Stephen A. Smith received the equivalent of a failing grade Saturday from the National Assn. of Black Journalists, which blasted his consistent takedowns of Black female politicians.
Predictably, the outspoken sports pundit, who also weighs in with sharp takes on politics and popular culture, is not pleased with the assessment and is planning a fiery response: “Now y’all started something.”
The organization at its annual convention on Saturday presented the ESPN “First Take” host with its annual “Thumbs Down” award, saying he has “established a recurring public pattern of disparaging commentary directed at prominent Black women across politics, sports and media.”
The statement continued, “Such commentary reinforces harmful narratives, undermines the fair and respectful representation of Black women in public discourse and stands in direct conflict with NABJ’s longstanding commitment to accurate, responsible and inclusive portrayals of Black communities.”
The ESPN “First Take” commentator lashed back in an X post: “This is the epitome of Christmas arriving early. The @NABJ wants to call folks out, fine! You had your turn, now mine is coming. And make no mistake…..,I’m coming. Let’s see who REALLY deserves a Thumbs Down award when it comes to the Black Community, after I say my peace! Remember …you asked for it. I’ve shut my mouth for years. Now y’all started something.”
The clash signifies a significant break in the relationship between Smith and the NABJ, which hosted Smith and live broadcasts of his show at its 2024 and 2025 conventions.
The “Thumbs Down” dishonor is the latest backlash against Smith from Black media figures and others.
He accused Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas last September of using “street verbiage” in her frequent criticisms of President Trump. Comedian Kevin Hart quipped during a recent Comedy Central roast that Smith belonged on the “Mt. Rushmore of racism” alongside Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan.
He also has clashed with former MS Now anchor Joy Reid and is engaged in a longstanding feud with NBA star LeBron James.
Although he and Trump have called each other names, he also praised the president, and said last week that Trump-backed Florida gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds might prompt him to change his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican.
Smith has hinted in past months that he is considering a presidential run.
Others who received a “Thumbs Down” from the NABJ included Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; DuJuan McCoy, Circle City Broadcasting president and chief executive; CBS; and the Washington Post.
WASHINGTON — Democratic voters are showing up for this year’s primaries in numbers not seen in decades, a pattern emerging across several states that has the party optimistic about its prospects in November when control of Congress will be at stake.
In Tuesday’s primary, Wisconsin Democrats cast nearly 800,000 ballots, their highest total for a midterm in more than 20 years. That followed 1.5 million Democratic voters in Michigan the week before, a midterm record for the state.
The enthusiasm extends beyond the Midwest. Democratic primary turnout also surged this year in Texas and Georgia, states that will have competitive Senate races in the fall.
It is giving Democrats a string of strong showings heading into the midterms, when the president’s party is normally at a disadvantage. That is compounded this year by President Trump’s weak approval ratings, persistent inflation and an unpopular war with Iran.
“The big news is that Democrats are getting huge turnouts,” said David Axelrod, who was a top advisor to President Obama. “That’s been a steady story throughout this period.”
Competitive Democratic primaries have helped drive the surge, giving the party’s voters more reason to participate. Republican primary turnout remained closer to historic norms in Michigan, even with a competitive statewide contest.
Voter turnout in primary elections is an imperfect predictor of general election results, especially when one party has the more compelling early contests. Republicans say they are responding with a major effort to turn out their voters in the fall.
GOP leaders say they can energize voters by tapping into a major fundraising advantage over Democrats and sending Trump back out campaigning, including during a midterm convention in Texas next month.
“Primary turnout doesn’t win general elections,” said Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Republicans are entering November with the money, momentum, stronger candidates and a battle-tested operation built to turn out voters when it actually counts.”
A pattern in many states, many contests
The scale of the Democratic turnout advantage varied across states, but the pattern extended across much of this year’s competitive landscape for House, Senate or governor’s races.
In Wisconsin, more than 790,000 people voted in the Democratic primary for governor, putting turnout at about 22% of registered voters. More than 1.5 million people voted in Michigan’s recent Democratic Senate primary, which accounted for a little more than 18% of registered voters. It was the state’s highest midterm turnout rate in a Democratic primary since at least 2002 — the same as in Wisconsin, according to an analysis of Associated Press election data.
In Minnesota, Democratic primary turnout was on par with the 2018 midterm election, with both years marking the state’s highest Democratic primary turnout in a midterm year so far this century.
For Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan, turnout in last week’s primary was in line with previous GOP midterm primaries in each state. In Michigan, turnout for the Republican governor’s race was about 11%. In Wisconsin’s Republican primary for governor, it is expected to be about 14%.
“Republicans in Michigan will close the enthusiasm gap by highlighting the massive differences between our nominees and the extreme, out-of-touch politicians the Democrats have nominated,” said Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for the Michigan GOP. “It’s one thing to lead in enthusiasm before we know who is running. Now, the differences are clear.”
Other states that held elections this year also saw significant Democratic primary turnout. In Georgia and Texas, the midterm turnout in the Democratic primaries was higher than it’s been since at least 2002. In Georgia, just over 1 million people voted in May in the Democratic governor’s race, a little more than 13% of registered voters. In Texas, about 2.3 million people voted in March in the Democratic Senate primary, a little more than 12%.
‘Good sign,’ but ‘not a very solid predictor’
The robust primary turnout has been a “good sign for Democrats,” said Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Michigan State University. But he cautioned that it is “not a very solid predictor” of how voters will break in November.
Smidt pointed to several factors behind the numbers, including high turnout in recent elections, which has created a larger pool of regular voters.
“Voting is a lot of habit-forming,” he said.
He also noted that many of the states with high turnout had what he described as “media spotlight candidacies.”
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota all held races in August that the news media framed as marquee progressive-versus-moderate contests that probably helped drive Democratic participation.
In Michigan, spending in the Democratic Senate primary topped $80 million, making it one of the most expensive races of the year so far, according to AdImpact. Progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a campaign that drew national attention and energized younger voters and university communities.
Stevens carried Wayne County, the state’s largest source of Democratic votes, and some of the congresswoman’s supporters said before the primary that they would not back El-Sayed if he became the nominee.
In Wisconsin, the governor’s primary was repeatedly reshaped as moderate Democrats left and reentered the race while democratic socialist Francesca Hong consolidated progressive support. Hong lost narrowly to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a more traditional Democrat.
The races highlight how competitive primaries helped drive attention and also how the winning candidates have work to do to bring their party together for November. Both Wisconsin and Michigan Democrats held unity breakfasts in the days after the primaries.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who backed El-Sayed and Minnesota Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan but did not endorse Hong, said in an interview this week that he expects Democratic voters to bridge their differences for the general election.
“At the end of the day, when it comes to taking on Trump and creating a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, there is going to be unity, because I think everybody knows how important that is,” he said.
A favorable environment, but a difficult map
Democrats have reason to believe the primary enthusiasm could last. The president’s party has historically lost ground in midterm elections, and Trump enters the fall deeply unpopular amid economic unease and an unpopular war.
Some 33% of American adults approve of his job performance, according to the most recent polling by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs.
But a favorable national environment may not be enough for Democrats. They will need unusually strong turnout to overcome a congressional map that has become more favorable to Republicans.
The number of competitive House races has shrunk considerably this year after Republican-controlled states redrew congressional districts in their favor at Trump’s urging. Some Democratic-controlled states responded, most notably California, but the new lines are expected to produce a net benefit for Republicans, who hold a slim House majority.
Republicans control the Senate 53 to 47, with Democrats needing to pick up four seats to win the majority. Democrats will have to generate energy similar to that of Republicans two years ago, Smidt said.
“If we have a national tide like we had in 2024, suddenly that opens the map a little more,” he said.
Cappelletti, Askarinam and Boak write for the Associated Press. Pamela Jo Martin and Samuel Jens of the Associated Press Election Services team contributed to this report from Washington.
President Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care is not improper and cannot be the basis for quashing a subpoena issued by the Justice Department against a provider of medical treatment for transgender youth, a divided federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The Justice Department announced last year that it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care as part of an effort to investigate healthcare fraud. Federal judges have quashed many of the subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the efficacy and long-term risks of the treatments are “uncertain,” and the president has the power to align the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities with his broader policy goals.
“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” wrote Judge Carlos Bea.
Bea, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined in the opinion by Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee. They reversed a ruling that quashed the subpoena against telemedicine provider QueerDoc, sending the case back to the district court to consider other arguments.
The subpoena seeks QueerDoc’s personnel files, billing documents, communications with drug manufacturers and records of patients who were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy, among other information, according to the 9th Circuit decision.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adrien Leavitt, who represented Washington state-based QueerDoc, said the ACLU would continue fighting the subpoena in district court. QueerDoc has also argued the subpoena is overbroad and burdensome. The Justice Department has said it has reason to believe the company may be misleading people about puberty blockers and hormones.
“We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said in a statement.
He said the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit was the first appeals court to weigh in on the subpoenas.
Trump has signed one executive order defining sex as only male or female — and as unchangeable — and another that seeks to end federal funding of the care for patients under 19. The latter order also directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law by “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”
Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person’s gender identity, including when it’s different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It encompasses counseling, medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes as well as surgeries to transform chests and genitals, though those are rare for minors.
Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.
The 9th Circuit majority called discussion around gender-affirming care “an unsettled scientific debate” and said the Trump administration could also justify its opposition to the treatment on ethical or philosophical grounds.
More than half of likely voters oppose a separate measure that would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, the survey showed.
The two controversial proposals are among the 14 ballot measures Californians will decide in the Nov. 3 election. Proposition 40, which would impose the tax on billionaires’ assets, has reached the precipice of nationwide debates over economic inequality and liberal overreach. The Republican-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39, emerged amid President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.
Among likely California voters, 48% support Proposition 40, compared with 41% who oppose the proposed wealth tax and 11% who are undecided, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.
Proposition 40’s failure to crack 50% support among voters at this point in the electoral cycle is a potential red flag, said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. Traditionally, Californians who are undecided on ballot measures tend to vote against them, he said.
“It’s got an early lead, but it’s not a very large lead, and it’s not a majority,” he said. “Usually, for ballot propositions, you want the yes side to be above 50%, and that’s not where it is right now.”
The proposal was crafted by a healthcare workers’ union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by Trump and congressional Republicans that it argues will cause devastating harm to millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions.
Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.
While Democratic voters mostly support the ballot measure and Republicans largely oppose it, younger Californians are far more likely to say they plan to vote for it compared to seniors. Minorities, women and lower-income voters are also more supportive of the measure than white voters, men and Californians who earn at least $200,000 annually. Union households support the measure, while non-union families are evenly divided about it.
Turnout will be pivotal, DiCamillo said. While younger Californians are historically less likely to vote, especially in midterm elections, if they are energized by the issues championed by socialist Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that could boost the wealth tax proposal’s prospects.
The survey found that voters are far less aware of two competing ballot measures aimed at nullifying the proposed wealth tax.
Proposition 41 would prohibit new taxes from being exempt from voter-approved state spending limits and require audits of new levies. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on personal property and some retroactive state taxes. If the wealth tax is approved and either of the countermeasures receives more votes, the proposed billionaires’ tax would not go into effect.
The poll found that 35% of likely voters supported Proposition 41, with 37% opposing it. On Proposition 42, 40% of voters backed the measure, and 37% opposed it.
Roughly one out of every four of the voters surveyed on those two measures said they were undecided. DiCamillo said he expects that to change as the anti-wealth tax campaigns, which are expected to be well-organized and well-funded, ramp up their messaging to voters.
“There’s going to be a lot of campaigning, apparently on the no side especially. So we’ll see,” he said. “But you know, I think it’s confusing to voters in some ways.”
Among the other controversial measures on the Nov. 3 ballot is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.
The measure would also require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
Just over half of California’s likely voters oppose the ballot measure, while 42% support it. Californians are predictably divided along partisan lines. Eight out of 10 Democrats oppose the proposal, while more than nine out of 10 Republicans support it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose it 54%, while 36% support it.
Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof-of-citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.
“It’s a very traditional Democrat versus Republican split,” DiCamillo said, adding that it would be surprising to see major shifts in the numbers. “Once these things get solidified in terms of the partisan splits, without any other kinds of splits like we’re seeing in Prop. 40, you know that’s usually the dominant theme.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters, 2,310 of whom are considered likely voters, from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
Things people don’t want to do this summer, as evidenced by poor ratings: Watch CBS news anchor Tony Doukopil. Tune into Paramount+’s sci-fi teen drama “Star Trek: Starfleet Academy.” Read President Trump’s Truth Social posts.
No matter how much Trump posts, and he has been posting a lotlately, traffic to the platform he uses as his megaphone for official White House statements and personal rants has fallen off significantly this summer. Last month, the overall number of monthly visitors to Truth Social was down about 36% from where it was in 2025, according to the online tracking firm Similarweb. The numbers were similarly dismal in June.
But Trump’s slumping media fortunes may soon get an infusion of cash, or bitcoin, or whatever it takes to line his coffers before the jig is up.
Never one to leave a source of income untapped, the president has come up with yet another way to add to the $2.2 billion he made in just the first year of his second term. His majority-owned Trump Media & Technology Group earlier this month announced that it was rolling out a new service aimed at cashing in on the president’s every word.
Truth API is a subscription service that offers early access to posts from Trump and other notable users of the platform, for a price. It’s charging fees of up to $100,000 and month.
But there’s a hiccup in the president’s latest grift. On Wednesday, media organizations Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept sued Trump, filing a complaint saying that providing quicker access to his posts to those who pay was “extraordinary, corrupt, and unconstitutional.”
Their suit alleges that Truth API contradicts the First Amendment’s guarantee of equal public access to the president’s statements and violates the Fifth Amendment by granting preferential access for “unreasonable sums.” The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asked the court to block Trump from publishing official government information exclusively on Truth Social.
So why is this particular money-making scheme garnering so much attention outside Trump’s many other grifts? Because a president’s words can, and often do, sway the stock market. In the frenetic world of Wall Street trading, early access to statements and news from the Commander-in-Chief gives subscribers an edge, and as NPR pointed out, that could mean a difference of millions of dollars.
Unlike any other sitting U.S. president, Trump in his second term has ignored traditional means of communication such as press briefings, live addresses or posting official announcements, executive actions, press releases, and statements on the official White House Website. He’s done so in favor of communicating through his own privately controlled platform, delivering wild posting sprees that often forgo the fact-based, informative briefings we the people still need from our elected officials. But even back when he was using Twitter (now X) during his first term, the White House said his tweets should be considered official statements.
That standard still holds for his frequent barrages of boasts, insults, threats, grouses and indecipherable dispatches via Truth Social. After the humiliating failure of his America 250 celebration, he fired off 67 posts on Truth Social in just two hours, posting almost every single minute between 11:12 a.m. and 1:14 p.m. His musings ranged from attacks on a federal judge to a photo of himself at a 1991 New York City tree-lighting ceremony with his “Home Alone 2” co-stars.
That spree is now among the thousands more posts from the president, that have not been followed up by announcements from the White House outside of Truth Social. “In other words, President Trump’s posts are the only way to get official government news,” the lawsuit said.
Trump Media & Technology Group, or TMTG, is majority-owned by the president. It was launched following Trump’s account suspension across mainstream social platforms including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The platforms cited risks of inciting violence following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Trump responded by creating his own platform, and Truth Social debuted in 2022.
But the platform’s parent company, TMTG, has lost money ever since it went public in 2024. On Monday, Trump Media reported a $238-million loss for the second quarter, tied mostly to cryptocurrency assets. Executives told investors on a conference call that they are now going to focus their energy on Truth Social and soft-explained their latest scheme to profit off the presidency.
“Our customers will get published and publicly available posts fractionally faster” than everyone else,” said Kevin McGurn, the company’s interim chief executive. He added that such early access is a “well-established business practice.”
Unless it’s a sitting U.S. president doing the selling. We’re in uncharted territory, once again. But another big question around this new subscription service is whether investors and traders can trust the intelligence they get from early access to Trump’s posts.
It was revealed this week that the president published deceptive information last month, putting the lives of dozens in danger. Before leaving a NATO meeting in Turkey, he posted that he’d be riding on the older Air Force One “for old time’s sake” instead of the newly retrofitted, Qatari-donated jet. His misdirection was part of an elaborate ruse to mask his transfer from Air Force One to a military fighter jet following intel that Iran may be targeting the president’s plane. The subterfuge involved him stowing away in an airport catering container to sneak onto the jet. Of course a president has to be protected, but Air Force One still had members of the press and his administration aboard when they sent it into the sky. Essentially, they were unwitting decoys.
Sometimes a president has to lie to stay safe. And often times this president peddles misinformation as a means to other ends, like amassing more money for himself while holding onto his seat of power. Paying for early access to Trump’s posts is a great idea — for Trump.
WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking to retake control of Congress are planning broad investigations into President Trump and his family’s business dealings as part of an agenda focused on alleged corruption and economic harm, while keeping impeachment an option rather than an immediate priority.
The strategy would use subpoenas, committee hearings, possible criminal referrals and the budget as leverage to examine whether Trump, his family and close associates have used the federal government and public contracts for personal or financial gain.
With less than three months before the midterm elections, the prospect of sweeping investigations has hung over Trump as his approval ratings hit new lows and Democrats gain momentum. But the White House has dismissed Democrats’ plans as partisan and unfounded.
“President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re‑elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.”
Asked about the possibility of being impeached for a third time and being investigated, Trump told Punchbowl News last week that it would be “very unfair,” in part because “a lot of people are saying I am one of the greatest presidents ever.”
For Democrats, impeachment remains an option, but they are reluctant to make it a centerpiece of their agenda this time around. They argued the process could distract from oversight that would address alleged corruption and the ways it is hurting Americans economically.
“We shouldn’t take off the table that he can be impeached again,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “But I think right now we’ve got to stop the Trump harm and investigate those who are helping him.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which plays a key role in the impeachment process, has also paused at making impeachment a priority. The Maryland lawmaker argued that Trump is “very eager” for Democrats to impeach him so he can mobilize his political base.
“We’re not going to play into the game,” Raskin told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.
In a statement to The Times, Raskin said the priority would be in expanding ongoing investigations into Trump’s pardons, what he called the “weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world,” “rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause,” and the “theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his Cabinet of corruption.”
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, said he is keeping his “mind open” on whether another impeachment would make sense for Democrats a third time. He argued the “power of the purse” — or using the budget to take aim at Trump’s agenda — would be a more effective tool.
“We’re going to need to do a lot of oversight of this administration, and I think it will be important in doing that oversight to always bring it back to why people should care about it and how the corruption of this regime is really raising their costs,” Schiff said.
Other Democrats are equally wary about using their renewed power to launch a third impeachment trial against Trump.
“We all know that this man has already been impeached twice. … I don’t know that we have to go to that well a third time,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) said.
Probes trickle down
Beyond the president’s business dealings, rank-and-file Democrats are coordinating other efforts to target Trump administration officials and senior aides over policy decisions they argue should force them out of their jobs.
Last week, Kamlager-Dove introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the White House budget director, arguing that he broke the law when the administration canceled federal funding to Democratic states including California for political reasons.
While she is cautious about impeaching Trump for a third time, she believes it would be effective to “remove Trump’s reapers who are willfully breaking the law.”
“I’m coordinating with leadership so that we have the best path forward for this,” she said. “It’s about being unified. It’s about working in a coordinated fashion, and it’s about understanding the end goal.”
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said there needs to be more scrutiny over the White House’s budget-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency. Democrats should inquire more, he said, into allegations that a former DOGE official copied the Social Security numbers, names and personal information of millions of Americans to a private cloud that lacked adequate security.
He said the public still does not know enough about the situation or whether the data is secure or if it was breached, and said lawmakers should examine whether any laws or policies were violated.
“If there was political motivation to access and put at risk the Social Security numbers and the personal information of every single American, that sounds pretty criminal to me,” Walkinshaw said.
In May, three Democrats — Reps. Mike Levin of California, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jason Crow of Colorado — launched the End Corruption Caucus, creating another vehicle for oversight ideas should Democrats take control of the House.
The push and pull
As Democrats prepare for investigations, there are already questions about the type of resistance that could come from Trump and administration officials, all of whom have shown a willingness to buck Congress.
In a sign of what could be a potential hurdle, the Department of Justice issued a memo Monday evening that says communications between Trump and advisors who do not work for his administration can be protected under executive privilege.
“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said.
The White House described the memo as a “narrow legal analysis, not an extension of executive privilege.”
But some Democrats see it as an example of how the Trump administration may be gearing up for Democratic-led investigations.
“This dubious expansion of executive privilege to cover Trump’s outside advisors is a clear attack on Congress’ oversight powers, and creates an environment ripe for corruption that protects only the president and his friends. We are ready to fight to uphold our power and authority,” Garcia said.
Walkinshaw added that he predicts the Trump administration is going to “flat-out refuse to engage with or respond to Democrats” if they take control.
If that happens, Democrats already expect to fight back.
“We have contempt tools, we have inherent contempt, we have criminal contempt,” he said. “We just have to be prepared to exercise the full extent of our constitutional tools, and I predict that will happen very early.”
But as this president afflicts the country with a prolonged civic bout of Montezuma’s Revenge, Mexican food’s role in the overall mess Trump has left us with is notable.
One of this country’s most popular cuisines has inadvertently spent this summer embarrassing Trump in fundamental ways — and I’m not just talking about TACO, the acronym referring to how Trump Always Chickens Out on his most bombastic claims and threats. The most prominent — and disgusting — example has been outbreak of foodborne illness traced back to popular Mexican restaurant chains that have sickened tens of thousands of Americans while Trump has shrugged and effectively told us to eat frijoles.
The Food and Drug administration traced an outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a parasite-born intestinal disease, to contaminated lettuce grown in Mexico by Salinas-based Taylor Fresh Foods that made its way to Taco Bell. The world’s biggest Mexican fast food chain quickly put out a statement that it removed all suspected lettuce from its restaurants and that “we encourage all relevant restaurants, retailers, and foodservice operators to do the same.”
If only the Trump administration was as proactive in caring for the well-being of Americans as the creators of Doritos Locos tacos and Crunchwrap Supremes.
It turned out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network told state inspectors last year that they were no longer required to report to the agency any instances of the parasite that causes cyclosporiasis they found in this country’s food supply. This was part of massive cutbacks at the CDC that reduced its staff by a quarter and cut billions of dollars in funding.
When reporters confronted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with these facts, he responded that such criticisms were “invalid” and that the cyclosporiasis outbreak was “under control.”
Make America Healthy Again? More like Make Americans Heave Always.
A bean and cheese burrito with green chile sauce at Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights.
(Kirk McKoy/Los Angeles Times)
On Aug. 4, the Food and Drug Administration revealed that a salmonella outbreak traced back to contaminated jalapeños imported from Mexico had left hundreds of Americans sick. But the feds were two weeks late to the news: By July 20, Chipotle had already removed all suspected jalapeños from its stores. Unlike the Trump administration, it had invested in food-safety tracking that quickly spotted the problem, a system implemented after the company suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in sales losses and a $25-million federal fine last decade due to repeated foodborne illnesses originating in its stores.
I’m no fan of Chipotle’s underwhelming hipster vibe or Taco Bell’s over-salted options, but they know what the Trump administration seems to not understand: Americans deserve to eat without worrying about whether they’ll get ill as a result. And they also know Americans especially like Mexican food, a cuisine dependent on exported produce that is now more expensive than ever because of Trump’s misguided tariffs and overall bellicosity to our Latin America trading partners.
You would think Trump himself would know: Remember the infamous photo he posted on Cinco de Mayo during his first term of him smiling at his desk appearing ready to chow down on a giant taco salad bowl?
Which leads to the second section of Trump’s combo plate of bad Mexican food news this year. On the same day the FDA belatedly disclosed the jalapeño salmonella outbreak, Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet posted on social media that a college student complained to him that “a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.” Kolvet correctly pointed out that many people currently feel the cost of living is too high, and rightfully suggested that Republican Party leaders should sympathize with such concerns lest they lose even more voters that they already have during Trump’s second term.
Instead, Trump toadies from Vice President JD Vance to Rep. Dan Crenshaw urged young people to eat instant ramen and live frugally instead of splurge on burritos. That provoked other conservative activists to smack down the MAGA Men for showing how out of touch they are with how expensive everything is right now.
Forget the Consumer Price Index: The cost of a burrito is the best way to judge how much the cost of living actually is. I haven’t regularly bought them for years because they’re just not worth it anymore.
A delicious, slender bean-and-cheese burrito with no sauce at the venerable Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights is going for six bucks and change right now when it was about $2 cheaper two years ago. The gargantuan breakfast burritos at my favorite place to get one, Athenian III in Buena Park, run about $13. Even my go-to fast-food treat, a half-pound Del Taco bean-and-cheese burrito, costs $2.61 with tax at the closest location to my house.
Remember when they were about a dollar? I do.
As someone whose wife runs a restaurant, I don’t blame businesses for hiking their prices; I blame Trump. He campaigned two years ago on stopping and reversing the runaway inflation that was happening toward the end of the Biden administration and won over a lot of Mexican Americans as a result. But when those voters can’t even enjoy a carne asada burrito for lunch without thinking about whether they’ll have enough money for the rest of the week, that should worry Trump and his team as the November midterms approach.
That they’re collectively still blaming Biden shows how pendejos they are at best, and uncaring at worst.
Back to that 2016 Cinco de Mayo photo of himself enjoying a taco salad sold at his Trump Hotel in Manhattan. It was peak Trump: daring opponents to call him out for appropriating a hallmark of Cal-Mex dining while thinking Americans would see the move as a metaphor for the bounties of riches and good times Trump would usher in for this country.
A decade later, Trump just makes too many Americans want to run to the proverbial toilet and barf from all the slop he and his minions have cooked up for our country.
The Lakers are being sold … by the Dodgers owner who was supposed to save them?
The Lakers are being sold … to one guy who owns an underachieving women’s professional soccer team and another guy who owns a piece of the hated San Francisco Giants?
Los Angeles sports fans awoke Wednesday to the news that one of their two crown jewels was being sold for the second time in a year, a transaction valued at $12.5 billion and accompanied by at least that many worries.
This doesn’t feel good. This doesn’t feel right. Something stinks here, and it might just be the future of a franchise that once seemed in such good hands.
On Wednesday it was stunningly and ingloriously fumbled, and for what?
There are two main unknowns here, and both should send shivers through a Laker fan base that could be watching their team become the Portland Trail Blazers.
First, why did Mark Walter sell just 10 months after buying? Yes, he made a $2.5 billion profit, but 10 months? Who owns a major sports franchise for just 10 months?
Second, what sort of owners will Bob Iger and Josh Kushner be? Iger is known for running Disney, and Kushner is known for running with President Trump’s son-in-law, who happens to be Kushner’s brother, Jared.
So crazy. So scary.
Does all this mean the Dodgers are also for sale? Will courtside seats be converted to spinning teacups? Is President Trump going to show up for a ceremonial opening tip?
Mark Walter, chairman and controlling owner of the Dodgers, acknowledges a fan before a game in Chicago on Aug. 4.
(Melissa Tamez / Associated Press)
Lots to dig in here, starting with Walter, who brought much hope to the struggling franchise after buying it from the Buss family last summer.
In his short tenure the Lakers racked up a bunch of off-court wins. They revamped their scouting department, increased a focus on analytics and rid themselves of LeBron James without the usual noise of an ugly breakup.
Under Walters, the Lakers didn’t fire Rob Pelinka, didn’t fire JJ Redick, brought back Austin Reaves, and actually set the team up for a pretty exciting playoff run next season.
Walter was clearly building the Lakers into the image of the Dodgers, which makes it so shocking that he would so easily cast them aside.
Could this be the result of outside forces? Walter is under federal investigation for tax fraud by companies controlled by the billionaire, and perhaps he sold the Lakers as a peace offering to the feds. The fact that he sold to somebody so close to President Trump could also help his federal case.
Remember last month when Walter embarrassingly groveled at Trump’s feet during the Dodgers visit to the White House, even giving the president a championship ring? It feels like the Lakers sale to a group co-led by Kushner is an outgrowth of that pandering.
Sources told The Times’ Bill Shaikin that the Dodgers are not for sale, but if Walter was troubled enough to sell arguably America’s most glamorous sports franchise after owning it for less time than it takes for Edwin Díaz to walk to the mound, who knows if the Dodgers are really safe?
In Walter, the Lakers had a proven champion who forged a partnership with the fans and rewarded them with sustained success.
In Iger and Kushner, the Lakers have two rich guys who have never been the majority owners of a team, never run a team and never done much more than cheer for a team.
Iger, 75, an entertainment genius who ran Disney for much of the last 20 years, has failed in his previous attempts to buy a sports team. A decade ago, he was in the finals to bring an NFL team to Los Angeles, but lacked the gravitas to pull it off.
In 2024, Iger and his wife, USC journalism dean Willow Bay, bought a controlling stake in the Angel City Football Club in the National Women’s Soccer League. But the team has yet to make any sort of local splash, missing the playoffs in each of the last two seasons.
Former Disney CEO Bob Iger, in white shirt, has been a longtime basketball fan. In 2025 he sat courtside for a Clippers game at Intuit Dome.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Kushner, meanwhile, is a 41-year-old billionaire venture capitalist who is best known for his brother’s father-in-law and his super-model wife Karlie Kloss. He owns a minority stake in not only the Giants, but the Miami Heat, which he must sell.
There is no indication whether they will be good owners, and they will clearly have to hire a seasoned NBA executive to serve as president to run the show. The identity of this person will be the first sign of their seriousness in restoring a championship culture, but there will be other signs as well, and not all could be positive.
There should be fear that these new wonders will follow the path of the most recently minted NBA owner, Portland’s Tom Dundon, who unapologetically cheapened the organization by doing everything from firing 70 business employees to bucking NBA tradition by refusing to pass out free T-shirts to the fans during playoff games. He even showed the door to both the club’s radio and TV play-by-play announcers in a dramatic cost-cutting move that could be a blueprint for other struggling teams.
Which is to say, nobody has any idea how Kushner and Iger will run things. They have no history here. They have no experience. They have no credibility. This isn’t Disney. This isn’t some hedge fund.
These are the 17-time NBA champion Lakers. This is a national monument forged on the sweat of everyone from Jerry West to Magic Johnson to Kobe Bryant.
This is a community’s heartbeat. This is a region’s touchstone.
Joshua Kushner’s sudden rise to co-ownership of the most storied team in professional basketball might seem like it came out of the blue — but it’s been a long time coming.
A scion of the wealthy Kushner family whose older brother, Jared, is married to President Trump’s daughter, and whose father, Charles, is the U.S. ambassador to France, has successfully staked out his own lucrative business career.
He is worth an estimated $5.2 billion by Forbes.
And along the way, the New York-based entrepreneur and venture capitalist has exhibited a deep interest in sports investments.
Just this summer, there were reports that Joshua Kushner and new Laker’s co-owner Bob Iger, the former Walt Disney Co. chief executive, had hired investment bankers to consider a bid for the National Basketball Association’s expansion team in Las Vegas — before setting their sights on the Lakers.
Kushner already holds a stake that in the Miami Heat that he will divest, according to The Athletic, and previously sold a stake in the Memphis Grizzlies. His wife, model Karlie Kloss, has a stake in the WNBA’s New York Liberty.
Kushner’s Thrive Capital also was named the lead investor in FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s ill-fated plan this year to spin off a $20 billion commercial subsidiary to handle the soccer federation’s broadcast, sponsorship, ticketing and event operations.
Kushner announced on X in April that he also was in the process of taking a stake in the San Francisco Giants. It was not his first interest in baseball. In 2017, he reached a preliminary agreement to buy the Miami Marlins for $1.6 billion, but the deal fell through.
Kushner’s father made his fortune in commercial and residential real estate, and early on his youngest son decided to go into business but forge his own career, even as he maintained his ties to Kushner Cos., the family firm.
After graduating from Harvard University, Kushner got his MBA from the school. But before he had even graduated in 2011, he founded his venture capital firm Thrive Capital. He also worked at top investment bank Goldman Sachs.
The venture capital firm reportedly scored with investments in Instagram, online eyewear retailer Warby Parker, music streaming service Spotify, payments processor Stripe and Elon Musk’s SpaceX long before it went public this year.
In 2012, Kushner displayed an entrepreneurial streak, co-founding Oscar, a health tech and insurer that is now publicly traded with a market capitalization of about $9 billion.
This year, Thrive raised $10 billion, it’s largest fundraising round yet, drawing investment’s from global billionaires such as India’s Mukesh Ambani, the world’s twelfth richest person, according to Bloomberg. Iger reportedly invested $175 million to purchase a 3.3% stake in Thrive.
Interest in the firm came after it scored a huge win with an investment in artificial intelligence pioneer OpenAI in January 2023, just months after the debut of ChatGPT. At the time, the startup was valued at $29 billion, and now its valuation is approaching $1 trillion.
A lifelong Democrat, Kushner attended the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, a day after Trump’s first inauguration. Kushner has funded Democratic politicians and causes almost exclusively, including $250,000 in donations to the Growth Democrats PAC during the 2024 election cycle.
“It is no secret that liberal values have guided my life and that I have supported political leaders that share similar values,” Kushner told Forbes in 2017.
In 2024, Kushner and Kloss purchased the iconic Midcentury Modern home in Malibu known as the “Wave House,” designed by famed architect Harry Gesner. According to The Wall Street Journal, the couple paid $29.5 million for the six-bedroom, 6,200-square-foot house that abuts the Pacific Ocean—$20 million less than the asking price when it was listed for sale in 2023.
Kushner, however, has not been able to shed his controversial association with his family or the family real estate firm.
A property management company owned by the family in 2022 agreed to pay $3.25 million in civil penalties and restitution to settle a lawsuit brought by the state of Maryland. The suit alleged that tenants in thousands of rental units were charged illegal fees while failing to maintain the properties. In reaching the settlement, the company did not admit wrongdoing.
Kushner’s effort to fashion his own identity also has been tarnished by his controversial father.
Charles Kushner was made ambassador to France last year by Trump, but only after the president pardoned the New Jersey developer in 2020. The elder Kushner spent nearly two years in custody following a federal tax fraud investigation.
Not long after assuming his post, Kushner sparked a diplomatic clash with France, accusing the country of not doing enough to stem antisemitism in the country following the start of the Hamas-Israeli conflict.
Correspondent A.J. Perez, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Senate in an overnight vote Saturday approved a short-term measure to fund federal agencies into early December and avoid a potentially chaotic government shutdown during the middle of campaign season.
The late-summer action on a funding fix is unusual. Normally, Congress waits until the final days or hours of a funding deadline to pass short-term patches, but this time senators acted nearly two months before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
The 90-6 vote showed lawmakers are still smarting from the two historic shutdowns in the last year and want to avoid another before voters go to the polls.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wanted the funding dealt with before senators went home for the next five weeks to focus on their reelection campaigns and other matters. It got caught up with other issues that pushed votes into the night, but the bill had broad bipartisan support. The House will also have to approve the measure when members return from their August recess before it can go to President Trump’s desk for his signature.
The bill generally funds the federal government at current levels through Dec. 11, but includes a variety of exceptions that senators negotiated with the White House.
Democrats secured language to ensure no money could be transferred to the Border Patrol. They also rejected the White House’s request of $1 billion for early work on a new “Trump-class” battleship that the administration announced Dec. 22.
“The only person who wants these golden ships is Donald Trump so he can slap his name on them,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
Hemp provision
The bill also includes language delaying a national ban on most intoxicating hemp products. That one-month delay prompted outrage from some Senate Republicans who say that too many such products are falling into the hands of unsuspecting children. The packaging of the products often relies on bright colors and intentionally mimics popular snack brands to attract consumers.
Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said that since 2017 there has been nearly a tenfold increase in cannabis-related emergency room visits by minors in his home state.
“This is a public health crisis that deserves this Senate’s immediate attention,” Budd said. “Our children should never be the testing ground for an industry willing to exploit a loophole in federal law for profit.”
But the hemp industry said the delay buys time for Congress to craft legislation that protects hemp farmers and businesses while also putting in place safeguards to protect children.
Trump himself has called Budd to discuss the issue, though the president did not specifically ask the senator to drop his effort, Budd’s spokesman said.
“Sen. Budd had a friendly phone call with President Trump discussing the legislative efforts regarding THC,” said spokesman Christian McMullen. He said the senator outlined his concerns about “any delay to closing the hemp loophole.”
Budd tried to strip the hemp delay from the bill, but the Senate turned aside his effort.
Trump rule on grants delayed
Democratic lawmakers, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), also got language in the bill that would block, for the duration of the funding patch, new regulations on federal grants. The regulations would require a senior political appointee to review grants before they are awarded to ensure, among other things, that they advance the president’s policy priorities. Democrats say it’s an effort to kill grants destined for Democratic-leaning states. The Trump administration recently admitted in a court filing denying clean-energy grants to California and other blue states based only on politics.
“They are not interested in making our tax dollars work better — they just want them to work for Donald Trump,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The White House Office of Management and Budget says its effort is about improving accountability to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted or misused. The issue is sure to be a topic of future negotiations on a full-year spending measure.
But Collins said the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 people and groups weighing in on the rule are opposed to it.
“I don’t think in my time that I’ve been privileged to serve in the Senate that I have ever seen a proposed rule generate that many negative comments,” Collins said.
Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.
Spectrum owner Charter Communications is nearing the finish line in its long-awaited $34.5-billion purchase of Cox Enterprises to form the nation’s largest internet and cable television company.
California’s Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote next week to approve the merger that would bolster Southern California’s dominant provider with more than 5 million customers. Securing the approval of California regulators — the deal’s final hurdle — has been a slog as federal officials gave Charter their consent months ago.
Customers of privately held Cox, the Atlanta-based company that serves Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, Las Vegas and large parts of Orange and San Diego counties, would be switched to Spectrum service. Charter is the industry leader, providing Spectrum internet, phone and cable TV packages for Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.
It’s been more than a year since the companies unveiled their proposed union, and they hope to combine operations this month. But flaps have flared up in the last lap.
Public interest groups have argued that the PUC’s proposed settlement with Charter doesn’t go far enough to ensure long-term affordable internet for low-income residents or accommodations for customers reeling from natural disasters such as last year’s Eaton and Palisades fires.
In addition, advocates have asked utilities commissioners to demand that Charter commit to fostering workplace diversity, equity and inclusion among its proposed 9,000-member workforce in California. Such programs have been under siege since President Trump returned to the White House.
“State regulators like the CPUC have an important role to play — they have a voice and leverage if they choose to use it,” said Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, a Bay Area group that is lobbying for Charter to renew its commitment to a diverse workplace.
“It’s important that California stand up for its own laws, policies and values,” Solomon said.
A Spectrum truck in New York City.
(Star Max/IPx)
The five-member commission is set to vote on the Charter-Cox merger Thursday. The panel will consider two competing proposals; both would allow the merger to go through with various conditions.
Charter years ago pledged to create a diverse workplace but scaled back its public statements amid Trump’s vocal demands that companies dump DEI programs. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, also has championed eliminating diversity programs, saying they are discriminatory.
The FCC in February approved Charter’s proposed purchase of Cox’s residential cable, commercial fiber, cloud and information technology businesses. To win Carr’s approval, Charter agreed to “new safeguards to protect against DEI discrimination,” according to the FCC.
Charter is in a bind. It disavowed diversity efforts to win the FCC’s blessing but now is facing calls in California to embrace such commitments.
“In a state as diverse as California we should protect diversity in the workplace,” said Jessica J. González, co-chief executive of advocacy group Free Press. “We have a responsibility to stand up to what’s been going on in the federal government, and in the Trump administration, to force companies to roll back their policies.”
In its public filings, Charters said it would reach out to diverse suppliers and work with business groups, including the Women’s Business Development Council, the California LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, the African American Chamber, the California Hispanic Chamber and the Cal Asian Chamber.
“This transaction will be good for consumers, community leaders, and businesses across California as it will provide them with lower prices, greater value, better service, and support from Spectrum’s 100% U.S.-based employees,” the Stamford, Conn. company said in a statement.
Concerns heightened among activists after one of the two proposed settlements, hashed out between Charter and Commissioner Matthew Baker, the commission’s Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund, failed to include diversity efforts.
Advocates viewed Baker’s proposal as weaker on broadband access provisions too, including commitments to provide low-cost internet for disadvantaged residents and communities that lack service.
“For us, it’s really about making sure everyone in Cox’s and Charter’s service territory benefits from this transaction,” said Paul Goodman, counsel for the Berkeley-based Center for Accessible Technology.
“We want to make sure that communities that have been historically overlooked get the same benefits from the transaction as everyone else,” Goodman said.
For example, a coalition of advocacy groups is seeking to prevent Spectrum from tacking on equipment charges for customers on low-income plans.
Commissioners will be asked to select from Baker’s draft decision or last month’s proposal from the agency’s administrative law judge, Jamie Ormond. Advocates are urging the panel to adopt Ormond’s version because it contains more compliance conditions, including mechanisms to foster an inclusive workplace.
Commissioners have “a statutory duty” under the state’s utilities code “to deny the transaction outright rather than approve a weaker deal,” the advocates argued in a recent filing.
Solomon’s group is pushing for an “organizational infrastructure for equal opportunity compliance,” including reporting compensation and promotion data for Charter’s California workforce and pay equity audits.
The state has required diversity measures before — despite such initiatives being out of favor in Washington. In January, the commission approved Verizon Communications’ purchase of Frontier Communications.
In that proceeding, Verizon pledged to “further California’s public policy goals of diverse supply chains and workforces, including a $10 million partnership with the California State University system,” the PUC said.
Under both Ormond’s and Baker’s proposals, Charter would be required to offer affordable broadband to low-income residents, including California LifeLine service tiers. It would have to sell stand-alone broadband plans for five years, although advocates would like to see that extended to 10 years.
The company has agreed to spend at least $275 million to upgrade its California network and complete its 1-gigabit service capability across its legacy service areas within three years.
Charter also agreed to invest at least $30 million in customer outreach initiatives, such as digital literacy training and device access for low-income communities. The company also is being asked to provide free broadband and Wi-Fi service for about 50 eligible institutions, including schools, libraries and community centers for several years.
Charter was criticized after the January 2025 fires for charging fees for equipment that burned, said Natalie Gonzalez, director of Digital Equity Los Angeles, one of the advocacy groups that is asking for Charter to “improve disaster response and customer service standards … during life’s most challenging moments.”
Charter pushed back on that contention, saying it helped residents in the burn areas.
“We opened all our wifi hot spots to anyone (non Spectrum customers) and were deeply involved in the restoration efforts,” the company said in its documents.
The advocates, including Digital Equity LA and the California Alliance for Digital Equity, compiled evidence to help commissioners determine whether the merger was in the public interest.
Should the deal go through, Cox subscribers will soon see changes. Charter plans to roll out its Spectrum products and fees to Cox customers next month.
Subscribers can opt for their existing pricing or switch to a Spectrum bundle that includes such apps as Disney+, Hulu, ESPN and Paramount+.
Charter has also said it would offer Cox subscribers a year of free service when they switch their cellphone carrier to Spectrum.
The Charter name will be dropped in one year and the combined company will become Cox, although consumer products will keep the Spectrum brand.
The switch is because the Cox family — descendants of an Ohio press baron who bought his first newspaper in 1898, began acquiring cable systems in 1962 — will become the firm’s largest shareholder group, with about 23% of the stock.
In a recent earnings call, Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey told investors the combined company would have nearly 37 million customers nationwide.
It expects to generate $67 billion a year in revenue and about $28 billion in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.
Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.
Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”
“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”
Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”
The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.
In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.
“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.
The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.
It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.
Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.
Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”
Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.
“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.
When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”
This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.
During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.
“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.
Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.
Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”
“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”
The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.
The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”
“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.
A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.
“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”
Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.
It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.
“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.
The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”
It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.
Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.
“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.
Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.
White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.
“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.
Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.
“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”
“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.
In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.
WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.
The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.
It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”
A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.
Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.
“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.
In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.
On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.
Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.
The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.
Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.
The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 in favor of allowing TV station ownership groups to own more outlets, easing the way for more consolidation.
The Thursday vote that favored the change means companies can own local stations that cover more than 39% of the U.S. They could also own more than two stations in a single market.
The measure supported by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr will allow the agency to approve deals that put station ownership groups over the cap if the agency determines that they are promoting the public interest. Carr has said the agency would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”
“In my view, if you care about trusted sources of local news and information, you have to care about the future of local TV stations,” Carr said. “They are the economic engines that produce the paychecks for so many of the local journalists that remain in the business. So how can the FCC maximize the odds that those institutions continue to survive and hopefully thrive into the future? To start, we should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions.”
The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. Television stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.
Declining viewership and revenue have also made it more challenging to sustain multiple local TV news operations in a single market.
Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, opposed the measure, saying the rule change will only help big firms get bigger and more powerful.
“Eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from economic pressure, it just changes who is doing the squeezing,” Gomez said in a statement issued ahead of the vote. “The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters, they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them.”
The measure ending the cap limits also faced push back from consumer groups and state government officials who believe station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.
TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.
Jeff McCall, a professor of communications at DePaux University, agrees the current limit is outdated in the current media environment. “Local broadcasters are struggling in terms of audience and revenue, and this plan could give them some needed relief,” he said.
But McCall added that having the FCC decide who benefits from the rule change will face resistance. “it will give the FCC wide discretionary powers and open up any decisions to second-guessing and, of course, court challenges,” he said.
There are also likely to be questions on how even-handed Carr will be when faced with a proposal that puts a station owner over the caps. The chairman has made his name by threatening to pull the broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary. Even Trump-supporting Republicans such as Sen. John Kennedy, R- La., have raised concerns the FCC’s scrutiny of broadcast content could be violating the right to free speech.
Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary occurs often, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.
Carr also believes large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over the stations affiliated with their networks.
“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”
Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.
U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.
President Trump touched down in Los Angeles on Tuesday evening and headed directly to his Rancho Palos Verdes golf course to headline a fundraiser for the Republican Party.
Though the visit was for a standard campaign benefit in the run-up to November’s elections, it was not without drama.
While the President was en route to California, authorities announced the arrest of an armed man who had been spotted suspiciously documenting security preparations at the golf course Sunday.
Sheriff’s deputies discovered the man had brought a gun and ammunition to the golf course. On Monday, they uncovered an alarming weapons stash, including an illegally modified AR-style rifle, a .45-caliber pistol and high-capacity magazines, at his Downey residence.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday afternoon, a group of more than two dozen protesters gathered outside the Trump National Golf Club entrance in anticipation of the president’s arrival.
The demonstrators chanted “Impeach Trump”and waved signs with slogans such as “Save our democracy” and “Pretti good time to resist,” referencing ICU nurse Alexander Pretti, who was fatally shot by federal agents in January, as passing cars periodically honked in approval.
“There are so many things that have happened [during the Trump administration] that are so disgusting, and I’m so worried for my children, my grandchildren and future generations,” said Redondo Beach resident Jeanette Boston. “They deserve better.”
A smaller group of around 10 counter-protesters gathered along Palos Verdes Drive wearing MAGA gear and American flag clothing. Several yelled “We love you Trump” as Marine One landed at the golf course carrying Trump just after 5 p.m.
The campaign fundraiser was closed to members of the media. However, a White House spokesperson said Trump would use the event to tout his administration’s achievements and “draw a sharp contrast between his commonsense agenda and the radical policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom.”
Tuesday marked Trump’s second visit to Los Angeles during his second term in office. He last visited the region in January 2025, when he toured the fire damage in the Pacific Palisades and signed an executive order intended to expedite rebuilding efforts.
Since then, there has been a standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid.
California has submitted more than $1.5 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursement claims for emergency response and infrastructure repairs stemming from the Eaton and Palisades fires, but only $37 million in funding has been approved thus far, according to the governor’s office.
“Donald Trump is coming to Los Angeles to raise money while wildfire survivors are still waiting for the federal recovery funding he promised 18 months ago,” Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Californians deserve a President focused on helping families rebuild — not raising money for himself at his golf course.”
Trump, for his part, ignored criticism around the wait for wildfire relief on Tuesday and instead took to social media to promote what he sees as his administration’s economic achievements.
He wrote in a Truth Social post that investments in the U.S. economy and more “factory activity” were evidence of how well the country was doing.
“The Fake News and the Dumocrats are doing everything they can to distract people’s thoughts from these MASSIVE Successes, but it’s getting harder and harder for them to do,” Trump wrote. He added: “This is the GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA, and we’re just getting started.”
On Wednesday, Trump will head to Las Vegas to deliver a speech at a casino focused on the economic achievements of his administration. While his California visit is focused on replenishing campaign coffers, the Nevada stop is more closely tied to election strategy as the swing state could play a key role in deciding who controls Congress after the November midterms.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday that his office has protected more than $200 billion in federal funding for the state, defended core civil rights and removed military forces from Los Angeles streets by suing the Trump administration about once a week.
“Since President Trump returned to office, California has been under attack — and has led the way in fighting back,” Bonta said.
Bonta said his office has filed 82 lawsuits against the administration since Trump’s inauguration last year, in addition to 122 amicus briefs supporting lawsuits against the administration by other parties and 112 comment letters in response to federal actions.
That work has saved the state an estimated $207.1 billion, Bonta said, including $168 billion — equal to a third of the state’s annual budget — that was threatened when the Trump administration tried to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states last year. Billions in threatened cuts to transportation, emergency preparedness, education and family assistance funding were also prevented, Bonta said.
The work has also protected birthright citizenship for the U.S.- born children of immigrants, ensured that National Guard troops are not deployed in major California cities against the wishes of local leaders, lifted multiple sets of tariffs driving up costs for American consumers and repeatedly blocked administration efforts to interfere in California’s elections, Bonta said.
“We’ve protected funding that keeps our communities safe, feeds hungry families, and ensures our kids get the education they deserve. We’ve gone all the way to the Supreme Court to defend constitutional rights — and won. We’ve protected our elections and stopped the militarization of our cities. We’ve defended our right to prioritize public safety over assisting with the President’s inhumane immigration agenda,” Bonta said.
As it has done in the past, the White House on Tuesday derided Bonta’s lawsuits as misguided.
“Instead of bragging about filing frivolous lawsuits against the Trump Administration, the California AG should focus on addressing problems in his own state — like the countless criminal illegal aliens the Newscum Administration allows to roam free and terrorize communities,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement to The Times.
The White House has previously said Trump is “trying to restore American Greatness” and that Californians would be “infinitely better off” if Bonta got out of the president’s way.
Bonta’s office is required to report annually to the state Legislature on its work fighting the Trump administration as part of a 2025 special session measure delivering it an extra $25 million to fund such litigation. His office published its latest report to lawmakers Tuesday.
The report said the office had received $19.2 million of the special session funding through July 30, which had “contributed to — but in no way has been sufficient to cover — the costs of the litigation.”
Bonta’s office has also received regular appropriations to fund such litigation in each of the state’s last two budgets, of $14.2 million last fiscal year and $23.9 million this fiscal year. The office’s overall budget is about $1.4 billion.
At a morning news conference with other state leaders, Bonta said his office has spent close to $30 million on its “federal accountability work” overall since Trump took office, and argued that investment has been “paying off in droves” given the billions saved.
Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), standing with Bonta, agreed.
Limón said she was proud to have worked with Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom to form a “collective backstop” against the Trump administration, while Rivas said the funding provided to Bonta’s office “may be one of the smartest investments that this legislature has ever made.”
Of the 82 lawsuits, 66 remain active, according to the report. Despite that, Bonta said his office has won 45 orders providing some early relief from the Trump administration’s actions, and 21 final orders in its favor. In eight cases, he said, the administration “backed down” in advance of a trial.
Bonta’s office has lost arguments made against the Trump administration, including on behalf of other litigants, particularly on issues related to transgender rights and the scope of Trump’s executive power to reshape government and federal immigration policy.
However, Bonta claimed his office has won in 83% of the court orders issued in cases brought by the state and praised his team for having “worked around the clock on behalf of Californians, pulling countless all-nighters along the way” to make it possible.
Bonta, who is up for reelection in November, is campaigning in part on his willingness to stand up to Trump — which polling and voting has suggested many Californians want their elected officials to do.
Xavier Becerra, the Democratic candidate for California governor, is running on a similar message. Before he was the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, Becerra had Bonta’s job and sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, often successfully.
Bonta said he expects Becerra will be an “incredible partner” in the fight moving forward.
Republicans Michael Gates, who is running against Bonta, and Steve Hilton, who is running against Becerra and is endorsed by Trump, have said they would work collaboratively with the Trump administration to ensure the needs of Californians are met, rather than fighting it at every turn.
“I would be wanting to work with the administration to help Californians,” Hilton has said. Gates has called Bonta’s campaign against Trump “out of touch.”
Many of the lawsuits Bonta’s office has brought against the administration have been filed as part of a multistate coalition of Democratic attorneys general. As presidents of both parties have flexed more executive power in recent decades, state attorneys general have become more collaborative and litigious in fighting back — and that has been especially true under Trump.
Bonta said Trump will be remembered in part for his “repeated attacks on California, on Californians, on our Constitution, and on our democracy,” but California will be remembered for fighting back.
“Are these trying times? 100%. Absolutely, yes,” Bonta said. “But we shouldn’t be helpless, because we’re not helpless.”
Paramount Chairman David Ellison believes the tug-of-war over his proposed $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery comes down to a single question: whether he can be trusted to control CNN.
“I believe this fight is not really about market share,” Ellison wrote in a Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times, noting that regulators around the world, including the U.S. Justice Department, have approved the deal that has been temporarily blocked by an antitrust lawsuit brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of Democrat state attorneys general.
“I believe a plainer worry sits beneath the briefs and the news releases … The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN,” Ellison wrote.
The rare opinion piece serves as Ellison’s acknowledgment that his family’s close association with President Trump has sullied his standing in Hollywood and beyond.
Shakeups at CBS News, which is part of Paramount, the departure of CBS late night host Stephen Colbert, and a visible presidential lobbying effort — including hosting a dinner for Trump in Washington in late April and attending Trump’s birthday extravaganza in June with UFC fights on the White House lawn — have come with a cost.
Bonta and the other state attorneys general sued, saying the merger of two of the major film studios would give Paramount-Warner Bros. more than 25% of the wide-release theatrical film market. Their lawsuit also alleged the combined company would own too many cable TV channels — more than 50, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Comedy Central.
Many in Hollywood fear that the consolidation of two historic studios will bring thousands of layoffs and contribute to a bleaker employment picture. Ellison’s Skydance Media’s takeover of Paramount a year ago resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs.
Some have opposed the Warner Bros. deal, saying one family shouldn’t be allowed to control two significant news operations: CBS News and CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
“There has been speculation about my politics, my loyalties, my intentions,” Ellison wrote.
“Unfortunately, I can’t give anyone a view into my heart and mind, but I can share this: I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison said. “And when it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views. I believe that news should be based on facts and truth.”
“Great news organizations like CNN and CBS News are here to tell it straight down the middle,” he said. “That requires newsrooms that reflect the whole world, not one side of it. And it requires independence. Our journalists will continue to answer to the facts and to all the people they serve — not to any party or cause.”
“These were founding principles for both CNN and CBS News, for legends like Ted Turner and Edward R. Murrow, and it is exactly that kind of independence that has always fueled the greatness of “60 Minutes,” Ellison wrote.
Fired “60 Minutes” correspondents, including Cecilia Vega, have complained that since Bari Weiss became editor-in-chief of CBS News last fall, journalists have been asked to tilt the presentation of controversial news events, including protests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions earlier this year in Minnesota, which led to the deaths of two Americans.
Paramount has pushed back saying the plaintiff states have defined markets that fail to factor in the rise of technology companies, including Netflix, Google’s YouTube and Amazon Studios, which also attract significant swaths of viewership.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who is overseeing the high-profile case, issued a temporary restraining order to block the merger from finalizing while the two sides hash out the evidence. Late last month, Paramount agreed to delay the merger until after a trial — or until June 1, whichever date comes first.
In court documents filed Friday, Bonta and his coalition of 11 other Democratic attorneys general proposed having a two- to three-week trial in April to weigh the evidence.
Ellison’s Paramount pushed back, saying the media company would like to start the courtroom action on Nov. 4.
Now the judge must schedule the court date.
“The states claim this deal will give one company too much influence over theatrical releases and cable operators, while the W.G.A. argues that our combined market power will hurt writers,” Ellison said in the opinion piece. “Both suits imagine a Hollywood that no longer exists — an industry ruled by a handful of legacy studios.”
WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche cleared a critical hurdle Tuesday in his bid to be confirmed to the post after swaying Republican holdouts on a Senate committee to advance his nomination for a floor vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in support of the nomination of President Trump’s former personal attorney, who has aggressively pushed the Republican administration’s priorities since taking over from Pam Bondi in April.
The vote followed a deal struck late Sunday between Blanche and two Republican senators who had been threatening to block his confirmation over the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the president’s leaked tax returns.
Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina had said they were withholding their support unless the Justice Department confirmed in writing that it was not moving forward with a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who believe they were prosecuted for political purposes, which the administration had announced as part of the settlement.
After days of negotiations, Blanche issued an order Sunday evening confirming “beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”
Since the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order said.
Cornyn and Tillis had also pressed for clarification on a separate part of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits.
Democrats complain about the fund
Under the deal, the Justice Department clarified in writing that the tax audit immunity agreement applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings. It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement.
Democrats say Blanche’s order doesn’t go far enough to prevent the Trump administration from reviving the fund after the acting attorney general’s confirmation and have called for legislation to permanently bar it. The order also doesn’t stop the administration from compensating Trump allies — including people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — through a previously established process that allows people to file claims for damages if they believed they were wronged by the government.
The fund “can easily be revived with a new order from the Department of Justice 15 minutes after Mr. Blanche is confirmed as attorney general,” said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.
Blanche’s independence has been called into question
Blanche has faced intense scrutiny regarding his ability to maintain independence from the White House, the Justice Department’s pursuit of the president’s political foes and the agency’s handling of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.
But it was the settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS that threatened to derail Blanche’s nomination, forcing a delay in the committee vote last week amid pressure from the two Republican senators, who are not returning to Capitol Hill after their terms end in January.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee, said Tillis and Cornyn’s demands were “common sense.” Grassley said the senators’ concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the IRS settlement were shared by many other lawmakers, including himself.
“I’m grateful that they as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House worked in good faith to solve them, formally rescinding the fund, clarifying the scope of the release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all,” Grassley said.
Trump’s lawsuit has been sharply criticized because of the highly unusual way it was handled, with the president challenging an agency overseen by the executive branch he leads. A judge last month slammed the case as an improper exercise in self-dealing and referred one of Trump’s attorneys who filed it for potential disciplinary action.
Blanche was an important figure for Trump’s defense
Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and key member of Trump’s defense team as the Republican battled four indictments, arrived at the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general. He was elevated to acting attorney general following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s failure to meet Trump’s demands to successfully prosecute his perceived political opponents.
While Blanche insisted he wasn’t auditioning for the permanent post, he moved swiftly to accelerate investigations into Trump foes and advance other White House priorities, drawing condemnation from critics who say he has not shed his title as Trump’s personal lawyer.
Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict longtime Trump adversary James Comey, the former FBI director, on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.”
Comey’s lawyers have accused the Justice Department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts to bring what the defense described as a politically motivated prosecution.
Blanche separately appointed Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump.
Richer and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — President Trump will travel to Los Angeles on Tuesday and Las Vegas on Wednesday as part of a two-day West Coast trip aimed at highlighting his administration’s economic record ahead of the midterm elections, a White House official confirmed.
In Los Angeles, Trump is scheduled to attend a Republican National Committee dinner at Trump National Golf Club. The visit comes as the administration seeks to draw attention to his economic policies as time runs out for his administration to ease economic pressures ahead of the November election.
“The president will draw a sharp contrast between his commonsense agenda and the radical policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom, who keep raising taxes, inviting rampant fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, and protecting illegal immigrant drug dealers, rapists, and murderers,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said in a statement Monday.
Trump is expected to “tout his wins for the people of the Golden State despite failed Democrat leadership,” Wales said, citing what she described as the “largest middle-class tax cut ever, the most secure border in American history, and a plummeting crime rate.”
Newsom has not yet publicly commented on Trump’s pit stop in California, but the Democratic governor in recent social media posts has criticized Trump’s handling of the economy.
In one post on X, Newsom pointed out that California is raising the minimum wage to $17.40 an hour next year as a way to attack Trump and the GOP for “defending a $7.25 minimum wage while workers scrape by.”
“Pitiful,” the governor wrote.
In a second post, Newsom amplified a post on X that shows how the prices of items like rice, cotton and wheat have increased since the start of the year.
Trump’s visit to Los Angeles will be his second since returning to office. He toured Pacific Palisades in January 2025 after the L.A. neighborhood and Altadena were ravaged by wildfires. During the visit, Trump signed an executive order intended to expedite rebuilding efforts.
Since Trump last visited the city, there has been a standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid.
In April, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and county Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with Trump in the Oval Office to talk about their request for funding to help with the wildfire recovery efforts, an ask that Trump signaled support for but has yet to formalize.
Following his visit in California, Trump will travel to Nevada, where he will deliver remarks on the economy at Red Rock Casino.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro “choked” and “folded like an umbrella” in moving to drop charges against a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Speaking at an unrelated Oval Office event, Trump ducked questions about whether he’d fire Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime ally he handpicked as top federal prosecutor in the nation’s capital.
But the president kept up his drumbeat of sharp criticism, saying he remained disappointed by her assessment that damage to the Reflecting Pool was the result of shoddy construction, not vandalism.
“Frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department, and I guess she choked,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question after he signed an executive order for military spouses. “I don’t know what the hell happened.”
The move to dismiss charges against David Hearn was an embarrassing setback for the Justice Department and marked a rare moment during Trump’s second term of an aide or political appointee openly defying him.
After initially posting on social media over the weekend, “I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro,” Trump was still fuming two days later, insisting for several minutes that vandalism had marred the troubled project.
“I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro, really disappointed,” the president said Monday. “She folded like an umbrella.”
Pirro has not commented publicly since Trump’s initial social media post criticizing her.
Hearn has said he was on a bike ride June 19 when he reached in to examine the pool’s newly peeled coating and briefly touched a chunk attached to the side of the pool. But he said he obeyed a park worker who told him to let go of it.
The president also used the opportunity Monday to distance himself from the troubled project, which he had touted as part of his overarching efforts to spruce up the nation’s capital.
Trump said in April that he had consulted with a trio of firms that had worked on swimming pools at his properties and that the one he picked for the Reflecting Pool project had done work at his golf course in Northern Virginia. That firm was Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which was awarded a $14.7 million no-bid contract to repaint and waterproof its concrete floor.
“I have a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools,” Trump said then. “He looked at it. He called me up. He said, ‘Sir, we can do something on it.’”
But Trump insisted Monday that “I didn’t know the contractor” and for the first time hinted that he wasn’t pleased by the work that was done to get the Reflecting Pool ready in time for Independence Day celebrations.
“I’m not saying I was 100% thrilled with the contractor, but the contractor was rushing. We wanted to get it open for July 4th,” he said.
Crews drained the Reflecting Pool weeks ago to launch a new round of repairs. The White House hasn’t said when those might be finished or how much more they will cost, but the Trump administration did not seek new bids from other companies on the new round of repair work.
Trump also said Monday that the Reflecting Pool would be “fixed” and reopened in the next week and a half to two weeks — without providing further details.
WASHINGTON — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.
They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.
Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.
“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.
More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”
The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.
Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.
He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.
Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.
Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.
Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.
Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.
Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”
The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.
“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.
But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.
On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.
Stephen A. Smith lashes out after receiving NABJ ‘Thumbs Down’ award
Stephen A. Smith received the equivalent of a failing grade Saturday from the National Assn. of Black Journalists, which blasted his consistent takedowns of Black female politicians.
Predictably, the outspoken sports pundit, who also weighs in with sharp takes on politics and popular culture, is not pleased with the assessment and is planning a fiery response: “Now y’all started something.”
The organization at its annual convention on Saturday presented the ESPN “First Take” host with its annual “Thumbs Down” award, saying he has “established a recurring public pattern of disparaging commentary directed at prominent Black women across politics, sports and media.”
The statement continued, “Such commentary reinforces harmful narratives, undermines the fair and respectful representation of Black women in public discourse and stands in direct conflict with NABJ’s longstanding commitment to accurate, responsible and inclusive portrayals of Black communities.”
The ESPN “First Take” commentator lashed back in an X post: “This is the epitome of Christmas arriving early. The @NABJ wants to call folks out, fine! You had your turn, now mine is coming. And make no mistake…..,I’m coming. Let’s see who REALLY deserves a Thumbs Down award when it comes to the Black Community, after I say my peace! Remember …you asked for it. I’ve shut my mouth for years. Now y’all started something.”
The clash signifies a significant break in the relationship between Smith and the NABJ, which hosted Smith and live broadcasts of his show at its 2024 and 2025 conventions.
The “Thumbs Down” dishonor is the latest backlash against Smith from Black media figures and others.
He accused Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas last September of using “street verbiage” in her frequent criticisms of President Trump. Comedian Kevin Hart quipped during a recent Comedy Central roast that Smith belonged on the “Mt. Rushmore of racism” alongside Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan.
He also has clashed with former MS Now anchor Joy Reid and is engaged in a longstanding feud with NBA star LeBron James.
Although he and Trump have called each other names, he also praised the president, and said last week that Trump-backed Florida gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds might prompt him to change his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican.
Smith has hinted in past months that he is considering a presidential run.
Others who received a “Thumbs Down” from the NABJ included Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; DuJuan McCoy, Circle City Broadcasting president and chief executive; CBS; and the Washington Post.
Source link
Democratic primary turnout has soared in some states. Can it carry over to November?
WASHINGTON — Democratic voters are showing up for this year’s primaries in numbers not seen in decades, a pattern emerging across several states that has the party optimistic about its prospects in November when control of Congress will be at stake.
In Tuesday’s primary, Wisconsin Democrats cast nearly 800,000 ballots, their highest total for a midterm in more than 20 years. That followed 1.5 million Democratic voters in Michigan the week before, a midterm record for the state.
The enthusiasm extends beyond the Midwest. Democratic primary turnout also surged this year in Texas and Georgia, states that will have competitive Senate races in the fall.
It is giving Democrats a string of strong showings heading into the midterms, when the president’s party is normally at a disadvantage. That is compounded this year by President Trump’s weak approval ratings, persistent inflation and an unpopular war with Iran.
“The big news is that Democrats are getting huge turnouts,” said David Axelrod, who was a top advisor to President Obama. “That’s been a steady story throughout this period.”
Competitive Democratic primaries have helped drive the surge, giving the party’s voters more reason to participate. Republican primary turnout remained closer to historic norms in Michigan, even with a competitive statewide contest.
Voter turnout in primary elections is an imperfect predictor of general election results, especially when one party has the more compelling early contests. Republicans say they are responding with a major effort to turn out their voters in the fall.
GOP leaders say they can energize voters by tapping into a major fundraising advantage over Democrats and sending Trump back out campaigning, including during a midterm convention in Texas next month.
“Primary turnout doesn’t win general elections,” said Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Republicans are entering November with the money, momentum, stronger candidates and a battle-tested operation built to turn out voters when it actually counts.”
A pattern in many states, many contests
The scale of the Democratic turnout advantage varied across states, but the pattern extended across much of this year’s competitive landscape for House, Senate or governor’s races.
In Wisconsin, more than 790,000 people voted in the Democratic primary for governor, putting turnout at about 22% of registered voters. More than 1.5 million people voted in Michigan’s recent Democratic Senate primary, which accounted for a little more than 18% of registered voters. It was the state’s highest midterm turnout rate in a Democratic primary since at least 2002 — the same as in Wisconsin, according to an analysis of Associated Press election data.
In Minnesota, Democratic primary turnout was on par with the 2018 midterm election, with both years marking the state’s highest Democratic primary turnout in a midterm year so far this century.
For Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan, turnout in last week’s primary was in line with previous GOP midterm primaries in each state. In Michigan, turnout for the Republican governor’s race was about 11%. In Wisconsin’s Republican primary for governor, it is expected to be about 14%.
“Republicans in Michigan will close the enthusiasm gap by highlighting the massive differences between our nominees and the extreme, out-of-touch politicians the Democrats have nominated,” said Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for the Michigan GOP. “It’s one thing to lead in enthusiasm before we know who is running. Now, the differences are clear.”
Other states that held elections this year also saw significant Democratic primary turnout. In Georgia and Texas, the midterm turnout in the Democratic primaries was higher than it’s been since at least 2002. In Georgia, just over 1 million people voted in May in the Democratic governor’s race, a little more than 13% of registered voters. In Texas, about 2.3 million people voted in March in the Democratic Senate primary, a little more than 12%.
‘Good sign,’ but ‘not a very solid predictor’
The robust primary turnout has been a “good sign for Democrats,” said Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Michigan State University. But he cautioned that it is “not a very solid predictor” of how voters will break in November.
Smidt pointed to several factors behind the numbers, including high turnout in recent elections, which has created a larger pool of regular voters.
“Voting is a lot of habit-forming,” he said.
He also noted that many of the states with high turnout had what he described as “media spotlight candidacies.”
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota all held races in August that the news media framed as marquee progressive-versus-moderate contests that probably helped drive Democratic participation.
In Michigan, spending in the Democratic Senate primary topped $80 million, making it one of the most expensive races of the year so far, according to AdImpact. Progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a campaign that drew national attention and energized younger voters and university communities.
Stevens carried Wayne County, the state’s largest source of Democratic votes, and some of the congresswoman’s supporters said before the primary that they would not back El-Sayed if he became the nominee.
In Wisconsin, the governor’s primary was repeatedly reshaped as moderate Democrats left and reentered the race while democratic socialist Francesca Hong consolidated progressive support. Hong lost narrowly to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a more traditional Democrat.
The races highlight how competitive primaries helped drive attention and also how the winning candidates have work to do to bring their party together for November. Both Wisconsin and Michigan Democrats held unity breakfasts in the days after the primaries.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who backed El-Sayed and Minnesota Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan but did not endorse Hong, said in an interview this week that he expects Democratic voters to bridge their differences for the general election.
“At the end of the day, when it comes to taking on Trump and creating a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, there is going to be unity, because I think everybody knows how important that is,” he said.
A favorable environment, but a difficult map
Democrats have reason to believe the primary enthusiasm could last. The president’s party has historically lost ground in midterm elections, and Trump enters the fall deeply unpopular amid economic unease and an unpopular war.
Some 33% of American adults approve of his job performance, according to the most recent polling by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs.
But a favorable national environment may not be enough for Democrats. They will need unusually strong turnout to overcome a congressional map that has become more favorable to Republicans.
The number of competitive House races has shrunk considerably this year after Republican-controlled states redrew congressional districts in their favor at Trump’s urging. Some Democratic-controlled states responded, most notably California, but the new lines are expected to produce a net benefit for Republicans, who hold a slim House majority.
Republicans control the Senate 53 to 47, with Democrats needing to pick up four seats to win the majority. Democrats will have to generate energy similar to that of Republicans two years ago, Smidt said.
“If we have a national tide like we had in 2024, suddenly that opens the map a little more,” he said.
Cappelletti, Askarinam and Boak write for the Associated Press. Pamela Jo Martin and Samuel Jens of the Associated Press Election Services team contributed to this report from Washington.
Source link
Appeals court sides with Trump in fight over subpoena of gender-affirming care provider
President Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care is not improper and cannot be the basis for quashing a subpoena issued by the Justice Department against a provider of medical treatment for transgender youth, a divided federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The Justice Department announced last year that it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care as part of an effort to investigate healthcare fraud. Federal judges have quashed many of the subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the efficacy and long-term risks of the treatments are “uncertain,” and the president has the power to align the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities with his broader policy goals.
“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” wrote Judge Carlos Bea.
Bea, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined in the opinion by Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee. They reversed a ruling that quashed the subpoena against telemedicine provider QueerDoc, sending the case back to the district court to consider other arguments.
The subpoena seeks QueerDoc’s personnel files, billing documents, communications with drug manufacturers and records of patients who were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy, among other information, according to the 9th Circuit decision.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adrien Leavitt, who represented Washington state-based QueerDoc, said the ACLU would continue fighting the subpoena in district court. QueerDoc has also argued the subpoena is overbroad and burdensome. The Justice Department has said it has reason to believe the company may be misleading people about puberty blockers and hormones.
“We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said in a statement.
He said the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit was the first appeals court to weigh in on the subpoenas.
Trump has signed one executive order defining sex as only male or female — and as unchangeable — and another that seeks to end federal funding of the care for patients under 19. The latter order also directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law by “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”
Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person’s gender identity, including when it’s different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It encompasses counseling, medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes as well as surgeries to transform chests and genitals, though those are rare for minors.
Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.
The 9th Circuit majority called discussion around gender-affirming care “an unsettled scientific debate” and said the Trump administration could also justify its opposition to the treatment on ethical or philosophical grounds.
Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.
Source link
Californians split on proposed tax on billionaires, sour on voter ID requirement, poll shows
California voters are sharply divided over a ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal already triggering a fierce and expensive political fight as the November election approaches, according to a poll released Friday.
More than half of likely voters oppose a separate measure that would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, the survey showed.
The two controversial proposals are among the 14 ballot measures Californians will decide in the Nov. 3 election. Proposition 40, which would impose the tax on billionaires’ assets, has reached the precipice of nationwide debates over economic inequality and liberal overreach. The Republican-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39, emerged amid President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.
Among likely California voters, 48% support Proposition 40, compared with 41% who oppose the proposed wealth tax and 11% who are undecided, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.
Proposition 40’s failure to crack 50% support among voters at this point in the electoral cycle is a potential red flag, said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. Traditionally, Californians who are undecided on ballot measures tend to vote against them, he said.
“It’s got an early lead, but it’s not a very large lead, and it’s not a majority,” he said. “Usually, for ballot propositions, you want the yes side to be above 50%, and that’s not where it is right now.”
The proposal was crafted by a healthcare workers’ union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by Trump and congressional Republicans that it argues will cause devastating harm to millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions.
Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.
While Democratic voters mostly support the ballot measure and Republicans largely oppose it, younger Californians are far more likely to say they plan to vote for it compared to seniors. Minorities, women and lower-income voters are also more supportive of the measure than white voters, men and Californians who earn at least $200,000 annually. Union households support the measure, while non-union families are evenly divided about it.
Turnout will be pivotal, DiCamillo said. While younger Californians are historically less likely to vote, especially in midterm elections, if they are energized by the issues championed by socialist Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that could boost the wealth tax proposal’s prospects.
The survey found that voters are far less aware of two competing ballot measures aimed at nullifying the proposed wealth tax.
Proposition 41 would prohibit new taxes from being exempt from voter-approved state spending limits and require audits of new levies. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on personal property and some retroactive state taxes. If the wealth tax is approved and either of the countermeasures receives more votes, the proposed billionaires’ tax would not go into effect.
The poll found that 35% of likely voters supported Proposition 41, with 37% opposing it. On Proposition 42, 40% of voters backed the measure, and 37% opposed it.
Roughly one out of every four of the voters surveyed on those two measures said they were undecided. DiCamillo said he expects that to change as the anti-wealth tax campaigns, which are expected to be well-organized and well-funded, ramp up their messaging to voters.
“There’s going to be a lot of campaigning, apparently on the no side especially. So we’ll see,” he said. “But you know, I think it’s confusing to voters in some ways.”
Among the other controversial measures on the Nov. 3 ballot is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.
The measure would also require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
Just over half of California’s likely voters oppose the ballot measure, while 42% support it. Californians are predictably divided along partisan lines. Eight out of 10 Democrats oppose the proposal, while more than nine out of 10 Republicans support it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose it 54%, while 36% support it.
Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof-of-citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.
The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections with illegal votes.
“It’s a very traditional Democrat versus Republican split,” DiCamillo said, adding that it would be surprising to see major shifts in the numbers. “Once these things get solidified in terms of the partisan splits, without any other kinds of splits like we’re seeing in Prop. 40, you know that’s usually the dominant theme.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters, 2,310 of whom are considered likely voters, from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
Source link
Trump is selling early access to his posts on Truth Social
Things people don’t want to do this summer, as evidenced by poor ratings: Watch CBS news anchor Tony Doukopil. Tune into Paramount+’s sci-fi teen drama “Star Trek: Starfleet Academy.” Read President Trump’s Truth Social posts.
No matter how much Trump posts, and he has been posting a lot lately, traffic to the platform he uses as his megaphone for official White House statements and personal rants has fallen off significantly this summer. Last month, the overall number of monthly visitors to Truth Social was down about 36% from where it was in 2025, according to the online tracking firm Similarweb. The numbers were similarly dismal in June.
But Trump’s slumping media fortunes may soon get an infusion of cash, or bitcoin, or whatever it takes to line his coffers before the jig is up.
Never one to leave a source of income untapped, the president has come up with yet another way to add to the $2.2 billion he made in just the first year of his second term. His majority-owned Trump Media & Technology Group earlier this month announced that it was rolling out a new service aimed at cashing in on the president’s every word.
Truth API is a subscription service that offers early access to posts from Trump and other notable users of the platform, for a price. It’s charging fees of up to $100,000 and month.
But there’s a hiccup in the president’s latest grift. On Wednesday, media organizations Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept sued Trump, filing a complaint saying that providing quicker access to his posts to those who pay was “extraordinary, corrupt, and unconstitutional.”
Their suit alleges that Truth API contradicts the First Amendment’s guarantee of equal public access to the president’s statements and violates the Fifth Amendment by granting preferential access for “unreasonable sums.” The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asked the court to block Trump from publishing official government information exclusively on Truth Social.
So why is this particular money-making scheme garnering so much attention outside Trump’s many other grifts? Because a president’s words can, and often do, sway the stock market. In the frenetic world of Wall Street trading, early access to statements and news from the Commander-in-Chief gives subscribers an edge, and as NPR pointed out, that could mean a difference of millions of dollars.
Unlike any other sitting U.S. president, Trump in his second term has ignored traditional means of communication such as press briefings, live addresses or posting official announcements, executive actions, press releases, and statements on the official White House Website. He’s done so in favor of communicating through his own privately controlled platform, delivering wild posting sprees that often forgo the fact-based, informative briefings we the people still need from our elected officials. But even back when he was using Twitter (now X) during his first term, the White House said his tweets should be considered official statements.
That standard still holds for his frequent barrages of boasts, insults, threats, grouses and indecipherable dispatches via Truth Social. After the humiliating failure of his America 250 celebration, he fired off 67 posts on Truth Social in just two hours, posting almost every single minute between 11:12 a.m. and 1:14 p.m. His musings ranged from attacks on a federal judge to a photo of himself at a 1991 New York City tree-lighting ceremony with his “Home Alone 2” co-stars.
That spree is now among the thousands more posts from the president, that have not been followed up by announcements from the White House outside of Truth Social. “In other words, President Trump’s posts are the only way to get official government news,” the lawsuit said.
Trump Media & Technology Group, or TMTG, is majority-owned by the president. It was launched following Trump’s account suspension across mainstream social platforms including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The platforms cited risks of inciting violence following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Trump responded by creating his own platform, and Truth Social debuted in 2022.
But the platform’s parent company, TMTG, has lost money ever since it went public in 2024. On Monday, Trump Media reported a $238-million loss for the second quarter, tied mostly to cryptocurrency assets. Executives told investors on a conference call that they are now going to focus their energy on Truth Social and soft-explained their latest scheme to profit off the presidency.
“Our customers will get published and publicly available posts fractionally faster” than everyone else,” said Kevin McGurn, the company’s interim chief executive. He added that such early access is a “well-established business practice.”
Unless it’s a sitting U.S. president doing the selling. We’re in uncharted territory, once again. But another big question around this new subscription service is whether investors and traders can trust the intelligence they get from early access to Trump’s posts.
It was revealed this week that the president published deceptive information last month, putting the lives of dozens in danger. Before leaving a NATO meeting in Turkey, he posted that he’d be riding on the older Air Force One “for old time’s sake” instead of the newly retrofitted, Qatari-donated jet. His misdirection was part of an elaborate ruse to mask his transfer from Air Force One to a military fighter jet following intel that Iran may be targeting the president’s plane. The subterfuge involved him stowing away in an airport catering container to sneak onto the jet. Of course a president has to be protected, but Air Force One still had members of the press and his administration aboard when they sent it into the sky. Essentially, they were unwitting decoys.
Sometimes a president has to lie to stay safe. And often times this president peddles misinformation as a means to other ends, like amassing more money for himself while holding onto his seat of power. Paying for early access to Trump’s posts is a great idea — for Trump.
Source link
How Democrats plan to rein in Trump should they win in November
WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking to retake control of Congress are planning broad investigations into President Trump and his family’s business dealings as part of an agenda focused on alleged corruption and economic harm, while keeping impeachment an option rather than an immediate priority.
The strategy would use subpoenas, committee hearings, possible criminal referrals and the budget as leverage to examine whether Trump, his family and close associates have used the federal government and public contracts for personal or financial gain.
House Democrats in key leadership posts told The Times the groundwork is already being laid out for probes into the president’s reported $2.2 billion in gains last year, the business ventures of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the family’s crypto projects. There is also interest in scrutinizing Trump’s pardons and commutations to allies and the Department of Justice’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.
With less than three months before the midterm elections, the prospect of sweeping investigations has hung over Trump as his approval ratings hit new lows and Democrats gain momentum. But the White House has dismissed Democrats’ plans as partisan and unfounded.
“President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re‑elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.”
Asked about the possibility of being impeached for a third time and being investigated, Trump told Punchbowl News last week that it would be “very unfair,” in part because “a lot of people are saying I am one of the greatest presidents ever.”
For Democrats, impeachment remains an option, but they are reluctant to make it a centerpiece of their agenda this time around. They argued the process could distract from oversight that would address alleged corruption and the ways it is hurting Americans economically.
“We shouldn’t take off the table that he can be impeached again,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “But I think right now we’ve got to stop the Trump harm and investigate those who are helping him.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which plays a key role in the impeachment process, has also paused at making impeachment a priority. The Maryland lawmaker argued that Trump is “very eager” for Democrats to impeach him so he can mobilize his political base.
“We’re not going to play into the game,” Raskin told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.
In a statement to The Times, Raskin said the priority would be in expanding ongoing investigations into Trump’s pardons, what he called the “weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world,” “rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause,” and the “theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his Cabinet of corruption.”
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, said he is keeping his “mind open” on whether another impeachment would make sense for Democrats a third time. He argued the “power of the purse” — or using the budget to take aim at Trump’s agenda — would be a more effective tool.
“We’re going to need to do a lot of oversight of this administration, and I think it will be important in doing that oversight to always bring it back to why people should care about it and how the corruption of this regime is really raising their costs,” Schiff said.
Other Democrats are equally wary about using their renewed power to launch a third impeachment trial against Trump.
“We all know that this man has already been impeached twice. … I don’t know that we have to go to that well a third time,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) said.
Probes trickle down
Beyond the president’s business dealings, rank-and-file Democrats are coordinating other efforts to target Trump administration officials and senior aides over policy decisions they argue should force them out of their jobs.
Last week, Kamlager-Dove introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the White House budget director, arguing that he broke the law when the administration canceled federal funding to Democratic states including California for political reasons.
While she is cautious about impeaching Trump for a third time, she believes it would be effective to “remove Trump’s reapers who are willfully breaking the law.”
“I’m coordinating with leadership so that we have the best path forward for this,” she said. “It’s about being unified. It’s about working in a coordinated fashion, and it’s about understanding the end goal.”
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said there needs to be more scrutiny over the White House’s budget-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency. Democrats should inquire more, he said, into allegations that a former DOGE official copied the Social Security numbers, names and personal information of millions of Americans to a private cloud that lacked adequate security.
He said the public still does not know enough about the situation or whether the data is secure or if it was breached, and said lawmakers should examine whether any laws or policies were violated.
“If there was political motivation to access and put at risk the Social Security numbers and the personal information of every single American, that sounds pretty criminal to me,” Walkinshaw said.
In May, three Democrats — Reps. Mike Levin of California, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jason Crow of Colorado — launched the End Corruption Caucus, creating another vehicle for oversight ideas should Democrats take control of the House.
The push and pull
As Democrats prepare for investigations, there are already questions about the type of resistance that could come from Trump and administration officials, all of whom have shown a willingness to buck Congress.
In a sign of what could be a potential hurdle, the Department of Justice issued a memo Monday evening that says communications between Trump and advisors who do not work for his administration can be protected under executive privilege.
“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said.
The White House described the memo as a “narrow legal analysis, not an extension of executive privilege.”
But some Democrats see it as an example of how the Trump administration may be gearing up for Democratic-led investigations.
“This dubious expansion of executive privilege to cover Trump’s outside advisors is a clear attack on Congress’ oversight powers, and creates an environment ripe for corruption that protects only the president and his friends. We are ready to fight to uphold our power and authority,” Garcia said.
Walkinshaw added that he predicts the Trump administration is going to “flat-out refuse to engage with or respond to Democrats” if they take control.
If that happens, Democrats already expect to fight back.
“We have contempt tools, we have inherent contempt, we have criminal contempt,” he said. “We just have to be prepared to exercise the full extent of our constitutional tools, and I predict that will happen very early.”
Source link
Mexican food is exposing Trump as the weak-salsa TACO he is
In the grand buffet of problems explaining President Trump’s abysmal approval ratings, reserve a tray for Mexican food.
Americans are rightfully frustrated with the myriad consequences of the war with Iran he plunged us into, the rising cost of living, his pharaonic obsession with monuments to himself and his overall doddering state of mind.
But as this president afflicts the country with a prolonged civic bout of Montezuma’s Revenge, Mexican food’s role in the overall mess Trump has left us with is notable.
One of this country’s most popular cuisines has inadvertently spent this summer embarrassing Trump in fundamental ways — and I’m not just talking about TACO, the acronym referring to how Trump Always Chickens Out on his most bombastic claims and threats. The most prominent — and disgusting — example has been outbreak of foodborne illness traced back to popular Mexican restaurant chains that have sickened tens of thousands of Americans while Trump has shrugged and effectively told us to eat frijoles.
The Food and Drug administration traced an outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a parasite-born intestinal disease, to contaminated lettuce grown in Mexico by Salinas-based Taylor Fresh Foods that made its way to Taco Bell. The world’s biggest Mexican fast food chain quickly put out a statement that it removed all suspected lettuce from its restaurants and that “we encourage all relevant restaurants, retailers, and foodservice operators to do the same.”
If only the Trump administration was as proactive in caring for the well-being of Americans as the creators of Doritos Locos tacos and Crunchwrap Supremes.
It turned out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network told state inspectors last year that they were no longer required to report to the agency any instances of the parasite that causes cyclosporiasis they found in this country’s food supply. This was part of massive cutbacks at the CDC that reduced its staff by a quarter and cut billions of dollars in funding.
When reporters confronted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with these facts, he responded that such criticisms were “invalid” and that the cyclosporiasis outbreak was “under control.”
Make America Healthy Again? More like Make Americans Heave Always.
A bean and cheese burrito with green chile sauce at Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights.
(Kirk McKoy/Los Angeles Times)
On Aug. 4, the Food and Drug Administration revealed that a salmonella outbreak traced back to contaminated jalapeños imported from Mexico had left hundreds of Americans sick. But the feds were two weeks late to the news: By July 20, Chipotle had already removed all suspected jalapeños from its stores. Unlike the Trump administration, it had invested in food-safety tracking that quickly spotted the problem, a system implemented after the company suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in sales losses and a $25-million federal fine last decade due to repeated foodborne illnesses originating in its stores.
I’m no fan of Chipotle’s underwhelming hipster vibe or Taco Bell’s over-salted options, but they know what the Trump administration seems to not understand: Americans deserve to eat without worrying about whether they’ll get ill as a result. And they also know Americans especially like Mexican food, a cuisine dependent on exported produce that is now more expensive than ever because of Trump’s misguided tariffs and overall bellicosity to our Latin America trading partners.
You would think Trump himself would know: Remember the infamous photo he posted on Cinco de Mayo during his first term of him smiling at his desk appearing ready to chow down on a giant taco salad bowl?
Which leads to the second section of Trump’s combo plate of bad Mexican food news this year. On the same day the FDA belatedly disclosed the jalapeño salmonella outbreak, Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet posted on social media that a college student complained to him that “a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.” Kolvet correctly pointed out that many people currently feel the cost of living is too high, and rightfully suggested that Republican Party leaders should sympathize with such concerns lest they lose even more voters that they already have during Trump’s second term.
Instead, Trump toadies from Vice President JD Vance to Rep. Dan Crenshaw urged young people to eat instant ramen and live frugally instead of splurge on burritos. That provoked other conservative activists to smack down the MAGA Men for showing how out of touch they are with how expensive everything is right now.
Forget the Consumer Price Index: The cost of a burrito is the best way to judge how much the cost of living actually is. I haven’t regularly bought them for years because they’re just not worth it anymore.
A delicious, slender bean-and-cheese burrito with no sauce at the venerable Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights is going for six bucks and change right now when it was about $2 cheaper two years ago. The gargantuan breakfast burritos at my favorite place to get one, Athenian III in Buena Park, run about $13. Even my go-to fast-food treat, a half-pound Del Taco bean-and-cheese burrito, costs $2.61 with tax at the closest location to my house.
Remember when they were about a dollar? I do.
As someone whose wife runs a restaurant, I don’t blame businesses for hiking their prices; I blame Trump. He campaigned two years ago on stopping and reversing the runaway inflation that was happening toward the end of the Biden administration and won over a lot of Mexican Americans as a result. But when those voters can’t even enjoy a carne asada burrito for lunch without thinking about whether they’ll have enough money for the rest of the week, that should worry Trump and his team as the November midterms approach.
That they’re collectively still blaming Biden shows how pendejos they are at best, and uncaring at worst.
Back to that 2016 Cinco de Mayo photo of himself enjoying a taco salad sold at his Trump Hotel in Manhattan. It was peak Trump: daring opponents to call him out for appropriating a hallmark of Cal-Mex dining while thinking Americans would see the move as a metaphor for the bounties of riches and good times Trump would usher in for this country.
A decade later, Trump just makes too many Americans want to run to the proverbial toilet and barf from all the slop he and his minions have cooked up for our country.
Source link
Too many questions. Lakers sale doesn’t pass smell test
The Lakers are being sold … again?
The Lakers are being sold … by the Dodgers owner who was supposed to save them?
The Lakers are being sold … to one guy who owns an underachieving women’s professional soccer team and another guy who owns a piece of the hated San Francisco Giants?
What in the name of Luka is going on here?
Los Angeles sports fans awoke Wednesday to the news that one of their two crown jewels was being sold for the second time in a year, a transaction valued at $12.5 billion and accompanied by at least that many worries.
This doesn’t feel good. This doesn’t feel right. Something stinks here, and it might just be the future of a franchise that once seemed in such good hands.
On Wednesday it was stunningly and ingloriously fumbled, and for what?
There are two main unknowns here, and both should send shivers through a Laker fan base that could be watching their team become the Portland Trail Blazers.
First, why did Mark Walter sell just 10 months after buying? Yes, he made a $2.5 billion profit, but 10 months? Who owns a major sports franchise for just 10 months?
Second, what sort of owners will Bob Iger and Josh Kushner be? Iger is known for running Disney, and Kushner is known for running with President Trump’s son-in-law, who happens to be Kushner’s brother, Jared.
So crazy. So scary.
Does all this mean the Dodgers are also for sale? Will courtside seats be converted to spinning teacups? Is President Trump going to show up for a ceremonial opening tip?
Mark Walter, chairman and controlling owner of the Dodgers, acknowledges a fan before a game in Chicago on Aug. 4.
(Melissa Tamez / Associated Press)
Lots to dig in here, starting with Walter, who brought much hope to the struggling franchise after buying it from the Buss family last summer.
In his short tenure the Lakers racked up a bunch of off-court wins. They revamped their scouting department, increased a focus on analytics and rid themselves of LeBron James without the usual noise of an ugly breakup.
Under Walters, the Lakers didn’t fire Rob Pelinka, didn’t fire JJ Redick, brought back Austin Reaves, and actually set the team up for a pretty exciting playoff run next season.
Walter was clearly building the Lakers into the image of the Dodgers, which makes it so shocking that he would so easily cast them aside.
Could this be the result of outside forces? Walter is under federal investigation for tax fraud by companies controlled by the billionaire, and perhaps he sold the Lakers as a peace offering to the feds. The fact that he sold to somebody so close to President Trump could also help his federal case.
Remember last month when Walter embarrassingly groveled at Trump’s feet during the Dodgers visit to the White House, even giving the president a championship ring? It feels like the Lakers sale to a group co-led by Kushner is an outgrowth of that pandering.
Sources told The Times’ Bill Shaikin that the Dodgers are not for sale, but if Walter was troubled enough to sell arguably America’s most glamorous sports franchise after owning it for less time than it takes for Edwin Díaz to walk to the mound, who knows if the Dodgers are really safe?
In Walter, the Lakers had a proven champion who forged a partnership with the fans and rewarded them with sustained success.
In Iger and Kushner, the Lakers have two rich guys who have never been the majority owners of a team, never run a team and never done much more than cheer for a team.
Iger, 75, an entertainment genius who ran Disney for much of the last 20 years, has failed in his previous attempts to buy a sports team. A decade ago, he was in the finals to bring an NFL team to Los Angeles, but lacked the gravitas to pull it off.
In 2024, Iger and his wife, USC journalism dean Willow Bay, bought a controlling stake in the Angel City Football Club in the National Women’s Soccer League. But the team has yet to make any sort of local splash, missing the playoffs in each of the last two seasons.
Former Disney CEO Bob Iger, in white shirt, has been a longtime basketball fan. In 2025 he sat courtside for a Clippers game at Intuit Dome.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Kushner, meanwhile, is a 41-year-old billionaire venture capitalist who is best known for his brother’s father-in-law and his super-model wife Karlie Kloss. He owns a minority stake in not only the Giants, but the Miami Heat, which he must sell.
There is no indication whether they will be good owners, and they will clearly have to hire a seasoned NBA executive to serve as president to run the show. The identity of this person will be the first sign of their seriousness in restoring a championship culture, but there will be other signs as well, and not all could be positive.
There should be fear that these new wonders will follow the path of the most recently minted NBA owner, Portland’s Tom Dundon, who unapologetically cheapened the organization by doing everything from firing 70 business employees to bucking NBA tradition by refusing to pass out free T-shirts to the fans during playoff games. He even showed the door to both the club’s radio and TV play-by-play announcers in a dramatic cost-cutting move that could be a blueprint for other struggling teams.
Which is to say, nobody has any idea how Kushner and Iger will run things. They have no history here. They have no experience. They have no credibility. This isn’t Disney. This isn’t some hedge fund.
These are the 17-time NBA champion Lakers. This is a national monument forged on the sweat of everyone from Jerry West to Magic Johnson to Kobe Bryant.
This is a community’s heartbeat. This is a region’s touchstone.
Handle with care.
A city will be watching.
Source link
New Lakers buyer Joshua Kushner is a Democrat with sports roots
Joshua Kushner’s sudden rise to co-ownership of the most storied team in professional basketball might seem like it came out of the blue — but it’s been a long time coming.
A scion of the wealthy Kushner family whose older brother, Jared, is married to President Trump’s daughter, and whose father, Charles, is the U.S. ambassador to France, has successfully staked out his own lucrative business career.
He is worth an estimated $5.2 billion by Forbes.
And along the way, the New York-based entrepreneur and venture capitalist has exhibited a deep interest in sports investments.
Just this summer, there were reports that Joshua Kushner and new Laker’s co-owner Bob Iger, the former Walt Disney Co. chief executive, had hired investment bankers to consider a bid for the National Basketball Association’s expansion team in Las Vegas — before setting their sights on the Lakers.
Kushner already holds a stake that in the Miami Heat that he will divest, according to The Athletic, and previously sold a stake in the Memphis Grizzlies. His wife, model Karlie Kloss, has a stake in the WNBA’s New York Liberty.
Kushner’s Thrive Capital also was named the lead investor in FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s ill-fated plan this year to spin off a $20 billion commercial subsidiary to handle the soccer federation’s broadcast, sponsorship, ticketing and event operations.
Infantino withdrew the proposal last month after withering criticism that he was overly commercializing the sport, as well as of Kushner’s ties to Trump and his controversial presidency.
Kushner announced on X in April that he also was in the process of taking a stake in the San Francisco Giants. It was not his first interest in baseball. In 2017, he reached a preliminary agreement to buy the Miami Marlins for $1.6 billion, but the deal fell through.
Kushner’s father made his fortune in commercial and residential real estate, and early on his youngest son decided to go into business but forge his own career, even as he maintained his ties to Kushner Cos., the family firm.
After graduating from Harvard University, Kushner got his MBA from the school. But before he had even graduated in 2011, he founded his venture capital firm Thrive Capital. He also worked at top investment bank Goldman Sachs.
The venture capital firm reportedly scored with investments in Instagram, online eyewear retailer Warby Parker, music streaming service Spotify, payments processor Stripe and Elon Musk’s SpaceX long before it went public this year.
In 2012, Kushner displayed an entrepreneurial streak, co-founding Oscar, a health tech and insurer that is now publicly traded with a market capitalization of about $9 billion.
This year, Thrive raised $10 billion, it’s largest fundraising round yet, drawing investment’s from global billionaires such as India’s Mukesh Ambani, the world’s twelfth richest person, according to Bloomberg. Iger reportedly invested $175 million to purchase a 3.3% stake in Thrive.
Interest in the firm came after it scored a huge win with an investment in artificial intelligence pioneer OpenAI in January 2023, just months after the debut of ChatGPT. At the time, the startup was valued at $29 billion, and now its valuation is approaching $1 trillion.
A lifelong Democrat, Kushner attended the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, a day after Trump’s first inauguration. Kushner has funded Democratic politicians and causes almost exclusively, including $250,000 in donations to the Growth Democrats PAC during the 2024 election cycle.
“It is no secret that liberal values have guided my life and that I have supported political leaders that share similar values,” Kushner told Forbes in 2017.
In 2024, Kushner and Kloss purchased the iconic Midcentury Modern home in Malibu known as the “Wave House,” designed by famed architect Harry Gesner. According to The Wall Street Journal, the couple paid $29.5 million for the six-bedroom, 6,200-square-foot house that abuts the Pacific Ocean—$20 million less than the asking price when it was listed for sale in 2023.
Kushner, however, has not been able to shed his controversial association with his family or the family real estate firm.
A property management company owned by the family in 2022 agreed to pay $3.25 million in civil penalties and restitution to settle a lawsuit brought by the state of Maryland. The suit alleged that tenants in thousands of rental units were charged illegal fees while failing to maintain the properties. In reaching the settlement, the company did not admit wrongdoing.
Kushner’s effort to fashion his own identity also has been tarnished by his controversial father.
Charles Kushner was made ambassador to France last year by Trump, but only after the president pardoned the New Jersey developer in 2020. The elder Kushner spent nearly two years in custody following a federal tax fraud investigation.
Not long after assuming his post, Kushner sparked a diplomatic clash with France, accusing the country of not doing enough to stem antisemitism in the country following the start of the Hamas-Israeli conflict.
Correspondent A.J. Perez, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.
Source link
Senate approves funding bill to avoid a shutdown before the election
WASHINGTON — The Senate in an overnight vote Saturday approved a short-term measure to fund federal agencies into early December and avoid a potentially chaotic government shutdown during the middle of campaign season.
The late-summer action on a funding fix is unusual. Normally, Congress waits until the final days or hours of a funding deadline to pass short-term patches, but this time senators acted nearly two months before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
The 90-6 vote showed lawmakers are still smarting from the two historic shutdowns in the last year and want to avoid another before voters go to the polls.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wanted the funding dealt with before senators went home for the next five weeks to focus on their reelection campaigns and other matters. It got caught up with other issues that pushed votes into the night, but the bill had broad bipartisan support. The House will also have to approve the measure when members return from their August recess before it can go to President Trump’s desk for his signature.
The bill generally funds the federal government at current levels through Dec. 11, but includes a variety of exceptions that senators negotiated with the White House.
Democrats secured language to ensure no money could be transferred to the Border Patrol. They also rejected the White House’s request of $1 billion for early work on a new “Trump-class” battleship that the administration announced Dec. 22.
“The only person who wants these golden ships is Donald Trump so he can slap his name on them,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
Hemp provision
The bill also includes language delaying a national ban on most intoxicating hemp products. That one-month delay prompted outrage from some Senate Republicans who say that too many such products are falling into the hands of unsuspecting children. The packaging of the products often relies on bright colors and intentionally mimics popular snack brands to attract consumers.
Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said that since 2017 there has been nearly a tenfold increase in cannabis-related emergency room visits by minors in his home state.
“This is a public health crisis that deserves this Senate’s immediate attention,” Budd said. “Our children should never be the testing ground for an industry willing to exploit a loophole in federal law for profit.”
But the hemp industry said the delay buys time for Congress to craft legislation that protects hemp farmers and businesses while also putting in place safeguards to protect children.
Trump himself has called Budd to discuss the issue, though the president did not specifically ask the senator to drop his effort, Budd’s spokesman said.
“Sen. Budd had a friendly phone call with President Trump discussing the legislative efforts regarding THC,” said spokesman Christian McMullen. He said the senator outlined his concerns about “any delay to closing the hemp loophole.”
Budd tried to strip the hemp delay from the bill, but the Senate turned aside his effort.
Trump rule on grants delayed
Democratic lawmakers, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), also got language in the bill that would block, for the duration of the funding patch, new regulations on federal grants. The regulations would require a senior political appointee to review grants before they are awarded to ensure, among other things, that they advance the president’s policy priorities. Democrats say it’s an effort to kill grants destined for Democratic-leaning states. The Trump administration recently admitted in a court filing denying clean-energy grants to California and other blue states based only on politics.
“They are not interested in making our tax dollars work better — they just want them to work for Donald Trump,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The White House Office of Management and Budget says its effort is about improving accountability to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted or misused. The issue is sure to be a topic of future negotiations on a full-year spending measure.
But Collins said the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 people and groups weighing in on the rule are opposed to it.
“I don’t think in my time that I’ve been privileged to serve in the Senate that I have ever seen a proposed rule generate that many negative comments,” Collins said.
Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.
Source link
Tensions flare as $34-billion Charter-Cox cable deal nears finish line
Spectrum owner Charter Communications is nearing the finish line in its long-awaited $34.5-billion purchase of Cox Enterprises to form the nation’s largest internet and cable television company.
California’s Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote next week to approve the merger that would bolster Southern California’s dominant provider with more than 5 million customers. Securing the approval of California regulators — the deal’s final hurdle — has been a slog as federal officials gave Charter their consent months ago.
Customers of privately held Cox, the Atlanta-based company that serves Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, Las Vegas and large parts of Orange and San Diego counties, would be switched to Spectrum service. Charter is the industry leader, providing Spectrum internet, phone and cable TV packages for Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.
It’s been more than a year since the companies unveiled their proposed union, and they hope to combine operations this month. But flaps have flared up in the last lap.
Public interest groups have argued that the PUC’s proposed settlement with Charter doesn’t go far enough to ensure long-term affordable internet for low-income residents or accommodations for customers reeling from natural disasters such as last year’s Eaton and Palisades fires.
In addition, advocates have asked utilities commissioners to demand that Charter commit to fostering workplace diversity, equity and inclusion among its proposed 9,000-member workforce in California. Such programs have been under siege since President Trump returned to the White House.
“State regulators like the CPUC have an important role to play — they have a voice and leverage if they choose to use it,” said Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, a Bay Area group that is lobbying for Charter to renew its commitment to a diverse workplace.
“It’s important that California stand up for its own laws, policies and values,” Solomon said.
A Spectrum truck in New York City.
(Star Max/IPx)
The five-member commission is set to vote on the Charter-Cox merger Thursday. The panel will consider two competing proposals; both would allow the merger to go through with various conditions.
Charter years ago pledged to create a diverse workplace but scaled back its public statements amid Trump’s vocal demands that companies dump DEI programs. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, also has championed eliminating diversity programs, saying they are discriminatory.
The FCC in February approved Charter’s proposed purchase of Cox’s residential cable, commercial fiber, cloud and information technology businesses. To win Carr’s approval, Charter agreed to “new safeguards to protect against DEI discrimination,” according to the FCC.
Charter is in a bind. It disavowed diversity efforts to win the FCC’s blessing but now is facing calls in California to embrace such commitments.
“In a state as diverse as California we should protect diversity in the workplace,” said Jessica J. González, co-chief executive of advocacy group Free Press. “We have a responsibility to stand up to what’s been going on in the federal government, and in the Trump administration, to force companies to roll back their policies.”
In its public filings, Charters said it would reach out to diverse suppliers and work with business groups, including the Women’s Business Development Council, the California LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, the African American Chamber, the California Hispanic Chamber and the Cal Asian Chamber.
“This transaction will be good for consumers, community leaders, and businesses across California as it will provide them with lower prices, greater value, better service, and support from Spectrum’s 100% U.S.-based employees,” the Stamford, Conn. company said in a statement.
Concerns heightened among activists after one of the two proposed settlements, hashed out between Charter and Commissioner Matthew Baker, the commission’s Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund, failed to include diversity efforts.
Advocates viewed Baker’s proposal as weaker on broadband access provisions too, including commitments to provide low-cost internet for disadvantaged residents and communities that lack service.
“For us, it’s really about making sure everyone in Cox’s and Charter’s service territory benefits from this transaction,” said Paul Goodman, counsel for the Berkeley-based Center for Accessible Technology.
“We want to make sure that communities that have been historically overlooked get the same benefits from the transaction as everyone else,” Goodman said.
For example, a coalition of advocacy groups is seeking to prevent Spectrum from tacking on equipment charges for customers on low-income plans.
Commissioners will be asked to select from Baker’s draft decision or last month’s proposal from the agency’s administrative law judge, Jamie Ormond. Advocates are urging the panel to adopt Ormond’s version because it contains more compliance conditions, including mechanisms to foster an inclusive workplace.
Commissioners have “a statutory duty” under the state’s utilities code “to deny the transaction outright rather than approve a weaker deal,” the advocates argued in a recent filing.
Solomon’s group is pushing for an “organizational infrastructure for equal opportunity compliance,” including reporting compensation and promotion data for Charter’s California workforce and pay equity audits.
The state has required diversity measures before — despite such initiatives being out of favor in Washington. In January, the commission approved Verizon Communications’ purchase of Frontier Communications.
In that proceeding, Verizon pledged to “further California’s public policy goals of diverse supply chains and workforces, including a $10 million partnership with the California State University system,” the PUC said.
Under both Ormond’s and Baker’s proposals, Charter would be required to offer affordable broadband to low-income residents, including California LifeLine service tiers. It would have to sell stand-alone broadband plans for five years, although advocates would like to see that extended to 10 years.
The company has agreed to spend at least $275 million to upgrade its California network and complete its 1-gigabit service capability across its legacy service areas within three years.
Charter also agreed to invest at least $30 million in customer outreach initiatives, such as digital literacy training and device access for low-income communities. The company also is being asked to provide free broadband and Wi-Fi service for about 50 eligible institutions, including schools, libraries and community centers for several years.
Charter was criticized after the January 2025 fires for charging fees for equipment that burned, said Natalie Gonzalez, director of Digital Equity Los Angeles, one of the advocacy groups that is asking for Charter to “improve disaster response and customer service standards … during life’s most challenging moments.”
Charter pushed back on that contention, saying it helped residents in the burn areas.
“We opened all our wifi hot spots to anyone (non Spectrum customers) and were deeply involved in the restoration efforts,” the company said in its documents.
The advocates, including Digital Equity LA and the California Alliance for Digital Equity, compiled evidence to help commissioners determine whether the merger was in the public interest.
Should the deal go through, Cox subscribers will soon see changes. Charter plans to roll out its Spectrum products and fees to Cox customers next month.
Subscribers can opt for their existing pricing or switch to a Spectrum bundle that includes such apps as Disney+, Hulu, ESPN and Paramount+.
Charter has also said it would offer Cox subscribers a year of free service when they switch their cellphone carrier to Spectrum.
The Charter name will be dropped in one year and the combined company will become Cox, although consumer products will keep the Spectrum brand.
The switch is because the Cox family — descendants of an Ohio press baron who bought his first newspaper in 1898, began acquiring cable systems in 1962 — will become the firm’s largest shareholder group, with about 23% of the stock.
In a recent earnings call, Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey told investors the combined company would have nearly 37 million customers nationwide.
It expects to generate $67 billion a year in revenue and about $28 billion in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
Source link
Cassidy says he supports Blanche for attorney general, likely paving way for confirmation
WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.
Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.
Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”
“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”
Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”
The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.
In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.
“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.
The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.
It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.
Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.
Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”
Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.
“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.
When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”
This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.
Source link
After Supreme Court loss, Trump again targets birthright citizenship with new orders
President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.
The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.
During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.
“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.
Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.
Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”
“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”
The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.
The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”
“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.
A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.
“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”
Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.
It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.
“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.
The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”
It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.
Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.
“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.
Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.
White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.
“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.
Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.
“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”
Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.
“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.
In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.
Source link
Trump signs immigration actions to limit birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.
The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.
It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”
A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.
Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.
“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.
In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.
On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.
Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.
The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.
In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.
Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.
Source link
FCC votes in favor of lifting limits on TV station ownership
The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 in favor of allowing TV station ownership groups to own more outlets, easing the way for more consolidation.
The Thursday vote that favored the change means companies can own local stations that cover more than 39% of the U.S. They could also own more than two stations in a single market.
The measure supported by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr will allow the agency to approve deals that put station ownership groups over the cap if the agency determines that they are promoting the public interest. Carr has said the agency would consider such issues as commitment to local journalism and “viewpoint diversity.”
“In my view, if you care about trusted sources of local news and information, you have to care about the future of local TV stations,” Carr said. “They are the economic engines that produce the paychecks for so many of the local journalists that remain in the business. So how can the FCC maximize the odds that those institutions continue to survive and hopefully thrive into the future? To start, we should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions.”
The station groups say the ability of tech companies such as Google and Netflix to reach every consumer in the U.S. puts them at a disadvantage. At the same time, streaming now accounts for more than 40% of all viewing, according to Nielsen, pulling consumers away from traditional TV. Television stations are also seeing their share of carriage fees from cable and satellite companies shrink due to cord-cutting.
Declining viewership and revenue have also made it more challenging to sustain multiple local TV news operations in a single market.
Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, opposed the measure, saying the rule change will only help big firms get bigger and more powerful.
“Eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from economic pressure, it just changes who is doing the squeezing,” Gomez said in a statement issued ahead of the vote. “The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters, they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them.”
The measure ending the cap limits also faced push back from consumer groups and state government officials who believe station consolidation will result in journalist layoffs and fewer voices for the communities they serve.
TV station owners and its lobbying group the National Assn. of Broadcasters have been clamoring for a change in the rule, citing the changes in technology that have occurred since the ownership limit. The 39% threshold was set in 2004 when streaming video was still a nascent business.
Jeff McCall, a professor of communications at DePaux University, agrees the current limit is outdated in the current media environment. “Local broadcasters are struggling in terms of audience and revenue, and this plan could give them some needed relief,” he said.
But McCall added that having the FCC decide who benefits from the rule change will face resistance.
“it will give the FCC wide discretionary powers and open up any decisions to second-guessing and, of course, court challenges,” he said.
There are also likely to be questions on how even-handed Carr will be when faced with a proposal that puts a station owner over the caps. The chairman has made his name by threatening to pull the broadcast licenses of TV stations that irritate President Trump with their coverage and commentary. Even Trump-supporting Republicans such as Sen. John Kennedy, R- La., have raised concerns the FCC’s scrutiny of broadcast content could be violating the right to free speech.
In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses for Disney’s eight broadcast TV stations, a day after Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.
Carr also questioned whether ABC’s daytime show “The View,” where negative Trump commentary occurs often, should qualify as a bona fide news program that is exempt from giving equal time to qualified candidates.
Carr also believes large media companies such as Disney and NBCUniversal parent Comcast hold too much sway over the stations affiliated with their networks.
“New York and Hollywood interests have steamrolled those local TV stations and the broader media market in recent years in ways that run directly counter to the regulatory framework that Congress and the FCC put in place,” he wrote. “Their national programs naturally reflect the values of the New York and Hollywood executives that produce them. This power imbalance has contributed to a steady decline in locally produced news — and with it, a weakening of the public’s trust in the media.”
Earlier this year, a group of attorneys general filed suit to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion acquisition of Tegna, arguing it violates a 112-year-old U.S. antitrust law by knocking out a major competitor. The deal would give Irving, Texas-based Nexstar control of 265 television stations across the country, up from 164. And, in dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple TV network affiliates.
U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued a preliminary injunction in April that forbids Nexstar — which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles — and Tegna, from combining operations. Nexstar is appealing.
Source link
Trump arrives in Los Angeles for GOP fundraiser. Newsom bemoans ‘overdue’ wildfire relief
President Trump touched down in Los Angeles on Tuesday evening and headed directly to his Rancho Palos Verdes golf course to headline a fundraiser for the Republican Party.
Though the visit was for a standard campaign benefit in the run-up to November’s elections, it was not without drama.
While the President was en route to California, authorities announced the arrest of an armed man who had been spotted suspiciously documenting security preparations at the golf course Sunday.
Sheriff’s deputies discovered the man had brought a gun and ammunition to the golf course. On Monday, they uncovered an alarming weapons stash, including an illegally modified AR-style rifle, a .45-caliber pistol and high-capacity magazines, at his Downey residence.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday afternoon, a group of more than two dozen protesters gathered outside the Trump National Golf Club entrance in anticipation of the president’s arrival.
The demonstrators chanted “Impeach Trump”and waved signs with slogans such as “Save our democracy” and “Pretti good time to resist,” referencing ICU nurse Alexander Pretti, who was fatally shot by federal agents in January, as passing cars periodically honked in approval.
“There are so many things that have happened [during the Trump administration] that are so disgusting, and I’m so worried for my children, my grandchildren and future generations,” said Redondo Beach resident Jeanette Boston. “They deserve better.”
A smaller group of around 10 counter-protesters gathered along Palos Verdes Drive wearing MAGA gear and American flag clothing. Several yelled “We love you Trump” as Marine One landed at the golf course carrying Trump just after 5 p.m.
The campaign fundraiser was closed to members of the media. However, a White House spokesperson said Trump would use the event to tout his administration’s achievements and “draw a sharp contrast between his commonsense agenda and the radical policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom.”
Tuesday marked Trump’s second visit to Los Angeles during his second term in office. He last visited the region in January 2025, when he toured the fire damage in the Pacific Palisades and signed an executive order intended to expedite rebuilding efforts.
Since then, there has been a standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid.
California has submitted more than $1.5 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursement claims for emergency response and infrastructure repairs stemming from the Eaton and Palisades fires, but only $37 million in funding has been approved thus far, according to the governor’s office.
“Donald Trump is coming to Los Angeles to raise money while wildfire survivors are still waiting for the federal recovery funding he promised 18 months ago,” Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement. “Californians deserve a President focused on helping families rebuild — not raising money for himself at his golf course.”
Trump, for his part, ignored criticism around the wait for wildfire relief on Tuesday and instead took to social media to promote what he sees as his administration’s economic achievements.
He wrote in a Truth Social post that investments in the U.S. economy and more “factory activity” were evidence of how well the country was doing.
“The Fake News and the Dumocrats are doing everything they can to distract people’s thoughts from these MASSIVE Successes, but it’s getting harder and harder for them to do,” Trump wrote. He added: “This is the GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA, and we’re just getting started.”
On Wednesday, Trump will head to Las Vegas to deliver a speech at a casino focused on the economic achievements of his administration. While his California visit is focused on replenishing campaign coffers, the Nevada stop is more closely tied to election strategy as the swing state could play a key role in deciding who controls Congress after the November midterms.
Source link
82 lawsuits saved $207 billion for California, Bonta says
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday that his office has protected more than $200 billion in federal funding for the state, defended core civil rights and removed military forces from Los Angeles streets by suing the Trump administration about once a week.
“Since President Trump returned to office, California has been under attack — and has led the way in fighting back,” Bonta said.
Bonta said his office has filed 82 lawsuits against the administration since Trump’s inauguration last year, in addition to 122 amicus briefs supporting lawsuits against the administration by other parties and 112 comment letters in response to federal actions.
That work has saved the state an estimated $207.1 billion, Bonta said, including $168 billion — equal to a third of the state’s annual budget — that was threatened when the Trump administration tried to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states last year. Billions in threatened cuts to transportation, emergency preparedness, education and family assistance funding were also prevented, Bonta said.
The work has also protected birthright citizenship for the U.S.- born children of immigrants, ensured that National Guard troops are not deployed in major California cities against the wishes of local leaders, lifted multiple sets of tariffs driving up costs for American consumers and repeatedly blocked administration efforts to interfere in California’s elections, Bonta said.
“We’ve protected funding that keeps our communities safe, feeds hungry families, and ensures our kids get the education they deserve. We’ve gone all the way to the Supreme Court to defend constitutional rights — and won. We’ve protected our elections and stopped the militarization of our cities. We’ve defended our right to prioritize public safety over assisting with the President’s inhumane immigration agenda,” Bonta said.
As it has done in the past, the White House on Tuesday derided Bonta’s lawsuits as misguided.
“Instead of bragging about filing frivolous lawsuits against the Trump Administration, the California AG should focus on addressing problems in his own state — like the countless criminal illegal aliens the Newscum Administration allows to roam free and terrorize communities,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement to The Times.
The White House has previously said Trump is “trying to restore American Greatness” and that Californians would be “infinitely better off” if Bonta got out of the president’s way.
Bonta’s office is required to report annually to the state Legislature on its work fighting the Trump administration as part of a 2025 special session measure delivering it an extra $25 million to fund such litigation. His office published its latest report to lawmakers Tuesday.
The report said the office had received $19.2 million of the special session funding through July 30, which had “contributed to — but in no way has been sufficient to cover — the costs of the litigation.”
Bonta’s office has also received regular appropriations to fund such litigation in each of the state’s last two budgets, of $14.2 million last fiscal year and $23.9 million this fiscal year. The office’s overall budget is about $1.4 billion.
At a morning news conference with other state leaders, Bonta said his office has spent close to $30 million on its “federal accountability work” overall since Trump took office, and argued that investment has been “paying off in droves” given the billions saved.
Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), standing with Bonta, agreed.
Limón said she was proud to have worked with Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom to form a “collective backstop” against the Trump administration, while Rivas said the funding provided to Bonta’s office “may be one of the smartest investments that this legislature has ever made.”
Of the 82 lawsuits, 66 remain active, according to the report. Despite that, Bonta said his office has won 45 orders providing some early relief from the Trump administration’s actions, and 21 final orders in its favor. In eight cases, he said, the administration “backed down” in advance of a trial.
Bonta’s office has lost arguments made against the Trump administration, including on behalf of other litigants, particularly on issues related to transgender rights and the scope of Trump’s executive power to reshape government and federal immigration policy.
However, Bonta claimed his office has won in 83% of the court orders issued in cases brought by the state and praised his team for having “worked around the clock on behalf of Californians, pulling countless all-nighters along the way” to make it possible.
Bonta, who is up for reelection in November, is campaigning in part on his willingness to stand up to Trump — which polling and voting has suggested many Californians want their elected officials to do.
Xavier Becerra, the Democratic candidate for California governor, is running on a similar message. Before he was the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, Becerra had Bonta’s job and sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, often successfully.
Bonta said he expects Becerra will be an “incredible partner” in the fight moving forward.
Republicans Michael Gates, who is running against Bonta, and Steve Hilton, who is running against Becerra and is endorsed by Trump, have said they would work collaboratively with the Trump administration to ensure the needs of Californians are met, rather than fighting it at every turn.
“I would be wanting to work with the administration to help Californians,” Hilton has said. Gates has called Bonta’s campaign against Trump “out of touch.”
Many of the lawsuits Bonta’s office has brought against the administration have been filed as part of a multistate coalition of Democratic attorneys general. As presidents of both parties have flexed more executive power in recent decades, state attorneys general have become more collaborative and litigious in fighting back — and that has been especially true under Trump.
Bonta said Trump will be remembered in part for his “repeated attacks on California, on Californians, on our Constitution, and on our democracy,” but California will be remembered for fighting back.
“Are these trying times? 100%. Absolutely, yes,” Bonta said. “But we shouldn’t be helpless, because we’re not helpless.”
Source link
Paramount’s David Ellison says critics don’t get his politics
Paramount Chairman David Ellison believes the tug-of-war over his proposed $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery comes down to a single question: whether he can be trusted to control CNN.
“I believe this fight is not really about market share,” Ellison wrote in a Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times, noting that regulators around the world, including the U.S. Justice Department, have approved the deal that has been temporarily blocked by an antitrust lawsuit brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of Democrat state attorneys general.
“I believe a plainer worry sits beneath the briefs and the news releases … The issue is whether I can be trusted as a steward of Warner’s CNN,” Ellison wrote.
The rare opinion piece serves as Ellison’s acknowledgment that his family’s close association with President Trump has sullied his standing in Hollywood and beyond.
Shakeups at CBS News, which is part of Paramount, the departure of CBS late night host Stephen Colbert, and a visible presidential lobbying effort — including hosting a dinner for Trump in Washington in late April and attending Trump’s birthday extravaganza in June with UFC fights on the White House lawn — have come with a cost.
More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including such high-profile stars as Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter early this year, calling on Bonta to try to block the merger.
Bonta and the other state attorneys general sued, saying the merger of two of the major film studios would give Paramount-Warner Bros. more than 25% of the wide-release theatrical film market. Their lawsuit also alleged the combined company would own too many cable TV channels — more than 50, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Comedy Central.
Many in Hollywood fear that the consolidation of two historic studios will bring thousands of layoffs and contribute to a bleaker employment picture. Ellison’s Skydance Media’s takeover of Paramount a year ago resulted in the loss of 2,000 jobs.
Some have opposed the Warner Bros. deal, saying one family shouldn’t be allowed to control two significant news operations: CBS News and CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
“There has been speculation about my politics, my loyalties, my intentions,” Ellison wrote.
“Unfortunately, I can’t give anyone a view into my heart and mind, but I can share this: I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison said. “And when it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views. I believe that news should be based on facts and truth.”
“Great news organizations like CNN and CBS News are here to tell it straight down the middle,” he said. “That requires newsrooms that reflect the whole world, not one side of it. And it requires independence. Our journalists will continue to answer to the facts and to all the people they serve — not to any party or cause.”
“These were founding principles for both CNN and CBS News, for legends like Ted Turner and Edward R. Murrow, and it is exactly that kind of independence that has always fueled the greatness of “60 Minutes,” Ellison wrote.
Fired “60 Minutes” correspondents, including Cecilia Vega, have complained that since Bari Weiss became editor-in-chief of CBS News last fall, journalists have been asked to tilt the presentation of controversial news events, including protests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions earlier this year in Minnesota, which led to the deaths of two Americans.
Paramount has pushed back saying the plaintiff states have defined markets that fail to factor in the rise of technology companies, including Netflix, Google’s YouTube and Amazon Studios, which also attract significant swaths of viewership.
The Writers Guild of America has separately sued to block the merger, saying the deal would lead to less opportunities and lower pay for writers struggling to stay in the industry.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who is overseeing the high-profile case, issued a temporary restraining order to block the merger from finalizing while the two sides hash out the evidence. Late last month, Paramount agreed to delay the merger until after a trial — or until June 1, whichever date comes first.
In court documents filed Friday, Bonta and his coalition of 11 other Democratic attorneys general proposed having a two- to three-week trial in April to weigh the evidence.
Ellison’s Paramount pushed back, saying the media company would like to start the courtroom action on Nov. 4.
Now the judge must schedule the court date.
“The states claim this deal will give one company too much influence over theatrical releases and cable operators, while the W.G.A. argues that our combined market power will hurt writers,” Ellison said in the opinion piece. “Both suits imagine a Hollywood that no longer exists — an industry ruled by a handful of legacy studios.”
Source link
Senate committee advances Blanche’s AG nomination in vote along party lines
WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche cleared a critical hurdle Tuesday in his bid to be confirmed to the post after swaying Republican holdouts on a Senate committee to advance his nomination for a floor vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in support of the nomination of President Trump’s former personal attorney, who has aggressively pushed the Republican administration’s priorities since taking over from Pam Bondi in April.
The vote followed a deal struck late Sunday between Blanche and two Republican senators who had been threatening to block his confirmation over the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the president’s leaked tax returns.
Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina had said they were withholding their support unless the Justice Department confirmed in writing that it was not moving forward with a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who believe they were prosecuted for political purposes, which the administration had announced as part of the settlement.
After days of negotiations, Blanche issued an order Sunday evening confirming “beyond any doubt, that there is no Fund.”
Since the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was announced, “No Members were appointed; no funds were transferred; no process for receiving claims was established; no claims were paid,” the order said.
Cornyn and Tillis had also pressed for clarification on a separate part of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits.
Democrats complain about the fund
Under the deal, the Justice Department clarified in writing that the tax audit immunity agreement applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings. It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons, and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement.
Democrats say Blanche’s order doesn’t go far enough to prevent the Trump administration from reviving the fund after the acting attorney general’s confirmation and have called for legislation to permanently bar it. The order also doesn’t stop the administration from compensating Trump allies — including people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — through a previously established process that allows people to file claims for damages if they believed they were wronged by the government.
The fund “can easily be revived with a new order from the Department of Justice 15 minutes after Mr. Blanche is confirmed as attorney general,” said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.
Blanche’s independence has been called into question
Blanche has faced intense scrutiny regarding his ability to maintain independence from the White House, the Justice Department’s pursuit of the president’s political foes and the agency’s handling of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation.
But it was the settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS that threatened to derail Blanche’s nomination, forcing a delay in the committee vote last week amid pressure from the two Republican senators, who are not returning to Capitol Hill after their terms end in January.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee, said Tillis and Cornyn’s demands were “common sense.” Grassley said the senators’ concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and the IRS settlement were shared by many other lawmakers, including himself.
“I’m grateful that they as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House worked in good faith to solve them, formally rescinding the fund, clarifying the scope of the release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all,” Grassley said.
Trump’s lawsuit has been sharply criticized because of the highly unusual way it was handled, with the president challenging an agency overseen by the executive branch he leads. A judge last month slammed the case as an improper exercise in self-dealing and referred one of Trump’s attorneys who filed it for potential disciplinary action.
Blanche was an important figure for Trump’s defense
Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and key member of Trump’s defense team as the Republican battled four indictments, arrived at the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general. He was elevated to acting attorney general following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s failure to meet Trump’s demands to successfully prosecute his perceived political opponents.
While Blanche insisted he wasn’t auditioning for the permanent post, he moved swiftly to accelerate investigations into Trump foes and advance other White House priorities, drawing condemnation from critics who say he has not shed his title as Trump’s personal lawyer.
Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict longtime Trump adversary James Comey, the former FBI director, on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.”
Comey’s lawyers have accused the Justice Department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts to bring what the defense described as a politically motivated prosecution.
Blanche separately appointed Joseph diGenova, an 81-year-old former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump.
Richer and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.
Source link
Trump set to visit L.A. for fundraiser. Attacking Newsom is on the agenda
WASHINGTON — President Trump will travel to Los Angeles on Tuesday and Las Vegas on Wednesday as part of a two-day West Coast trip aimed at highlighting his administration’s economic record ahead of the midterm elections, a White House official confirmed.
In Los Angeles, Trump is scheduled to attend a Republican National Committee dinner at Trump National Golf Club. The visit comes as the administration seeks to draw attention to his economic policies as time runs out for his administration to ease economic pressures ahead of the November election.
“The president will draw a sharp contrast between his commonsense agenda and the radical policies of Democrats like Gavin Newsom, who keep raising taxes, inviting rampant fraud in taxpayer-funded programs, and protecting illegal immigrant drug dealers, rapists, and murderers,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said in a statement Monday.
Trump is expected to “tout his wins for the people of the Golden State despite failed Democrat leadership,” Wales said, citing what she described as the “largest middle-class tax cut ever, the most secure border in American history, and a plummeting crime rate.”
Newsom has not yet publicly commented on Trump’s pit stop in California, but the Democratic governor in recent social media posts has criticized Trump’s handling of the economy.
In one post on X, Newsom pointed out that California is raising the minimum wage to $17.40 an hour next year as a way to attack Trump and the GOP for “defending a $7.25 minimum wage while workers scrape by.”
“Pitiful,” the governor wrote.
In a second post, Newsom amplified a post on X that shows how the prices of items like rice, cotton and wheat have increased since the start of the year.
“Great work, @realdonaldtrump,” he wrote.
Trump’s visit to Los Angeles will be his second since returning to office. He toured Pacific Palisades in January 2025 after the L.A. neighborhood and Altadena were ravaged by wildfires. During the visit, Trump signed an executive order intended to expedite rebuilding efforts.
Since Trump last visited the city, there has been a standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid.
In April, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and county Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with Trump in the Oval Office to talk about their request for funding to help with the wildfire recovery efforts, an ask that Trump signaled support for but has yet to formalize.
Following his visit in California, Trump will travel to Nevada, where he will deliver remarks on the economy at Red Rock Casino.
Source link
Trump says Pirro ‘folded like an umbrella’ in bid to drop Reflecting Pool vandalism charges
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro “choked” and “folded like an umbrella” in moving to drop charges against a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Speaking at an unrelated Oval Office event, Trump ducked questions about whether he’d fire Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime ally he handpicked as top federal prosecutor in the nation’s capital.
But the president kept up his drumbeat of sharp criticism, saying he remained disappointed by her assessment that damage to the Reflecting Pool was the result of shoddy construction, not vandalism.
“Frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department, and I guess she choked,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question after he signed an executive order for military spouses. “I don’t know what the hell happened.”
The move to dismiss charges against David Hearn was an embarrassing setback for the Justice Department and marked a rare moment during Trump’s second term of an aide or political appointee openly defying him.
After initially posting on social media over the weekend, “I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro,” Trump was still fuming two days later, insisting for several minutes that vandalism had marred the troubled project.
“I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro, really disappointed,” the president said Monday. “She folded like an umbrella.”
Pirro has not commented publicly since Trump’s initial social media post criticizing her.
Hearn has said he was on a bike ride June 19 when he reached in to examine the pool’s newly peeled coating and briefly touched a chunk attached to the side of the pool. But he said he obeyed a park worker who told him to let go of it.
The president also used the opportunity Monday to distance himself from the troubled project, which he had touted as part of his overarching efforts to spruce up the nation’s capital.
Trump said in April that he had consulted with a trio of firms that had worked on swimming pools at his properties and that the one he picked for the Reflecting Pool project had done work at his golf course in Northern Virginia. That firm was Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which was awarded a $14.7 million no-bid contract to repaint and waterproof its concrete floor.
“I have a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools,” Trump said then. “He looked at it. He called me up. He said, ‘Sir, we can do something on it.’”
But Trump insisted Monday that “I didn’t know the contractor” and for the first time hinted that he wasn’t pleased by the work that was done to get the Reflecting Pool ready in time for Independence Day celebrations.
“I’m not saying I was 100% thrilled with the contractor, but the contractor was rushing. We wanted to get it open for July 4th,” he said.
Crews drained the Reflecting Pool weeks ago to launch a new round of repairs. The White House hasn’t said when those might be finished or how much more they will cost, but the Trump administration did not seek new bids from other companies on the new round of repair work.
Trump also said Monday that the Reflecting Pool would be “fixed” and reopened in the next week and a half to two weeks — without providing further details.
Weissert writes for the Associated Press.
Source link
Democratic states urge Supreme Court to block Trump’s new limits on mail ballots
WASHINGTON — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.
They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.
Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.
“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.
More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”
The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.
Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.
He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.
Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.
Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.
Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.
Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.
Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”
The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.
“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.
But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.
On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.
Source link