unusually lucrative $40-million deal with Amazon MGM Studios to distribute the film.

“He actually accounts for like $2 billion in box-office receipts,” Beckman told The Times. “He really understands not just how to create something that’s gorgeous, but also how to reach the passions and emotions of his audience.”

The timing was fortuitous. Ratner was looking for a comeback vehicle from his heady days as one of the industry’s most successful filmmakers. And Beckman was among several prominent figures in Trump’s orbit who could help make that happen.

President-elect Donald Trump kisses his wife, Melania, before his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025.

(Saul Loeb / Associated Press)

Brash, rich and successful, Ratner, 56, was the director and producer of a string of blockbuster films, the “Rush Hour” franchise and “X-Men: The Last Stand” among them. He was a consummate Hollywood dealmaker and habitué of red carpets who held court at the legendary basement disco inside of his equally storied Beverly Hills estate.

Then, in the fall of 2017, The Times reported on sexual misconduct allegations against Ratner made by multiple women. At the time, Ratner strenuously denied the claims.

It was the height of the #MeToo movement and a range of sexual misconduct allegations toppled the careers of powerful men, from disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein to “Today Show” host Matt Lauer and CBS Chairman Les Moonves. Weinstein was later convicted of rape in Los Angeles and sentenced to 16 years in prison.

Almost immediately, Ratner’s reign as blockbuster king was over.

Beckman, however, viewed Ratner first and foremost as a director. They had a relationship that stretched back to 2007. Beckman’s agency hired Ratner to direct a sultry Jordache jeans campaign, inspired by the iconic photographer Helmut Newton, whose work was edgy, provocative and erotically charged. The campaign, shot at the Chateau Marmont, featured a mostly topless Heidi Klum — in one ad she is brandishing a riding whip.

Beckman declined to say whether he had talked to other potential directors, nor would he address any of the claims made against Ratner. He stressed that it was Ratner’s “massive talent” that put him in the director’s chair. “We focused on Ratner’s capabilities as being a superior director,” he said.

The documentary, “Melania,” is set to premiere at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington — which the president is trying to rename the Trump Kennedy Center — on Thursday, followed the next day by a global theatrical release.

In addition to the “Melania” documentary, a three-part docuseries also filmed during the inauguration run-up about the first lady that Ratner directed and is part of the same Amazon deal, is set to air on the streamer later this year, according to Beckman.

Brett Ratner, center, and the stars of “Rush Hour 3,” Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker, at the film’s Los Angeles premiere party in 2007.

(Matt Sayles / Associated Press)

Then there is the much-buzzed-about fourth installment of “Rush Hour.” It has been widely reported that Ratner will direct the $100-million movie to be distributed by Paramount.

The long-stalled project came about after President Trump was said to have urged his friend Larry Ellison, who bankrolled his son David’s acquisition of Paramount, to revive the franchise.

Not everyone is happy about Ratner’s return.

“It speaks to the larger issue that these men who didn’t take responsibility for their actions are coming back into society as if nothing happened,” said Nancy Erika Smith, a partner at Smith Mullin in Montclair, N.J., who has litigated numerous harassment cases, including that of former Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson.

Reached by phone, Ratner declined to respond to questions, saying, “I don’t talk to or cooperate with the Los Angeles Times.”

He referred questions to his London-based publicist, who did not respond to a detailed list of questions.

An early love of movies

Growing up in Miami, Ratner once said that “I eat, sleep, breathe the movies.” He was raised by a single mother, Marsha, who had him at 16, and his grandparents Mario and Fanita Presman, Jewish Cubans who immigrated to Florida during the 1960s. (His paternal grandfather, Lee Ratner, founded d-Con, the rat poison company.) At 12, he was an extra, appearing as a boy on a raft, during a pool scene at the Fontainebleau Hotel in the 1983 Brian De Palma film “Scarface.”

Early on, Ratner garnered a reputation for his ambition, relentless drive and a preternatural ability to surround himself with famous friends and mentors.

While a student at New York University in the late 1980s, he befriended Def Jam co-founder Russell Simmons, who made him his protégé, tapping Ratner to direct music videos.

At 28, he directed his first film, the 1997 buddy comedy “Money Talks,” starring Charlie Sheen and Chris Tucker. The movie grossed $48 million on a $25-million budget, cementing Ratner’s reputation as a highly bankable director.

In 2012, Ratner and Australian billionaire investor James Packer co-founded RatPac Entertainment. A year later, they merged with the film financing company Dune Entertainment, founded by Steven Mnuchin (Trump’s future Treasury secretary), that had bankrolled massive hits like “Avatar.”

The rebranded RatPac-Dune quickly entered into a $450-million slate financing deal with Warner Bros. to fund up to 75 movies, including Oscar winner “Gravity” and box-office hit “Wonder Woman.”

Ratner himself served as an executive producer on such acclaimed films as the epic western drama “The Revenant.”

“I was not the best student, but I was the hardest-working kid that I know, and it paid off,” said Ratner when the Friar’s Club honored him with a comedy achievement award in 2011.

A self-styled jet-setting playboy, Ratner dated actor Rebecca Gayheart and tennis star Serena Williams. He cocooned himself inside a circle of much older, famous cinema legends that he considered his mentors such as Robert Evans, Roman Polanski and Robert Towne.

The late movie producer Robert Evans was part of a clutch of cinema legends that Ratner considered his mentors.

(Getty Images)

Ratner’s Beverly Hills mansion, Hilhaven Lodge, the estate once owned by “Casablanca” actor Ingrid Bergman, was the scene of numerous raucous parties filled with celebrities and models.

After he made a series of vulgar and inappropriate comments while promoting his film “Tower Heist” in 2011, including saying that “rehearsal is for f—,” using an anti-gay slur, he dropped out of producing the Academy Awards broadcast.

Still, Ratner frequently groused that he was misunderstood.

“I don’t drink; I don’t do drugs. Do I like to have fun? Yeah. Do I like to enjoy myself, enjoy my life? Yeah. But I’m not a decadent person. … I’m just a nice Jewish kid from Miami Beach who loves movies and pretty girls,” he said in an interview with the Jewish Journal.

Over the years, Ratner sat on the boards of several charities such as Chrysalis, a group that helps homeless people; and the Ghetto Film School. In 2013, he donated $1 million to the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures and he actively supported the Simon Wiesenthal Center, where he was a trustee, and the Museum of Tolerance.

When Patty Jenkins presented him with the Tree of Life humanitarian award at a Jewish National Fund dinner in 2017, the director of “Wonder Woman” and “Monster” shared that he financed her thesis film.

In 2017, when Ratner received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he was cheered on by actors Edward Norton, Dwayne Johnson and Eddie Murphy, producer Brian Grazer and Warner Bros. chief Kevin Tsujihara.

(Chris Delmas / AFP via Getty Images)

That year, RatPac-Dune’s co-financing deal with Warner Bros. delivered a series of hits, including “It,” “Wonder Woman” and “Dunkirk.” He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Fallout over allegations of misconduct

Then, in November, The Times published detailed allegations against Ratner made by six women who accused him of harassment, groping and forced oral sex. Actor Olivia Munn claimed that Ratner masturbated in front of her when she delivered a meal to his trailer on the set of the 2004 film “After the Sunset.”

At the time, Ratner’s attorney Martin Singer rejected the women’s claims, saying that his client “vehemently denies the outrageous derogatory allegations that have been reported about him.”

The Times published another report weeks later that included additional sexual misconduct allegations from several other women. The report also named Simmons, the Def Jam co-founder, as a witness and alleged perpetrator in several of the episodes.

Both Ratner and Simmons disputed the women’s accounts and denied their allegations. Simmons subsequently faced several rape accusations, which he has denied.

The professional repercussions were swift. Ratner’s agents at WME dropped him, as did his publicist, and projects were put on hold. Ratner parted ways with Warner Bros.

“I don’t want to have any possible negative impact to the studio until these personal issues are resolved,” he said in a statement.

In April 2018, Warner Bros. officially cut ties with Ratner, declining to renew its massive $450-million co-financing deal with RatPac-Dune.

Two years later, Ratner’s name surfaced amid the tangled Hollywood sex scandals involving British actor Charlotte Kirk, whose allegations brought down two studio chiefs: Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara and NBCUniversal Vice Chairman Ron Meyer, with whom she claimed to have had sexual affairs.

British actor Charlotte Kirk accused several Hollywood power players including Ratner of “victimizing her.”

(Paul Archuleta / FilmMagic)

In a sworn court declaration, Kirk said she was victimized by Tsujihara, Ratner, Packer and Millennium Films CEO Avi Lerner, stating that the men “coerced me into engaging in ‘commercial sex’ for them and their business associates.”

She further accused Packer, whom she had dated for a period, and Ratner of having “sexually exploited me,” with Ratner sending her “crude sexual text messages, and offering me as an inducement to his business partners,” according to her declaration.

Attorney Singer, who represented the men, “categorically and vehemently” denied any wrongdoing on the part of his clients.

Cast out of Hollywood, Ratner appeared to escape the piercing scrutiny by living large. He was spotted variously at the five-star Faena Hotel in Miami and sunning on a yacht off Saint-Barthélemy in the Caribbean.

Ratner’s initial attempts to get back behind the camera went nowhere. In 2021, he announced plans to direct a long-stalled Milli Vanilli biopic with Millennium Media, but soon after, Millennium Media stated that it was no longer involved with the film.

In Trump’s orbit

Despite the setbacks, the seeds for Ratner’s eventual comeback had been sown. Known as a world-class schmoozer, Ratner cultivated numerous ties to people affiliated with Trump.

For several years, he was partners with Mnuchin, who served as Treasury secretary during Trump’s first term, through their production and financing company RatPac-Dune.

Billionaire Len Blavatnik, owner of Warner Music Group, bought Packer’s stake in RatPac-Dune through his Access Entertainment in 2017, making him Ratner’s partner for a time. Blavatnik, through his company, contributed $1 million to Trump’s first inauguration.

Then there’s Arthur Sarkissian, the producer of the original “Rush Hour” movie. He also produced the 2024 Trump-friendly documentary, “The Man You Don’t Know.”

Steven Mnuchin, who was Treasury secretary during Trump’s first term, was a partner with Ratner through their company RatPac-Dune Entertainment.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Ratner also developed a friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has a long-standing relationship with Trump. Ratner was the prime minister’s guest at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2023. He posted a picture on his Instagram standing behind a seated Netanyahu and his wife, and next to attorney Alan Dershowitz, himself a longtime advisor and friend of Trump’s.

That year, several Israeli media outlets reported that Ratner had obtained Israeli citizenship after he posted the passbook Israel issues to new immigrants on his Instagram story with his name “Brett Shai Ratner” captioned in Hebrew.

“There’s a strong community in south Florida that is close to Trump,” said someone who worked with the family but was not authorized to speak publicly. “Brett has relationships with a bunch of them; it was just a matter of connecting the dots.”

Ratner no longer appears to live at his Hillhaven estate (which is currently listed for lease at $82,500 a month), while there have been sightings of him at Mar-a-Lago.

Not long after the presidential election, Ratner was given unprecedented entrée to Melania Trump and became a part of her trusted inner circle.

Beckman said Ratner was given “remarkable” access to her life. “There were behind-the-scenes meetings,” he said. “She’s a very private person and for the first time she was allowing the cameras to cover her, her family, her philanthropy and of course her business endeavors.”

Many of the women who came forward in 2017 to level their accusations against Ratner declined to speak about him now or to comment on his return to directing.

In the 2017 Times article, actor Jaime Ray Newman alleged that during a flight Ratner made sexually inappropriate comments and showed her nude photos of his then-girlfriend.

“I said my piece a couple of years ago and have moved on,” Newman, who stars in the Netflix hit “The Hunting Wives,” told The Times. “I feel really good and brave in what I did.”

The “Melania” trailer is in heavy rotation online and was shown during the NFL playoffs. Billboards loom over cities and on buses.

Talking to reporters on Air Force One earlier this month, the president praised the upcoming film.

“I’ve seen pieces of it, it’s incredible,” Trump said. “Everybody wants tickets to the premiere. I think it’s going to be great.”

WASHINGTON — Eleanor Holmes Norton, the 18-term delegate for the District of Columbia in Congress and a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement, has filed paperwork to end her campaign for reelection, likely closing out a decades-long career in public service.

Norton, 88, has been the sole representative of the residents of the nation’s capital in Congress since 1991, but she faced increasing questions about her effectiveness after the Trump administration began its sweeping intervention into the city last year.

Mayor Muriel Bowser congratulated Norton on her retirement.

“For 35 years, Congresswoman Norton has been our Warrior on the Hill,” Bowser wrote on social media. “Her work embodies the unwavering resolve of a city that refuses to yield in its fight for equal representation.”

Norton’s campaign filed a termination report with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday. Her office has not released an official statement about the delegate’s intentions.

The filing was first reported by NOTUS.

Her retirement opens up a likely competitive primary to succeed her in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. Several local lawmakers had already announced their intentions to run in the Democratic primary.

An institution in Washington politics for decades, Norton is the oldest member in the House. She was a personal friend to civil rights icons such as Medgar Evers and a contemporary of other activists turned congressional stalwarts, including Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and the late Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.).

But Norton has faced calls to step aside in recent months as residents and local lawmakers questioned her ability to effectively advocate for the city in Congress amid the Republican administration’s aggressive moves toward the city.

The White House federalized Washington’s police force, deployed National Guard troops from six states and the federal district across the capital’s streets and surged federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security into neighborhoods. The moves prompted outcry and protests from residents and a lawsuit from the district’s attorney general.

Norton’s retirement comes as a historically high number of lawmakers announce they will either seek another public office or retire from official duties altogether. More than 1 in 10 members of the House are not seeking reelection this year.

Norton’s staunch advocacy for her city

As the district’s delegate, Norton does not have a formal vote in the House. But she has found other ways to advocate for the city’s interests. Called the “Warrior on the Hill” by her supporters, Norton was a staunch advocate for D.C. statehood and for the labor rights of the federal workers who called Washington and its surrounding region home.

She also secured bipartisan wins for district residents. Norton was the driving force behind the passage of a law that provides up to $10,000 per year for students who attend public colleges outside the district. It also provides up to $2,500 per year for students who attend select private historically Black colleges and universities across the country and nonprofit colleges in the D.C. metropolitan area.

In the 1990s, Norton played a key role in ending the city’s financial crisis by brokering a deal to transfer billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities to the federal government in exchange for changes to the district’s budget. She twice played a leading role in House passage of a D.C. statehood bill.

Steeped in the civil rights movement

Norton was born and raised in Washington, and her life spans the arc of the district’s trials and triumphs. She was educated at Dunbar High School as part of the school’s last segregated class.

“Growing up black in Washington gave a special advantage. This whole community of blacks was very race conscious, very civil rights conscious,” she said in her 2003 biography, “Fire in My Soul.”

She attended Antioch College in Ohio and in 1963 split her time between Yale Law School and Mississippi, where she worked as an organizer during the Freedom Summer of the Civil Rights Movement.

One day that summer, Evers picked her up at the airport. He was assassinated that night.

Norton also helped organize and attended the 1963 March on Washington.

In an interview with the Associated Press in 2023, Norton said the march was still “the single most extraordinary experience of my lifetime.”

She went on to become the first woman to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which helps enforce anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. She ran for office when her predecessor retired to run for Washington mayor.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

Carney has been under pressure from the opposition to lower prices of food and other essentials for lower-income people.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a multibillion-dollar package as part of a series of measures aimed at lowering the costs of food and other essentials for low-income families.

On Monday, Carney announced a five-year 25 percent boost to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) credit that starts this year.

The GST credit, which is being renamed the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit, will provide additional, significant support for more than 12 million Canadians, Carney said in a statement.

The government will also provide a one-time top-up equivalent to a 50 percent increase this year to eligible residents.

“We’re bringing in new measures to lower costs and make sure Canadians have the support they need now,” Carney said.

The measures would cost the government 3.1 billion Canadian dollars ($2.26bn) in the first year and between 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($950m) and 1.8 billion Canadian dollars ($1.3bn) in each of the following four years, he told reporters at a news conference, according to the Reuters news agency.

While overall consumer price inflation in Canada has eased and came in at 2.4 percent for December, “food price inflation remains high due to global and domestic factors, including supply chain disruptions, higher US tariffs from the trade war and climate change/extreme weather”, Tony Stillo, director of Canada Economics at Oxford Economics, told Al Jazeera.

The government is also setting aside 500 million Canadian dollars ($365m) from the Strategic Response Fund to help businesses address the costs of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians, and will create a 150 million Canadian dollar ($110m) Food Security Fund under the existing Regional Tariff Response Initiative for small and medium enterprises and the organisations that support them.

Changing landscape

“The global landscape is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses, and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. In response, Canada’s new government is focused on what we can control: building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for Canadians,” Carney said.

The new measures were unveiled on the day Parliament resumes after its winter break.

Opposition parties have urged Carney to reduce prices of daily goods, especially as sections of the economy have come under pressure from United States President Donald Trump, who has slapped 35 percent tariffs on the country as well as separate tariffs on steel, aluminium and lumber, leading to job losses in those sectors.

Over the weekend, Trump escalated his threats and said he would impose a 100 percent tariff on Canada if it makes a trade deal with China. Carney has been working on diversifying Canada’s exports away from the US, its biggest trading partner and to which nearly 80 percent of its exports went last year, including by increasing business with other markets like China.

HONOLULU — Seven Japanese American soldiers will be promoted to officer ranks in a solemn ceremony Monday, eight decades after they died fighting for the U.S. during World War II despite having been branded “enemy aliens.”

The seven were students at the University of Hawaii and cadets in the Reserve Officer Training Corps, on track to become Army officers, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. They initially served in the Hawaii Territorial Guard, but soon after the attack the U.S. barred most Japanese Americans from service and deemed them enemy aliens.

The seven cadets instead worked with a civilian labor battalion known as “Varsity Victory Volunteers,” which performed tasks such as digging ditches and breaking rocks, until American leaders in early 1943 announced the formation of a segregated Japanese American regiment. The seven were among those who joined the unit, known as the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.

The combat team, along with the 100th battalion composed of mostly Japanese Americans from Hawaii, went on to become one of the most decorated units in U.S. history. Some of its soldiers fought for the Allies even as their relatives were detained in Japanese American internment camps because they were considered a public danger.

“It is important for us to really kind of give back and recognize our forefathers and these veterans that we stand on the shoulders of,” said 1st Sgt. Nakoa Hoe of the 100th Battalion, 442nd Regiment, what the unit is now known as in the Army Reserve. He noted the once-segregated unit now includes a “multitude of cultures.”

The seven “sacrificed so much at a challenging time when their loyalty to their country was questioned and they even had family members imprisoned,” he added.

The seven men — Daniel Betsui, Jenhatsu Chinen, Robert Murata, Grover Nagaji, Akio Nishikawa, Hiroichi Tomita and Howard Urabe — died fighting in Europe in 1944. All but Murata were killed during the campaign to liberate Italy from Nazi Germany. Murata was killed by an artillery shell in eastern France.

They will be promoted Monday to 2nd lieutenant, the rank they would have had if they completed the ROTC program. Relatives of at least some of the men are expected to attend the ceremony, scheduled to be held in a Honolulu park.

Even though Hawaii was not yet a state, the cadets were American citizens because they were born in Hawaii after its annexation in 1898.

“Fighting an injustice at home, these seven men later gave their lives fighting on the battlefields of Europe,” said a news release from U.S. Army Pacific. “They were unable to return to school and finish their commissioning efforts.”

Monday’s ceremony capping efforts to honor the men comes amid growing concern and criticism that President Donald Trump’s administration is whitewashing American history ahead of the nation celebrating 250 years of its independence, including last week’s removal of an exhibit on slavery at Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park.

Last year, the Pentagon said internet pages honoring a Black medal of honor winner and Japanese American service members were mistakenly taken down — but it staunchly defended its overall campaign to strip out content singling out the contributions by women and minority groups, which the Trump administration considers “DEI.”

Honoring the seven isn’t about DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — but recognizing them for their merit and that “they served in the ultimate capacity of giving their lives for the country,” said Lt. Col. Jerrod Melander, who previously led the University of Hawaii’s ROTC program as professor of military science.

Melander said he launched the commissioning effort in 2023 during former President Joe Biden’s administration and that the promotions were approved last year during the Trump administration.

The university awarded the men posthumous degrees in 2012. Laura Lyons, interim vice provost for academic excellence at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, called their promotions especially important.

“Everyone’s contribution to and sacrifice for the ideals of freedom and the security of this country should matter and should be acknowledged, regardless of who they are,” Lyons said.

Kelleher writes for the Associated Press.

Jan. 26 (UPI) — People flocked to the Ueno Zoo in Tokyo to say goodbye to the last two giant pandas in Japan.

Twin pandas Xiao Xiao and Lei Lei will leave for China Tuesday, marking the first time Japan has had no pandas since 1972, which is when the two countries began diplomatic relations.

The relationship between the two neighboring countries has deteriorated lately after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said Japan would get involved if China attacked Taiwan.

China uses the giant panda as a tool of outreach and goodwill in what is called “panda diplomacy.” Host countries pay about $1 million per year to China.

Zoo visitors needed a reservation to see the pandas on Sunday, with 4,400 slots available, and 108,000 applying for them online, the Tokyo metropolitan government said. Some waited for up to 3 ½ hours to see the pair.

“I have been bringing my son here since he was a baby, so I hope it becomes a good memory for him. I’m glad we could come today to remember them,” Ai Shirakawa told the BBC.

The two were born in Japan in 2021 to their mother Shin Shin and father Ri Ri, who were on loan to Japan for breeding research. Ri Ri and Shin Shin went back to China in September 2024. The siblings’ older sister Xiang Xiang left in February 2023.

Xiao Xiao and Lei Lei became the last pandas in Japan after four others at the Adventure World amusement park in Shirahama, Wakayama Prefecture, left for China in June.

WASHINGTON — The killing of a second U.S. citizen by federal agents in Minneapolis is sharply complicating efforts to avert another government shutdown in Washington as Democrats — and some Republicans — view the episode as a tipping point in the debate over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

Senate Democrats have pledged to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless changes are made to rein in the federal agency’s operations following the killing of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse.

The Democratic defections now threaten to derail passage of a broad spending package that also includes funding for the State Department and the Pentagon, as well as education, health, labor and transportation agencies.

The standoff has also revealed fractures among GOP lawmakers, who have called for a federal and state investigation into the shooting and congressional hearings for federal officials to explain their tactics — demands that have put unusual pressure on the Trump administration.

Senate Republicans must secure 60 votes to advance the spending measure in the chamber — a threshold they cannot reach on their own with their 53 seats. The job is further complicated by a time crunch: Lawmakers have until midnight Friday to reach a compromise or face a partial government shutdown.

Senate Democrats had already expressed reservations about supporting the Department of Homeland Security funding after Renee Good, a mother of three, was shot and killed this month by federal agents in Minneapolis. But Pretti’s killing has led Democrats to be more forceful in their opposition.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday he would oppose funding for the agencies involved in the Minneapolis operations.

“I’m not giving ICE or Border Patrol another dime given how these agencies are operating. Democrats are not going to fund that,” he said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think anyone who votes to give them more money to do this will share in the responsibility and see more Americans die in our cities as a result.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement last week that he would not “give more money to [Customs and Border Protection] and ICE to continue terrorizing our communities and breaking the law.” He reiterated his stance hours after Pretti’s killing.

“I will vote against any additional funding for Trump’s ICE and CBP while they act with such reckless disregard for life, safety and the Constitution,” Padilla wrote in a post on X.

While Senate Republicans largely intend to support the funding measure, some are publicly raising concerns about the Trump administration’s training requirements for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and calling for congressional oversight hearings.

“A comprehensive, independent investigation of the shooting must be conducted in order to rebuild trust and Congressional committees need to hold hearings and do their oversight work,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) wrote in a post on X. “ICE agents do not have carte blanche in carrying out their duties.”

Similar demands are being made by House Republicans.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has formally sought testimony from leaders at ICE, Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, saying his “top priority remains keeping Americans safe.”

Homeland Security has not yet provided a public confirmation that it will attend the hearing, though Garbarino told reporters Saturday that he has been “in touch with the department” and anticipates a full investigation.

Many Republican lawmakers expressed concern over federal officials’ saying Pretti’s killing was in part due to him having a loaded firearm on his person at the time of the encounter. Pretti had a permit to carry, according to the Minneapolis police chief, and videos show him holding a cellphone, not brandishing a gun before officers pushed him down to the ground.

“Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement of government,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wrote on X.

Following the pushback from the GOP, President Trump appears to be seeking ways to tone down the tensions. The president said Monday he had a “very good call” with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat he has clashed with in recent weeks, and that they “seemed to be on a similar wavelength” on next steps.

If Democrats are successful in striking down the Homeland Security spending package, some hinted at comprehensive immigration reforms to follow.

California Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) detailed the plan in a social media post over the weekend, calling on Congress to repeal the $75 billion in supplemental funding flagged for ICE in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” last year. The allocation roughly tripled the budget for immigration enforcement.

The shooting came as a slate of progressives renewed demands to “abolish ICE” and replace it with an agency that has congressional oversight.

“[Congress must] tear down and replace ICE with an agency that has oversight,” Khanna said. “We owe that to nurse Pretti and the hundreds of thousands on the streets risking their lives to stand up for our freedoms.

Democrats are also focusing on removing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Earlier this month, Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) introduced a measure to impeach Noem, saying she has brought about a “reign of terror to Minneapolis.” At least 120 House Democrats have supported the measure, according to Kelly’s office.

Democrats also urged a stop to controversial “Kavanaugh stops,” which allow agents to detain people based on perceived race, and have set their sites on the reversal of qualified immunity protections, which shield agents from misconduct lawsuits.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) backed the agenda and called for ICE and Border Patrol agents to “leave Minnesota immediately.”

“Voting NO on the DHS funding bill is the bare minimum. Backing Kristi Noem’s impeachment is the bare minimum. Holding law-breaking ICE agents legally accountable is the bare minimum. ICE is beyond reform. Abolish it,” she wrote in a Sunday post on X.

BRUSSELS — NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte insisted on Monday that Europe is incapable of defending itself without U.S. military support and would have to more than double current military spending targets to be able to do so.

“If anyone thinks here … that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming. You can’t,” Rutte told EU lawmakers in Brussels. Europe and the United States “need each other,” he said.

Tensions are festering within NATO over President Trump’s renewed threats in recent weeks to annex Greenland, which is a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.

Trump also said that he was slapping new tariffs on Greenland’s European backers, but later dropped his threats after a “framework” for a deal over the mineral-rich island was reached, with Rutte’s help. Few details of the agreement have emerged.

The 32-nation military organization is bound together by a mutual defense clause, Article 5 of NATO’s founding Washington treaty, which commits every country to come to the defense of an ally whose territory is under threat.

At NATO’s summit in The Hague in July, European allies — with the exception of Spain — plus Canada agreed to Trump’s demand that they invest the same percentage of their economic output on defense as the United States within a decade.

They pledged to spend 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defense, and a further 1.5% on security-related infrastructure – a total of 5% of GDP – by 2035.

“If you really want to go it alone,” Rutte said, “forget that you can ever get there with 5%. It will be 10%. You have to build up your own nuclear capability. That costs billions and billions of euros.”

France has led calls for Europe to build its “strategic autonomy,” and support for its stance has grown since the Trump administration warned last year that its security priorities lie elsewhere and that the Europeans would have to fend for themselves.

Rutte told the lawmakers that without the United States, Europe “would lose the ultimate guarantor of our freedom, which is the U.S. nuclear umbrella. So, hey, good luck!”

Faced by an increasingly authoritarian regime, Venezuela’s opposition requested support from international organizations over the years, denouncing human rights violations and showing evidence of the 2024 electoral fraud orchestrated by Nicolás Maduro and the chavista overlords. The international community’s answer only gave the government breathing space. The lack of decisive responses from global institutions, such as the Organization of American States, the United Nations, and the European Union contributed to a state of irresolution and prolonged political violence in Venezuela, while political imprisonment and disappearances became commonplace. 

Political change in Venezuela has ultimately come to depend on Trump’s geopolitical ambitions. Rather than returning to the now-exhausted democratic avenues offered by multilateral institutions, opposition leader María Corina Machado has made efforts to align her political agenda with Trump’s commercial interests and military might. Her dedication of the Nobel Peace Prize to him only highlights this strategic alignment, along with Machado’s willingness to publicly support US military deployment if this helps her cause against the dictatorship. 

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has also aligned her political agenda with Trump’s. She has not only agreed to satisfy all of Trump’s oil-related demands—even before Maduro’s capture—but everything indicates that she might have been the one who facilitated her boss’ extraction in exchange for power. 

However, both Machado and Rodríguez have paid a high price for dancing at the tune of Trump’s desires. Machado has been criticized around the world for giving her Nobel Prize medal to Trump and mocked as a weak political actor. On the other hand, Rodríguez seems to be walking on an increasingly tight rope, as seemingly demonstrated by the powerful interior minister Diosdado Cabello’s threatening appearance next to her on national television wearing a hat that read ‘dudar es traición’ (to doubt is betrayal). 

‘We’ve tried everything,’ many of our interviewees conclude in frustration.

The pivotal role that Venezuelan politicians like Rodríguez, Machado and even chavista hardliners like Cabello played in US plans for Venezuela demonstrates the inadequacy of considering US actions as a unilateral imposition of Trump’s agenda. As sociologist Rafael Uzcátegui argues, Venezuela’s current politics cannot be understood in the Cold War dualistic light of imperialism vs. self-determination that likens politics to a game of chess. Instead, it is more like a game of poker, where the best hand may not always be the one to win. Machado and Rodríguez are playing their best hand, which involves aligning themselves with US commercial interests and military might to survive politically in a context of weakening international law.

What Venezuelans think

In the process of writing this article, we spoke to Venezuelans in the US and back home. Most expressed their frustration in the face of the international community’s inability to support democracy in their country. ‘We’ve tried everything,’ many of our interviewees conclude in frustration.

The Venezuelans we spoke with perceive Trump’s military pressure as the first tangible movement against the dictatorship, leaving many feeling that they have little choice but to endorse US actions to end Maduro’s rule. Fully aware of US interests in the nation’s oil, Venezuelans’ calculation is shaped by a longer history in which the country’s most valuable asset has rarely served the interests of its people. As Venezuelans see it, Trump’s thirst for oil at least helps their democratic cause. So, rather than imperialism, Trump’s commercial ambitions are seen by Venezuelans as an avenue for change. 

Pedro, a Venezuelan business owner in Doral, Florida, told us: ‘If the price for my country to be safe and have food is to give away our oil, so be it. Please, Mr Trump, come and take our oil.’ For Venezuelans like Pedro, who are aware of the regime’s political brutality, the image of a cuffed and blindfolded Maduro has a taste of justice. 

Even Amanda, a Venezuelan student in New York who once supported Chávez and disagrees with how Maduro was arrested, admits to feeling satisfaction at finally seeing justice served. Following the capture, many Venezuelans across the world took to the streets to show their cautious hope for political change.

While the future in Venezuela is still uncertain, the fact that change could only be attained by violence, further erodes a global culture of democracy and trust in international law.

In Venezuela, however, the reality is more complex. The regime continues to operate with its mechanisms for social repression. Fear of expressing any form of celebration inside the country is strong, as it might lead to charges of treason. ‘We are happy, of course,’ one of our interviewees in Caracas told us. ‘But I don’t even dare to hang a flag outside my window.’ 

Alignment for political survival

Tragically, US (not-so-chirurgical) military action has achieved more in a few weeks than what democratic international institutions achieved in Venezuela over the last decade. Catering to Trump’s pressure, Maduro slowly started releasing political prisoners in December. Since January 8, Delcy Rodríguez has ramped up the number of releases, currently amounting to over 260, something unthinkable before the US military build-up in the Caribbean. Whether or not these releases are a regime’s farce, as some relatives of prisoners warn, they still reveal the fact that Rodríguez is willing to dance to Trump’s tune.

While the future in Venezuela is still uncertain, the fact that change could only be attained by violence, further erodes a global culture of democracy and trust in international law. The lesson that Maduro’s capture might teach the international community is that, in Trump’s new world order, international law is insufficient to secure political survival, and that military force and commercial expansion always prevail.

Machado and Rodríguez seem to have learned this gruesome lesson, although they have yet to disclose their full hand in this ruthless game of poker.

As federal immigration tactics face mounting legal and political scrutiny after a U.S. Border Patrol agent fatally shot a Minneapolis man over the weekend, Donald Trump announced Monday he was dispatching his border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota.

Until now, Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino has overseen the federal government’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. But as the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security faces widespread criticism for its aggressive tactics since it launched Operation Metro Surge in December, Trump signaled Monday that he could be shifting strategy as he deploys Homan to the region.

“He has not been involved in that area, but knows and likes many of the people there,” Trump said of Homan on TruthSocial. “Tom is tough but fair, and will report directly to me.”

Trump’s deployment of Homan comes as a federal judge hears arguments Monday on whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Meanwhile, Democratic senators plan to oppose a funding bill for DHS, raising the possibility of a partial government shutdown, and a small but growing number of Republicans have joined Democratic calls for a thorough investigation into the killing of Alex Pretti

The Department of Homeland Security said Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse, approached federal officers on the street Saturday morning with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and “violently resisted” when officers tried to disarm him. But cellphone videos recorded by eye witnesses contradict that account.

According to videos taken on the scene, Pretti was holding a phone, not a handgun, when he stepped in front of a federal agent who was targeting a woman with pepper spray. Federal agents pulled him to the ground and shot him.

Pretti is the second U.S. citizen in Minneapolis to be killed by immigration officers this month. On Jan. 7, Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, was shot in the head by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem raised criticism this weekend when she said that her agency would lead the investigation into Pretti’s killing.

After federal officials denied Minnesota state investigators access to the shooting scene in South Minneapolis, local and state officials in Minnesota accused DHS of mishandling evidence. Late Saturday, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension asked a federal court to block Homeland Security and Justice Department officials from destroying or concealing evidence.

It is not immediately clear how Bovino’s role could change as Homan arrives in Minneapolis.

Noem, who has backed Bovino’s aggressive tactics, said Monday it was “good news” that Homan was going to Minneapolis.

“I have worked closely with Tom over the last year and he has been a major asset to our team,” Noem wrote on X. Homan’s “experience and insight,” she said, would “help us to remove even more public safety threats and violent criminal illegal aliens” off Minneapolis streets.

But some Democrats in Minnesota oppose sending Homan to Minnesota. Minneapolis City Council member Soren Stevenson said the move would only aggravate tension.

“They are losing the battle in people’s minds,” Stevenson told CNN, noting that people could see video evidence contradict federal accounts of border patrol agents’ actions.

“They’re losing this narrative battle, and so he’s sending in his top guard,” Stevenson added. “And really, it’s escalating, because we just want to be left alone. The chaos in our community is coming from ICE. It’s coming from this invasion that we’re under … and it’s got to stop.”

In a short interview with The Wall Street Journal Sunday, Trump criticized Pretti for carrying a gun during protest activity.

“I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it,” Trump said. “But I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn’t play good either.”

The President declined to comment on whether the agent who shot Pretti had done the right thing. “We’re looking,” Trump said when pressed. “We’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination.”

Democratic officials, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have called on federal immigration officers to leave Minneapolis. On Sunday, Trump suggested they could withdraw, but he did not give a timeline.

“At some point we will leave,” the president said. “They’ve done a phenomenal job.”

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. The shooting of Alex Pretti by a Border Patrol officer on Saturday has only added urgency to the case.

On Monday, President Trump said he is sending border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota. The president’s statement comes after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who had become the public face of the administration’s crackdown, answered questions at news conferences over the weekend about Pretti’s shooting. Trump posted on social media that Homan will report directly to him.

Since the original court filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request in an effort to restore the order that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota on Dec. 1.

Democratic Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison said he plans to attend.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez to order a reduction in the number of federal law enforcement officers and agents in Minnesota back to the level before the surge and to limit the scope of the enforcement operation.

Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or to at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.

Ellison said during a news conference Sunday that the lawsuit is needed because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”

It is unclear when the judge might rule.

The case has implications for other states that have been or could become targets of ramped-up federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.

“If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.

Menendez ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who follow and observe agents.

An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.

In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, issued an order late Saturday blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Atty. Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.

“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press.

Jan. 26 (UPI) — The International Criminal Court ruled Monday that former Philippine President Rodrigo Roa Duterte is fit to take part in pre-trial court proceedings and scheduled a hearing for Feb. 23.

Duterte’s defense team asked for an indefinite adjournment of the case because of his health, alleging that he wouldn’t be able to participate in his defense. The court had a panel of three medical experts to examine him. The panel sent a report on Dec. 5 with its observations, and the court said it was satisfied that Duterte was fit for pre-trial proceedings.

The Feb. 23 hearings will decide if there is enough evidence to charge Duterte. If the court decides the charges are valid, it will transfer the case to the trial phase.

Duterte, 80, is facing charges of crimes against humanity for alleged extra-judicial killings of suspected drug dealers and users in the Philippines.

In March 2025, Duterte was arrested in Manila on the ICC’s warrant after the ICC began a formal investigation in September 2021. In October, the court denied his release because he was deemed a flight risk and said he must remain jailed in the Netherlands. The national police in the Philippines say Duterte killed about 6,000 people in his war on drugs, but human rights groups say he killed 30,000.

SACRAMENTO — When a California governor goes to Europe and lectures world leaders that they must “grow a spine” and “stand tall” against the American president, I wince.

Not that they shouldn’t, nor that President Trump doesn’t deserve almost any nasty thing said about him. It just seems a tad arrogant.

A world stage in the Swiss Alps is not the proper place for a state governor to be scolding leaders of foreign nations about how they should deal with the U.S. president, no matter how despicably Trump behaves.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is merely the top elected official of one state, even if he can boast that it’s the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world. It still doesn’t have a seat at the United Nations or an awesome military that is the heart of NATO and the Western alliance.

Contrary to hackneyed bragging points, California is not a “nation state.” We’re a state — highly populated, but one of 50.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Newsom was like the lightweight boxer trying to punch far above his class.

He was attempting to score points in the early rounds of his fight for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, repeating what has been working well for him: swinging from the heels at Trump and attracting the attention of party activists across the country.

And that’s fine for here in the U.S. This is the arena where it belongs.

One can argue that Newsom overdoes it, reaching for all the national exposure he can grab and not focusing enough on the job Californians hired him for at the state Capitol. But there’s no disputing his political success nationally. He’s leading the early polls of potential contenders for the presidential nomination.

But that was probably of little concern for the foreign leaders and other global elites attending the prestigious annual World Economic Forum.

Newsom was given two speaking slots, presumably to inform international movers and shakers about California’s golden investment opportunities. But after arriving, he began blathering about the evil American president, Trump’s threats to hike tariffs and seize Greenland and how European leaders are allegedly cowering before him.

The governor soon after was disinvited to speak at one event, a series of interviews hosted by Fortune magazine at USA House, the Trump administration headquarters.

Newsom blamed Trump for blocking his participation, accusing White House staffers of pressuring the event sponsors.

Well, duh! You can’t shoot spit wads like a little kid at a big meanie and not expect some to be shot back.

“No one in Davos knows who third-rate governor Newscum is or why he is frolicking around Switzerland instead of fixing the problems he created in California,” asserted White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly, using the classless president’s oft-repeated derogatory name for the governor.

Whatever. Snatching Newsom’s mic was probably the right decision. Davos delegates didn’t need to hear a political stump speech attacking the American president or be berated by a governor for also not beating up on him.

This was some of the fiery, expletive-laced stuff the governor had been telling reporters, referring to European leaders:

“Wake up! Where the hell has everybody been? Stop this bullshit diplomacy of sort of niceties. … Have some spine, some goddamn balls ….

“The Europeans should decide for themselves what to do, but one thing they can’t do is what they’ve been doing. … And it’s embarrassing. Just, I can’t take this complicity, people rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders. … I mean, it’s just pathetic.

“And I hope people understand how pathetic they look on the world stage.”

The leaders of Canada and France demonstrated how to make the same point — but with dignity — about standing firm against bullying.

“There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety. It won’t,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told the forum attendees.

French President Emanuel Macron said, “We do prefer respect to bullies. And we do prefer rule of law to brutality.”

Newsom was allowed to keep one speaking slot: an interview on the forum’s main stage with Ben Smith, editor in chief of the news outfit Semafor.

“Is it surprising the Trump administration didn’t like my commentary and wanted to make sure that I was not allowed to speak? No,” Newsom said. “It’s consistent with … their authoritarian tendencies.”

There’s something distasteful — perhaps even unpatriotic — about an elected American official, regardless of party, vilifying a U.S. president when among allied leaders abroad. Even if it is the dreadful Trump.

But American politics has changed greatly for the worse in recent years, as evidenced by the Newsom-Trump spitball flinging.

California Gov. George Deukmejian spoke at the 1989 Davos forum and was a model of civil diplomacy, promoting the state’s trade and investment opportunities and laying off demagoguery.

Of course, Deukmejian and President Bush were both Republicans. So the Duke didn’t assail the president, not that he would have anyway. He had too much respect for the presidential institution when traveling abroad.

But unlike today’s top elected Republicans, Deukmejian didn’t shy away from giving the president advice. At Davos, the governor urged Bush not to renege on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge that got him elected. To reduce the federal deficit, cut spending, the governor cautioned.

Bush ignored such advice and raised taxes — and lost his 1992 reelection bid to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign motto is still a classic: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Newsom needs to pick up on that. Or at least work it into his anti-Trump rant.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: GOP rails against Newsom’s late date for special election to fill Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s seat
The TK: Trump lawyers urge Supreme Court to block California’s new election map while upholding Texas’
The L.A. Times Special: California is suffering truth decay. Sacramento should do something about it

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

President Trump has an army of bootlickers that seems to stretch to the sunset. Many of them creep around on social media and almost certainly legions of them come from bot accounts on X.

Then there’s Bill Essayli. When it comes to saying anything to please a president with autocratic dreams, the former Assembly member is a bootlicking All-Star.

Att. Gen. Pam Bondi appointed him as the top prosecutor for the Central District of California in April with the explicit mandate to do Donald J. Trump’s will. His record so far has been unsurprisingly embarrassing and outlandish.

An exodus of prosecutors who didn’t care for his staff screaming sessions and boorish press conferences. A felony conviction against a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy for excessive force that he reduced to a misdemeanor and then unsuccessfully tried to have dismissed. Seeking charges against people who dared protest Trump’s deportation deluge that his office eventually reduced, dropped or lost in court due to lack of evidence despite Essayli publicly boasting they were slam-dunk cases.

The guy can’t even call himself acting U.S. attorney anymore after a judge ruled in October he was “not lawfully serving” in the position since he was never formally appointed in the first place. So you’d think Essayli would hear the music and go back to being an inconsequential California legislator, but no! If there’s one thing Trumpworld has shown, it’s that once you’ve knelt to offer the Dear Leader a lick-and-shine, you better keep it up until your tongue’s as dry as Death Valley.

Which leads us to this weekend. And Essayli’s bootlicking-gone-wrong.

On Saturday morning, Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti after they gang-tackled him. He had tried to help a woman shoved to the ground by a federal immigration officer; an officer maced him and he soon collapsed — and shortly after, was dead. A Department of Homeland Security social media post justified what happened by saying Pretti seemed intent on “want[ing] to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement” because he was in possession of a legally registered handgun. He never brandished it though. In fact, multiple videos showed Pretti clearly holding what looked like a phone as agents swarmed him.

Even though the incident was thousands of miles away from Los Angeles, Essayli had to flick his tongue — it’s the bootlicker way, after all.

“If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you,” he snickered on social media hours after Pretti died. “Don’t do it!” He also reshared the posts of right-wing social media influencers Jack Posobiec and Andy Ngo who claimed Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, was following “antifa” tactics.

Essayli was soon getting smacked around on social media by gun rights groups, including the NRA, which has endorsed Trump in all his presidential races.

A sign is raised in support of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at a candlelight vigil during a peaceful protest at the federal building in Los Angeles on Saturday.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

It blasted his rant as “dangerous and wrong” on social media, adding that “responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

The Gun Owners of America, a group that’s even more conservative than the NRA, called Essayli’s comments “untoward,” leading to the first assistant U.S. attorney — because bootlickers love their titles — to whine about the nonprofit “adding words to mischaracterize my statement” even though they directly quoted him.

When history looks back at all the cowards, sycophants, apologists, enablers, henchmen and other miscreants that made Trump possible, the bootlickers will have a starring role. The “I voted for this” tribe — even when this is cruelty and actions that are more those of a Macbeth than an American president.

The bootlicker is a universally reviled archetype. Their bread-and-butter is comforting the most comfortable by afflicting the most afflicted. They try to top fellow bootlickers with even more obsequious acts of flattery, hellbent on making the most damning line of Orwell’s “1984” come to life: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

The bootlicker’s moral compass is malleable. Wherever the Big Boss has moved the goal posts, that’s where he or she will kick the ball. If all goes to hell and America devolves into a rank dictatorship, beware the bootlicker.

The Trump regime currently has a lineup of them that’s like the bootlicking version of the 1927 Yankees.

In addition to Essayli, you have Stephen Miller, who kept calling Pretti an “assassin” and “domestic terrorist” on social media as if repeating the slurs would make them true. Vice President JD Vance, who described Renee Good, a woman shot and killed on Jan. 7 by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis after she tried to drive away from him, as a “deranged leftist.”

Repeating what the big bootlickers say is a character trait. Call it the bootlicking trickle-down-effect.

There’s Border Patrol chief at large Gregory Bovino, a migra man a federal judge accused of “outright lying” during depositions over the actions of his team in Chicago this fall. During a news conference about the death of Pretti, Bovino claimed that the victim looked like he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement” — the exact same language used in the original Department of Homeland Security social media post on the killing. Hours later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also impersonated a macaw, parroting Miller by accusing Pretti of “domestic terrorism.”

On Fox News on Sunday, FBI Director Kash Patel — the agency that in ye olden days would be leading an impartial investigation into what happened to Good, Pretti and other victims of la migra — told host Maria Bartiromo that “No one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm. That led a skeptical-looking Bartiromo, who’s about as liberal as the Spanish Inquisition, to ask, “And how was he using that handgun in terms of threatening Border Patrol?”

A wide-eyed Patel could only say he trusted Noem’s version of the events.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during a news conference on Saturday to address an incident where federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti during operations in Minneapolis.

(Al Drago / Getty Images)

These are just some of the most prominent, powerful bootlickers stumbling right now on their own deceit and desperation.

Space prohibits me from quoting all the Republicans who last week were stalwart 2nd Amendment fans now saying Pretti had no right to carry his legally registered firearm to a protest even though they cheered on Kyle Rittenhouse when the Wisconsin teen showed up at one very openly carrying an AR-15, which he ended up using to fatally shoot two people who tried to assault him. There’s no evidence Pretti ever handled his firearm during the protest, let alone threatened federal agents with it.

Then there’s the bootlickers who cheered on the Jan. 6 rioters for rising up against what they saw as government tyranny, who insist the dozens of law enforcement officers injured that day were just deep-state agents. Today, those bootlickers are telling folks pushing back against Trump’s police state to respect it.

Obey or die.

The Roman philosopher Plutarch described flatterers in his immortal essay on the subject as “the plague in kings’ chambers, and the ruin of their kingdoms” that “prey upon a noble quarry.” So to Essayli, Patel, Noem and all the other bootlickers in Trump’s orbit, and to the relatively anonymous legions beyond, I’ll leave you with the warning that I saw in a meme that I’m sure Plutarch would endorse:

No matter how hard you lick it, the boot will never love you.

WASHINGTON — The crisis touched off by President Trump’s demand to take ownership of Greenland appears over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a larger long-term challenge: Can their shaky marriage be saved?

At 75 years old, NATO has survived storms before, from squabbles over trade to estrangement over wars in Vietnam and Iraq. France, jealous of its independence, even pulled its armed forces out of NATO for 43 years.

But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current division in the alliance may be worse, because Trump’s threats on Greenland convinced many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.

The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.

Long before Trump arrived in the White House, presidents from both parties complained that many NATO countries weren’t pulling their weight in military spending.

But earlier presidents still considered the alliance an essential asset to U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of a system that prevented war in Europe for most of a century.

Trump has never seemed to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending, he continued to deride most allies as freeloaders.

Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help defend other NATO countries, the core principle of the alliance. And he reserved the right to walk away from any agreement, military or commercial, whenever it suited his purpose.

In the two-week standoff over Greenland, he threatened to seize the island from NATO member Denmark by force, an action that would have violated the NATO treaty.

When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs, which would have violated a trade deal Trump made only last year.

Both threats touched off fury in Europe, where governments had spent most of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. When Trump backed down, the lesson some leaders drew was that pushing back worked better than playing nice.

“We do prefer respect to bullies,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

“Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said.

The long-term danger for the United States, scholars said, is that Europeans might choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.

“They just don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

“A post-American world is fast emerging, one brought about in large part by the United States taking the lead in dismantling the international order that this country built,” he wrote last week.

Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they need to disentangle from the United States, build military forces that can defend against Russia, and seek more reliable trade partners, potentially including India and China.

But decoupling from the United States would not be easy, fast or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for many of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.

Almost all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they aren’t scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.

Meanwhile, they face the current danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern frontier.

Not surprisingly for a group of 30 countries, Europe’s NATO members aren’t united on the question. Macron has argued for more autonomy, but others have called for caution.

“Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at Davos.

“I think we are actually in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing that, slowly and surely we’ll be just fine.”

They argue, in effect, that the best strategy is to muddle through — which is what NATO and Europe have done in most earlier crises.

The strongest argument for that course may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow a rapid erosion — or worse, dissolution — of an alliance that has helped keep its members safe for most of a century.

The costs of that outcome, historian Robert Kagan warned recently, would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.

If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote in the Atlantic, “The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies, and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.”

In the roiling debate over California’s proposed billionaire tax, supporters and critics agree that such policies haven’t always worked in the past. But the lessons they’ve drawn from that history are wildly different.

The Billionaire Tax Act, which backers are pushing to get on the November ballot, would charge California’s 200-plus billionaires a one-time, 5% tax on their net worth in order to backfill billions of dollars in Republican-led cuts to federal healthcare funding for middle-class and low-income residents.

Critics of the proposal have argued that past failures of similar wealth taxes in Europe prove they don’t work and can cause more harm than good, including by driving the ultra-rich out. Among those critics is San José Mayor Matt Mahan, a tech-friendly Democrat who is contemplating a run for governor.

“Over the last 30 years, we’ve seen a dozen European countries pursue national-level wealth taxes,” Mahan said. “Nine of them have rolled them back. A majority have seen a decline in overall revenue. It’s actually shrunk the tax base, not increased it, and it’s because it creates a perverse incentive and drives capital flight.”

Backers of the measure acknowledge such failures but say that they learned from them and that California’s proposal is stronger as a result.

Brian Galle, a UC Berkeley tax law professor and one of four academic experts who drafted the measure, said if it gets on the ballot, every voter in the state will receive a copy of the full text, a one-page explainer on what it does, and nearly two dozen additional pages of “rules for preventing wealthy people and their army of lawyers from dodging” it.

Many of those rules, he said, are based on historical lessons from places where such taxes have failed, but also where they’ve succeeded.

“If you understand the actual lessons of history, you understand that this bill is more like the successful Swiss and Spanish wealth taxes,” Galle said. “Part of that is learning from history.”

Warnings from Europe

Since the 1990s, several European countries have repealed net wealth taxes, including Austria, Denmark, Finland, France and Germany.

A major example cited by critics of the California proposal is France, which implemented a much larger wealth tax on far more people, including many millionaires. The measure raised modest revenues, which fell as rich people moved out of the country to avoid paying, and the measure was repealed by the government of President Emmanuel Macron in 2017.

In a 2018 report on net wealth taxes, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that European repeals were often driven by “efficiency and administrative concerns and by the observation that net wealth taxes have frequently failed to meet their redistributive goals.”

“The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low,” it found.

Critics and skeptics of the California proposal say they expect California to run into all the same problems.

Mahan and others have pointed to a handful of prominent billionaires who already appear to be distancing themselves from the state, and said they expect more to follow — which Mahan said will reduce California’s “recurring revenue” beyond the amount raised by the one-time tax.

Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyzes the fiscal effects of public policies, said net worth taxes in other countries have “always raised quite a bit less revenue than what was initially projected,” in large part because “wealth is easy, as it turns out, to try to reclassify or move around” and “there’s all these tricks that you can do to try to make the wealth look smaller for tax purposes.”

A bus in London promotes a campaign by British millionaires advocating for an end to extreme wealth and inequality.

(Carl Court / Getty Images)

Smetters said he expects that the California measure will raise less than the $100 billion estimated by its backers because billionaire wealth in California — much of it derived from the tech sector — is relatively “mobile,” as many tech barons can move without it affecting business.

“Policymakers have to understand that they’re not going to get nearly as much money as they often project from a purely static projection, where they’re not accounting for the different ways that people can move their wealth, reclassify their wealth, or even just move out of the state,” Smetters said. “So far, we only know of a few people — with a lot of money — who have moved out of the state, [but] that number could go up.”

Kevin Ghassomian, a private wealth lawyer at Venable who advises rich clients, said he expects the administrative costs of enforcing the tax to be massive for the state — and much greater than the drafters have anticipated.

On the front end, the state will face a wave of legal challenges to the tax’s constitutionality and its retroactive application to all billionaires living in the state as of the end of 2025.

Moving ahead, he said, there will be litigation from wealthy individuals whose departure from California is questioned or who dispute the state’s valuation of their net worth or individual assets — including private holdings, which the state doesn’t have extensive experience assessing.

Valuating such assets will be “a nightmare, just practically speaking, and it’s going to require a lot of administrators at the state level,” Ghassomian said, especially considering many California billionaires’ wealth is in the form of illiquid holdings in startups and other ventures with fluctuating market valuations.

“You could be a billionaire today, and then the market plummets, and now all of a sudden, you’re a pauper,” he said. “It could really lead to some unfair results.”

Lessons from Europe

Backers of California’s proposal said they have accounted for many of the historical pitfalls with wealth taxes and taken steps to avoid them — including by making it harder for wealthy Californians to simply shuffle money around to avoid the tax.

“There are a lot of provisions that are designed based on what has worked well in other countries with wealth taxes in the modern era, especially Switzerland, and there are also provisions meant to shut down some of the holes in some of the earlier wealth tax efforts, especially the France one, that were viewed as not successful,” said David Gamage, a University of Missouri tax law professor and another of the proposal’s drafters.

Galle said the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development study found that many of Europe’s historical wealth taxes “hadn’t figured out how to solve the problem of what small businesses were worth,” so were more narrowly focused on publicly traded stock and real estate. “Over time, there was a lot of abuse where people shifted their assets to make them look privately held.”

The California proposal “tries to solve that problem” by including small businesses and other privately held wealth in their calculations of net worth, he said — and benefits from the fact that such wealth has gotten a lot easier to track and appraise in recent years.

Doing so would be a familiar exercise for many California billionaires already, he said, as it is hard to raise venture capital, for example, without audited financial statements.

Backers of the measure said it is harder for U.S. citizens to avoid taxes by moving abroad than it has been for Europeans, and that evidence from Switzerland and Spain suggests differing tax rates between a nation’s individual states do not cause massive interstate flight.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who might run for governor, opposes the proposed tax on California billionaires.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

For example, each state in Spain sets its own wealth tax rate, and Madrid’s is 0% — but that has not caused an exodus from other parts of Spain to Madrid, Galle said.

The risk of California billionaires avoiding the tax by simply moving to another U.S. state was further mitigated by the measure’s Jan. 1 deadline for avoiding the tax. Galle said the deadline “was intended to make it more difficult for individuals to concoct the kind of misleading, apparent moves that wealthy people have used in other places to try to avoid a wealth tax.”

Gamage said that “history shows if a tax on the wealthy can be avoided by moving paper around, claiming that you live in another location without actually moving your life there, moving assets to accounts or trusts nominally in foreign countries or other jurisdictions, you see large mobility responses.”

But when “those paper moves are shut down,” there’s much less moving — and “that’s the basis for the California model,” he added.

The outlook

Ghassomian, who said he has been “fielding a lot of inbound inquiries from clients who are just kind of worried,” said it is clear that the proposal’s authors “have done their homework” and tried to design the tax in a smart way.

Still, he said, he has concerns about the cost of administering the tax outpacing revenues, especially amid litigation. Residency battles alone with billionaires whose claims of departing the state are questioned could take “years and years and years” to resolve, he said.

“The revenue has to line up with expenditures, and if you can’t count on the revenue because it’s going to be tied up in courts, or it’s going to be delayed, then I think that creates some real logistical hurdles,” he said.

Smetters said predicting revenues from a tax on so many different types of assets is “really hard,” but one thing that has generally held true through history is that “most countries, even with less-mobile wealth, typically do not get the type of revenue that they were hoping for.”

David Sacks, a venture capitalist and President Trump’s AI czar who decamped from California to Texas, said on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week that the measure was an “asset seizure” more than a tax, and that the state would be headed in a “scary direction” if voters approved it.

Darien Shanske, a tax law professor at UC Davis and another drafter of the proposal, said he and his colleagues did their best to “look at the lessons of the past, and apply them in a way that makes sense and is generally fair and administrable” — in a state where wealth inequality is rapidly growing and a wealth tax presents unique opportunities.

“Having a tax on billionaires does make particular sense in California because of the large number that live here and the large number who have made their fortune here,” he said.

Shanske said the proposed tax is designed to provide California a way to “triage” soaring healthcare premiums resulting from legislation enacted by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans. The proposal asks for contributions from people who will quickly recoup what they are taxed given the exponential growth of their assets, he said.

Emmanuel Saez, director of the Stone Center on Wealth and Income Inequality at UC Berkeley and another drafter of the measure, said many of the repealed European taxes targeted millionaires while providing loopholes for billionaires to avoid paying, whereas California’s measure is “exactly the reverse.”

He said the measure will raise substantial revenue in part because California billionaire wealth more than doubled from 2023 to 2025 alone, and is “the innovative and first-of-its-kind tax on the ultra-wealthy that the moment requires.”

Thomas Piketty, a French economist and author of “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” called California’s proposed tax “very innovative” and “relatively modest” compared with massive wealth taxes after World War II — including in Germany and Japan — and said it would not only improve healthcare in the state but “have an enormous impact on the U.S. and international political scene.”

“In the current context, with a deeply entrenched billionaire class, wealth taxes meet even more political resistance than in the postwar context, and this is where California could make a huge difference,” he said. “The fact of targeting the revenue to health spending is also very innovative and can help convince the voters to support the initiative.”

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.