product

ESPN is shifting its strategy on online sports gambling, ending its partnership with Penn Entertainment.

The companies announced Thursday they were terminating an agreement that offered ESPN equity in Penn, which operated the ESPN Bet sportsbook app. The app will no longer carry the familiar red ESPN logo. It will operate under a new name.

ESPN said it will partner with DraftKings, a leading sports betting company, which will provide odds and other gaming-related data for the Walt Disney Co. unit’s programs and its digital platforms. ESPN’s on-air staff will use DraftKings’ odds starting Dec. 1.

According to people familiar with the ESPN-Penn arrangement, the app simply didn’t reach its financial targets in the highly competitive business, which operates in the 31 states where online gambling is legal.

In 2023, Penn agreed to pay $1.5 billion in cash over the next 10 years for the rights to use the ESPN name on its app. As part of the deal, ESPN promoted the product across its programming and provided access to on-air talent. ESPN had the right to purchase up to 31.8 million shares of Penn stock for $500 million over the 10-year period.

“When we first announced our partnership with ESPN, both sides made it clear that we expected to compete for a podium position in the space,” said Jay Snowden, CEO and President of Penn Entertainment. “Although we made significant progress in improving our product offering and building a cohesive ecosystem with ESPN, we have mutually and amicably agreed to wind down our collaboration.”

The end of the deal comes shortly after an FBI investigation led to the arrest of Miami Heat player Terry Rozier, who allegedly pulled out of a game claiming injury to deliver a win on one of his prop bets.

ESPN’s decision is unrelated to the recent news, as the company has been in talks for months with DraftKings about a new partnership. But no longer having the ESPN name on a betting app will keep the brand out of the line of fire if the NBA case escalates.

Beginning in December, DraftKings will have its app exclusively integrated across ESPN’s platforms.

The companies said they will “collaborate to advance their shared commitment to responsible gaming, by dedicating prominent assets to educate, raise customer awareness and promote responsible play through campaigns and integrations.”

DraftKings will provide the betting tab within the ESPN app and its customers will receive special promotions for ESPN’s newly launched direct-to-consumer streaming product.

DraftKings operates in 28 states and in Washington, D.C., and Ontario, Canada, and has more than 10 million customers across its products.

Owned by Hope Creature, the business sells plants, gifts and garden supplies in one building and organic drinks and pastries in another. A 50-foot greenhouse shelters indoor tropicals, organic edibles, drought-tolerant native plants and small potted succulents, which go for less than $2. The outdoor seating area is outfitted with plants available for purchase.

“A lot went into making this space architecturally stunning as well, with every design detail considered,” Creature says. “The space also serves as a platform for our ongoing community programming, which showcases what the space is all about — bringing people together to explore, learn and connect.”

The queer-owned-and-run cafe offers standard coffee fare including matcha, espresso, cortado, cold brew and drip options from local roaster Unity, as well as a selection of teas and pastries.

Handwritten notes. Free product samples. Email responses to questions. And in some cases (shout-out to Surfing Cowboys in Malibu), an old-school phone call to discuss a gift item.

This is the kind of service that sets local businesses apart, offering personalized experiences you won’t find on Amazon.

From independent artists working at home to brands manufacturing in downtown Los Angeles, these businesses offer a diverse range of products and services that reflect the unique character of our city, which has been affected by wildfires, ICE raids and a struggling economy.

The gifts I’ve included here are all from Los Angeles-based businesses. They carry a personal touch — a connection to the people and the city. Some are handmade while others are manufactured, but all of them are a part of our city’s unique fabric.

Let’s keep it going and support small businesses in Los Angeles this holiday season. Our connection to one another is our strength.

If you make a purchase using some of our links, the L.A. Times may be compensated. Prices and availability of items and experiences in the Gift Guide and on latimes.com are subject to change.

Inside a historic aircraft hangar in Playa Vista, crowds of people gathered on Thursday to browse the latest fashions from handbags to clothing and shoes as they prepared for the holiday shopping season.

These weren’t shoppers or retailer buyers browsing for the latest products. Instead, they were YouTube video creators who were being courted by brands from Lowe’s to Shark Beauty to encourage online audiences to buy their products.

Aaron Ramirez, a 22-year-old influencer who focuses on men’s fashion and lifestyle, stood in front of racks of carefully curated shelves of backpacks as he decided which items he would endorse for his 234,000 YouTube subscribers.

“I can make a video about anything that improves my quality of life and add a link to it,” said Ramirez. “I only recommend products that I really use and really like.”

The San Diego resident was among about 300 creators participating in YouTube’s annual benefit for creators dubbed “Holiday House” that helps internet personalities get ready to sell goods during the busy holiday shopping season.

The event — held at the cavernous converted Google offices that once housed Howard Hughes’ famous Spruce Goose plane — underscores YouTube’s desire to be a bigger player in online shopping by leveraging its relationship with creators to promote products in much the same way that rival TikTok does.

In August, YouTube introduced new tools to help its creators better promote products they plug in their videos. One feature uses AI to identify the optimal place on the screen to put a shopping link when an influencer mentions a product. If a customer clicks on that link and makes a purchase, the creator gets a commission.

Brands that were once skeptical about influencers have embraced them over time as sales-tracking tools have improved and the fan base of video creators has mushroomed.

“It’s like the people that you saw on television and before that the people that you listened to on radio who became the trusted personalities in your life,” Earnest Pettie, a trends insight lead at YouTube, said in an interview. “Oprah’s Favorite Things was a phenomenon because of how trusted Oprah was, so it really is that same phenomenon, just diffused across the creator ecosystem.”

Despite economic uncertainty and tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, shoppers in the U.S. are expected to spend $253.4 billion online this holiday season, up 5.3% from a year ago, according to data firm Adobe Analytics.

Social media platforms have helped drive some of that growth. The market share of online revenue in purchases guided by social media affiliates and partners, including influencers, is expected to grow 14%, according to Adobe Analytics.

Cost-conscious consumers are doing more research on how they spend their money, including watching influencer recommendations. In fact, nearly 60% of 14- to 24-year-olds who go online say their personal style have been influenced by content they’ve seen on the internet, according to YouTube.

“It’s more about discovery, understanding where the best deals are, where the best options are,” said Vivek Pandya, director at Adobe Digital Insights. “Many of these users are getting that guidance from their influencers.”

YouTube is one of the top streaming platforms, harnessing 13.1% of viewing time in August on U.S. TV sets, more than rivals Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, according to Nielsen. And shopping-related videos are especially popular among its viewers, with more than 35 billion hours watched each year, according to YouTube.

With YouTube’s shopping feature, viewers can see products, add them to a cart and make purchases directly from the video they’re watching.

Promoting and enabling one-click e-commerce from video has been huge in China, triggering a wave across Asia and the world of livestreaming and recorded shopping videos. Live commerce, also known as live shopping or livestreaming e-commerce, is a potent mix of streaming, chatting and shopping.

The temptation to shop is turbocharged with algorithms like that of TikTok Shop, enticing people to try more channels and products.

1

2

1. YouTube content creators Diana Extein, left, and Candice Waltrip, right, film clothing try-ons during YouTube’s Holiday House shopping event at Google Spruce Goose on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025 in Playa Vista, CA. 2. YouTube content creator Peja Anne, 15, makes a video with beauty products as her mom Kristin Roeder films during YouTube’s Holiday House shopping event at Google Spruce Goose on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025 in Playa Vista, CA.

A YouTube content creator who declined to give her name browses YouTube’s Holiday House shopping event at Google Spruce Goose on Thursday in Playa Vista, Calif.

YouTube content creator Cheraye Lewis’ channel focuses on lifestyle and fragrance, and a brand deal with Fenty Beauty helped launch her content to larger audiences.

More than 500,000 video creators as of July have signed up to be a part of YouTube Shopping, the company said.

Creators who promote products can make money through ads and brand deals, as well as commissions.

YouTube already shares advertising and subscription revenue with its creators and currently does not take a cut from its shopping tools, said Travis Katz, YouTube Shopping vice president.

“For us, it’s really about connecting the dots,” Katz said. “At YouTube we are first and foremost very focused on, how do we make sure that our creators are successful? This gives a new way for creators to monetize.”

Companies like Austin-based BK Beauty, which was founded by YouTube creator Lisa J, said YouTubers have helped drive sales for their products.

“They’ve built these long-term audiences,” said Sophia Monetti, BK Beauty’s senior manager of social commerce and influencer marketing. “A lot of these creators have established channels. They’ve been around for a decade and have just a really engaged community.”

To be sure, YouTube faces a formidable rival in TikTok, which is a leader in the live shopping space (its parent company, Byte Dance, is being sold to an American investor group so that the hugely popular app can keep operating in the U.S.).

Two years ago, the social video company launched TikTok Shop, working with creators and brands on live shopping shows that encourage viewers to buy products. TikTok had 8 million hours of live shopping sessions in 2024.

YouTube says its size and technology create advantages, along with the loyalty its creators build with fans when it comes to product recommendations.

Bridget Dolan, a director of YouTube Shopping Partnerships, said “shopping has been in YouTube’s DNA from Day One” and that the company has been integrating shopping features into its viewing experience.

YouTube content creators peruse products and film content during YouTube’s Holiday House shopping event at Google Spruce Goose on Thursday in Playa Vista, Calif.

Santa Clarita-based YouTube creator Cheraye Lewis said that YouTube Shopping helped her gain traction and earn a trusting audience through quality recommendations. Lewis, who has 109,000 subscribers on YouTube, makes videos about items such as fragrances and skincare products.

Lewis has been a video creator for eight years and has worked with such companies as Rihanna’s beauty brand Fenty.

“I try to inspire women and men to feel bold and confident through the fragrances that they’re wearing,” Lewis said at the event Thursday. “I give my audience real talk, real authenticity.”

New laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom aim to make the artificial intelligence and social media landscape in California safer, especially for minors.

Senate Bill 243, sponsored by state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) will require AI companies to incorporate guardrails that prevent so-called “companion” chatbots from talking to users of any age about suicide or self-harm. It also requires that all AI systems alert minors using the chatbots that they are not human every three hours. The systems also are barred from promoting any sexually explicit conduct to users who are minors.

The law, to be enacted on Jan. 1, follows several lawsuits filed against developers in which families allege their children committed suicide after being influenced by an AI chatbot companion.

In the same vein, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 316, which removes a civil legal defense that some AI developers have been using to make the case that they are not responsible for any harm caused by their products. They have argued that their AI products act autonomously — and so there is no legal case to blame the developers.

In a bill analysis meant for legislators, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) wrote that this change will force developers to vet their product better and ensure that they can be held to account if their product does cause harm to its users.

Another bill, AB 621, increases civil penalties for AI developers who knowingly create nonconsensual “deepfake” AI pornography. The maximum penalties go from $30,000 to $50,000, and from $150,000 to $250,000 in cases where the courts determine that the actions were done with malice.

The author of the bill, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), has pointed out how this technology has been used to harm minors. “In one recent instance,” she noted in an analysis supporting the proposed legislation, “five students were expelled from a Beverly Hills Middle School after creating and sharing AI generated nude photos of their classmates.”

Another AI bill, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) SB 53, was signed into law by Newsom in late September. It will require large AI companies to publicly disclose certain safety and security protocols and report to the state on critical safety incidents. It also creates a public AI computing cluster — CalCompute — that will provide resources to startups and researchers developing large AI systems.

Bauer-Kahan also was the author of AB 56, which will require social media companies to place a warning label on their platforms for minors starting in 2027. The warning label must tell children and teens that social media is associated with mental health issues and may not be safe.

“People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with Big Tech’s failure to protect children who interact with its products. Today, California makes clear that we will not sit and wait for companies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who sponsored the bill, said in a news release. “By adding warning labels to social media platforms, AB 56 gives California a new tool to protect our children.”

Other bills recently approved by Newsom look to challenge the Internet’s grip on young people and their mental health.

AB 1043, for example, will require app stores and device manufacturers to take age data from users in order to ensure that they are complying with age verification requirements. Many tech companies, including Google and Meta, approved of the bill, which was written by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).

AB 772 will require grade K-12 schools in the state to develop a policy by mid-2027 on handling bullying and cyberbullying that happens off campus. “After-school bullying follows the pupil back to school and into the classroom, creating a hostile environment at school,” author and Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) wrote in a bill analysis.

Proponents at the Los Angeles County Office of Education wrote in an earlier analysis that because students these days are constantly connected to the internet, bullying does not stop when school lets out. In addition, social media and texting can broadcast instances of bullying to larger audiences than ever before, according to the analysis.

The California School Boards Assn. opposed AB 772, saying that it wasn’t appropriate for school officials to take responsibility for student actions outside of school. Newsom signed the bill last weekend and included it in a larger package of bills meant to protect children from the effects of social media.

“Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect — but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead and endanger our kids. We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability,” Newsom said in a news release Monday. “We can continue to lead in AI and technology, but we must do it responsibly — protecting our children every step of the way. Our children’s safety is not for sale.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have phased out a range of popular consumer products, including nonstick pots and pans, that contain synthetic chemicals with potential links to cancer.

“I appreciate the efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “I believe we must carefully consider the consequences that may result from a dramatic shift of products on our shelves.”

The legislation would have prohibited the selling or distributing of cookware with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, by 2030. It phased out PFAS in products for infants and children, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging and cleaning products starting in 2028. Previously used items would have been exempt.

Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the legislation, Senate Bill 682, said he will continue to work on the issue moving forward.

“We are obviously disappointed,” he said. “We know there are safer alternatives — [but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.”

Allen previously explained he introduced the bill to help protect the state’s water supply from contamination.

A study released in 2023 by the U.S. Geological Survey found tap water in urban areas of Southern and Central California is more likely to contain PFAS than the drinking water in most of the nation’s other regions.

“The water agencies, sanitation agencies and local governments are faced with increasingly impossible-to-meet standards just to keep the water supply for our constituents clean,” Allen said during a Senate committee meeting in April. “They’re facing the costs while the producers who keep pushing these products out on the market are not being held accountable.”

PFAS are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their well-established longevity. They are linked to adverse health effects, including liver enzyme changes and kidney and testicular cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The chemicals have been used for decades to prevent food from sticking to pans or packaging, or to make materials more resistant to stains. California has taken steps in recent years to ban their use in certain items, like cosmetics and menstrual products.

Dozens of organizations weighed-in on Allen’s bill, with the Sierra Club, California Health Coalition Advocacy and the League of California Cities supporting the legislation.

The Chemical Industry Council of California and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance were among those opposed.

Steve Burns, president of the sustainability alliance, was especially concerned by the provision barring the distribution of the banned products.

“California is the entry point for nonstick cookware and other products that come into the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Oakland, and then get distributed throughout the country,” he told The Times. “They go to warehouses, distribution centers and get loaded up on rail or usually trucks — so there’s a lot of jobs in the California economy that depend on products that have Teflon.”

Burns said science hasn’t shown that all PFAS are harmful and argued California should have studied the issue further. He pointed to Illinois, which recently passed similar legislation but ultimately nixed the line banning nonstick cookware. An amendment instead directs the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess scientific data on fluoropolymers, the type of PFAS used in nonstick pots and pans.

Several states have recently moved toward restricting items with PFAS. Last January, Minnesota became the first state to ban PFAS in cookware. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance filed a lawsuit arguing the law discriminated against out-of-state commerce. A judge dismissed the suit in August.

The sustainability alliance has shared letters of opposition on its website from several prominent chefs and culinary personalities, including cook and television host Rachael Ray and Mark Dommen, the chef at Hestan, a new restaurant in Napa slated to open later this year.

Dommen explained the legislation would have placed an unfair burden on restaurants and food service providers.

“Non-stick cookware is essential to our daily operations and eliminating these products without a viable alternative would drive up costs, disrupt our supply chain, and put California restaurants at a competitive disadvantage,” Dommen wrote.

Ray, who has a cookware line, argued easy-clean cookware helps families eat healthier by making it easier to prepare meals without extra oils or fats.

Her letter drew a gentle rebuke from actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who implored Ray on social media to reconsider her stance and said her advocacy on behalf of the cookware industry was putting the bill in jeopardy.

“Some of us have so much PFAS in our blood that we face a far greater risk of developing cancer,” he wrote in a recent letter shared on X. “Let’s work together to get PFAS out of the everyday products we bring into our home.”

Scientific studies about the health effects of PFAS will continue, according to the CDC.

“Ongoing research has identified associations between PFAS exposure and several health impacts,” the agency’s website states. “There are many factors that can influence the risk of these effects, such as exposure, individual factors and other health determinants. Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity.”

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

Herbert Hoover (1929–1933)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: -9.3%

President Herbert Hoover had the worst average annual GDP growth rate so far at -9.3%. That’s because in October 1929, during Hoover’s first year of his term, the stock market crashed and led to the Great Depression, the most severe and longest economic recession in modern world history.

Hoover took a laissez-faire (low government intervention) approach in response to the Great Depression and vetoed several bills that would have provided relief to Americans impacted by the recession. He also signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law, which raised the costs of important goods and affected trade. The GDP growth rate fell to -12.9% in 1932, while unemployment soared to 25% in 1933.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 10.1%

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had an average annual GDP growth rate of 10.1% during his four-term presidency, the highest growth rate of any president so far. FDR introduced a series of government programs known as the New Deal to help stimulate the economy during the Great Depression. The New Deal aimed to maintain infrastructure, create jobs, and boost businesses across the country. The New Deal also included programs such as Social Security.

While the New Deal did help the economy recover and helped reduce income inequality in the United States, some economists question its true impact on the economy and even say it may have prolonged the recession by several years. Critiques of the New Deal say that too much government aid may have hindered the economy’s natural way of rebounding after a deep recession. Still, economists consider 1941 as the end of the Great Depression because GDP increased and unemployment dropped. This was also the year when the U.S. entered WWII.

FDR’s social programs also came with major tax increases and national debt. Roosevelt contributed the largest percentage increase to the U.S. national debt between his New Deal initiatives and, more significantly, spending on World War II.

Harry S. Truman (1945–1953)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 1.4%

President Harry Truman had an average annual GDP growth rate of 1.4%. The economy went through two mild recessions during Truman’s term: one in 1945 due to a drop in government spending after the end of WWII and another from 1948 to 1949 as the economy corrected in the wake of a postwar spending boom.

Truman had the difficult job of transitioning the economy from wartime to peacetime without sending it into a recession, and, in large part, did manage to maintain a healthy peacetime economy. Truman also wanted to extend some of the New Deal’s economic programs, such as a higher minimum wage and housing. Still, only a few of his proposals became law due to facing opposition in CongressTruman’s’s Marshall Plan sent $12 billion to help rebuild Western Europe after WWII, boosting the U.S. economy by creating a demand for American goods. The Korean War began durinTruman’s’s term in 1950, leading to $30 billion in government spending that helped boost economic growth under Truman.

Dwight Eisenhower (1953–1961)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.8%

President Dwight D. Eisenhower had an annual GDP growth rate of 2.8%. During his time in office, the economy experienced three recessions, and the Korean War ended in 1953. Eisenhower helped boost economic growth with the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which aimed to rebuild the country’s interstate highways. The government spent a total of $119 billion on the project.

The economy contracted into a recession again from 1957 to 1958 when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. However, Eisenhower refused to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, instead opting to maintain a balanced budget.

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 5.2%

President John F. Kennedy had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.2%. Kennedy and his administration helped end the 1960 recession (the fourth major recession since WWII) by increasing domestic and military spending. Kennedy also raised the minimum wage and increased Social Security benefits. 

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 5.2%

President Lyndon B. Johnson had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.2%. LBJ was sworn in two hours after Kennedy’s assassination and was re-elected in 1964 after getting 61% of the vote.

Johnson increased government spending and pushed through tax cuts and the civil rights bill proposed during Kennedy’s term. Johnson’s Great Society program in 1965 created social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and public housing. While the economy grew under LBJ with strong businesses and low unemployment, prices began to rise rapidly, and inflation ticked up. However, Johnson did not raise taxes to curb spending and cool inflation. Johnson also escalated the Vietnam War, which began during his term, but he was unable to end it.

Richard Nixon (1969–1974)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.7%

President Richard Nixon had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.7%. Though Nixon attempted to cool the inflation that began during LBJ’s term without causing a recession, his economic policies caused a period of stagflation that lasted for a decade. This period was a result of double-digit inflation and economic contraction.

Nixon imposed tariffs and wage-price controls, which led to layoffs and slower growth. The value of the dollar also fell during Nixon’s term when he ended the gold standard. The aftermath of Nixon’s economic policies is called the Nixon Shock.

Gerald R. Ford (1974–1977)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 5.4%

President Gerald R. Ford had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.4%. The economy had contracted and was in a recession from 1974 to 1975 due to stagflation from Nixon’s time. Ford and his administration cut taxes and reduced regulation to stabilize the economy, and ended the recession. However, inflation remained high.

Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.8%

President Jimmy Carter had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.8%. Stagflation continued into Carter’s term, and was made worse by an energy crisis that led to soaring gas prices and shortages. Carter deregulated oil prices to stimulate domestic production and also deregulated the airline and trucking industries. The Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, however, led to economic contraction. Carter also had the highest inflation rate among U.S. presidents to date.

Ronald Reagan (1981–1989)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 3.6%

President Ronald Reagan had an average annual GDP growth rate of 3.6%. The economy went into a recession in 1981 after the Fed raised interest rates to 20% in an effort to cool inflation.

Reagan’s economic policies, later known as Reaganomics, aimed to end the recession through decreased government spending, tax cuts, increased military spending, and reduced social spending. While these policies helped bring inflation down, Reagan added over $1.86 trillion to the national debt and made the budget deficit worse. Critics of Reagan’s economic policies also say he widened the nation’s wealth gap, and that his deregulation of the financial services industry may have contributed to the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989.

George H.W. Bush (1989–1993)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 1.8%

President George H.W. Bush had an average annual GDP growth rate of 1.8%. Bush’s administration had to contend with the fallout of the Savings and Loan Crisis, which unfolded during the 1980s and 1990s and contributed to a recession in 1990–1991. In 1989, Bush agreed to a $100 billion government bailout plan to help banks out of the Savings and Loan Crisis. Bush also raised taxes and cut government spending in an effort to reduce the budget deficit.

Bill Clinton (1993–2001)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 4.0% 

President Bill Clinton had an average annual GDP growth rate of 4%. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, with 22.5 million jobs created in Clinton’s two terms. Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which increased growth by getting rid of tariffs between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton also lowered the national debt, creating a budget surplus of $70 billion. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and briefly cut government spending to reform welfare.

George W. Bush (2001–2009)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.4%

President George W. Bush had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.4%. Bush’s two terms came with major events such as the 9/11 attacks (2001), Hurricane Katrina (2005), and the 2008 recession. Bush launched the War on Terror by creating and expanding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to the 9/11 attacks. Bush also faced the Great Recession in 2008, which was considered the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Bush’s military spending and significant tax cuts in response to the recession added about $4 trillion to the national debt.

Barack Obama (2009–2017)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.3%

President Barack Obama had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.3%. Obama ended the 2008 recession he inherited with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), an $831 billion stimulus package passed by Congress aimed at cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and improving infrastructure and education. However, Obama is the president who added the most to the national debt, in dollar amounts, with his recession relief measures.

Still, Obama bailed out the auto industry in the U.S. and created 11.3 million new jobs during his two terms. Inflation and interest rates also remained low. He also ended the Iraq War and reduced troops in Afghanistan. Obama’s economic policies, now known as Obamanomics, were controversial at the time, and his role in ending the 2008 recession is still debated.

Donald Trump (2017–2020)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 2.3% 

President Donald Trump had an average annual GDP growth rate of 2.3%. While there were no major wars or recessions during Trump’s presidency, he did face the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, his last year in office. Trump increased spending and cut taxes, while the Fed raised interest rates in response to Trump’s expansionary fiscal policies.

Trump placed import taxes on products from China, particularly steel and aluminum, to boost sales of American-made products. However, it hurt the sales of American exports instead, as China responded by placing tariffs on products it imported from the U.S. It also increased costs for American consumers. 

The economy went into recession with the onset of the COVID-19 public health crisis in March 2020 as businesses closed down and Americans sheltered in place. The recession was short but severe, and the Trump administration responded by declaring a state of emergency and passing a $2 trillion stimulus package called the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act. The CARES Act provided relief for businesses and individuals through stimulus payments and a pause on student loan payments, among other measures, but it was not enough to pull the economy out of the pandemic-induced recession.

Joe Biden (2021–2025)

Average Annual GDP Growth Rate: 3.2%

President Joe Biden had an annual average GDP growth of 3.2%, with a cumulative real GDP increase of 12.6% over his term, highlighted by a 5.7% growth in 2021. Biden took office in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic and signed the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which was a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide economic relief from the pandemic.

While the recession caused by the pandemic was severe, it was short-lived. However, it was followed by record-high inflation, partly due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused soaring gas prices in 2022, supply chain snarls, higher demand for goods, and increased consumer spending from federal stimulus checks. The Federal Reserve responded by raising interest rates 11 times in an attempt to cool inflation. In July 2024, inflation cooled to 2.9%, and the Fed signaled a rate cut.

How Does the President Impact GDP?

Since GDP is the most popular way to measure economic growth, it can show us how the economy performed under each U.S. president. The economy’s performance under a president is an important factor that voters consider when evaluating a president’s time in office. Additionally, economic policies are one of the primary issues that presidents address during their campaigns.

Presidents indeed play a role in determining GDP. The president and Congress set fiscal policy to help direct the economy. The executive and legislative branches, for instance, can lower taxes and increase government spending to boost the economy, or do the opposite.

While the president plays an important role in guiding the economy, external factors that can slow down the economy—such as wars, recessions, or public health crises—also significantly impact the economy and can be out of the president’s control. In addition, the Federal Reserve—which is independent of the federal government—sets monetary policy, which influence the economy as well.

The Bottom Line

Looking at GDP growth is one of the most widely used measures of economic growth, as it is considered one of the most accurate economic indicators. Since a president’s economic policies can have a significant impact on GDP, it can be used as a way to examine how the economy did under each U.S. president.

However, it is essential to remember that certain economic events, such as severe recessions, natural disasters, public health crises, and other catastrophic events, can significantly impact the economy and have little to do with who is in office. Still, the way a president, along with the central bank, sets and enacts monetary policy in response to such events also influences the economy.

In December, DeShaun Foster touted mass turnover as a reason to think he could win big in Year 2, citing the quick turnaround at Colorado under Deion Sanders.

On Saturday, UCLA’s football coach used mass turnover as an explanation for his team’s 0-2 start.

“I have a lot of new people,” Foster said after his team’s 30-23 loss to Nevada Las Vegas at Allegiant Stadium left it as the only winless team in the Big Ten. “I’m not somebody who’s going to come up here and give you guys excuses and everything, but I have a lot of new people and we’re still finding ways to come together and really rely on each other and we’re going to continue to build and it’s a long season.”

In other words, said a coach making $3.1 million this season, don’t blame me.

Somebody needs to take accountability for spending all this money on such a lifeless product. New UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk posted a picture of himself at the season opener against Utah on social media, calling it a “blast” to cheer on the team, which was an admirable show of support in tough circumstances.

They just got a lot tougher for everyone in blue and gold.

Asked about his restrictive media policies before the season, Foster said winning would do the marketing for his team. Well, how’s that going?

There’s a real chance that the actual crowd inside the Rose Bowl on Friday night when the Bruins face New Mexico (1-1) could fall below 10,000, setting a record low.

Importing 57 new players on any team is going to lead to some misses, but it’s already apparent that UCLA’s talent evaluation was way off the mark. Maybe there was a reason a group filled with transfers coming off injuries and underwhelming starts to their college careers was available.

Compounding this situation in some fans’ eyes is the fact that these players are now getting paid — in some cases making CEO money — to play for a team that looks so woefully unprepared and undertalented, having fallen behind 20-0 against Utah and 23-0 against UNLV.

While quarterback Nico Iamaleava hasn’t been the savior some envisioned after arriving from Tennessee, he also hasn’t been the problem. He’s made some mistakes while also playing at a high enough level to win if he was surrounded by more talent.

He’s also been perhaps the only one associated with the team to take a measure of responsibility for UCLA’s worst start since it lost its first three games in 2019.

“I think that just starts with me, man,” Iamaleava said of the slow starts leading to losses. “I gotta be better coming out. I started off a little slow on the first drive coming out. And, yeah, I think overall, man, we got to clean up a lot of stuff.”

To their credit, UCLA coaches tried making some personnel changes after that clunker of a season opener. Edge rusher Kechaun Bennett and linebacker Isaiah Chisom moved into the starting lineup, and things started to coalesce on both sides of the ball in the second half while the Bruins outscored the Rebels, 20-7. (There was also some puzzling use of the running backs rotation when UCLA failed to score a touchdown after getting a first and goal at the UNLV one-yard line, but we digress.)

The bottom line is that there was a reason UNLV’s last win over a Big Ten team before Saturday had come in 2003 — the Rebels play in the Mountain West Conference and have far fewer resources than their Power Four conference counterparts.

So where do the Bruins go from here? Rebound and beat New Mexico before a smattering of friends and family on the way to four or five wins? Would that be good enough?

Somebody needs to step up and tell UCLA fans why they should still care about this team and spend money on a product that, frankly, isn’t even mediocre right now.

Kicker Mateen Bhaghani during the Iowa game last year.

(MediaNews Group/Pasadena Star-News via Getty Images / MediaNews Group via Getty Images)

Let’s just say if your kids got these kinds of grades two weeks into the school year, you’d be calling for a parent-teacher conference ASAP.

Quarterbacks: B. Iamaleava sparked his team’s comeback but also threw the pass that sealed defeat. It’s more than a little concerning that he’s the team’s leading rusher through two games.

Running backs: D. Jalen Berger was probably not the best option on those goal-line plays that came up empty. Jaivian Thomas and Anthony Woods need to be the guys moving forward.

Receivers: C. Kwazi Gilmer flashed his big-play potential again with a juggling catch and ability to continually generate separation. But it doesn’t appear he’ll need to clear room on the mantle for the Biletnikoff Award.

Offensive line: D. The lineup shuffle with Garrett DiGiorgio at left tackle and Reuben Unije at right tackle appears to be the way the rest of the season. But guard Julian Armella can’t keep committing dumb penalties.

Defensive line: C-. The Bruins got a sack! The Bruins got a sack! Sacks by Bennett and Anthony Jones that represented the team’s first of the season did little to mask the ongoing issues in generating a consistent pass rush.

Linebackers: C-. JonJon Vaughns has logged double digits in tackles in consecutive games, but does it matter when you’re 0-2?

Defensive backs: D. Getting burned by UNLV quarterback Anthony Colandrea for three touchdowns is not acceptable.

Special teams: B+. Kicker Mateen Bhaghani, now four for four on field goals, is on pace to be the team MVP.

Coaching: F. There’s no way you can justify falling behind 23-0 to UNLV one week after that abomination of a season opener.

Olympic sport spotlight: Men’s water polo

Ben Liechty was also a standout water polo player at Newport Harbor High.

(Raul Roa)

The best team in the country rolls on.

Having already beaten No. 14 Cal Baptist, No. 19 George Washington, No. 12 UC San Diego, No. 14 UC Davis and No. 20 Navy, the top-ranked UCLA men’s water polo team notched its most impressive victory of the season Saturday with a 16-9 victory over No. 4 Fordham.

For good measure, the Bruins added a 24-10 romp over Bucknell later in the day.

The Bruins (7-0) have been so dominant that they have posted 10 or more different scorers in every game this season. Redshirt senior Chase Dodd and junior Ben Liechty led the way against Fordham with one goal and three assists apiece.

The schedule doesn’t get any easier for UCLA, which plays No. 7 UC Irvine in its home opener at noon Friday before facing No. 16 Harvard later in the day. Might Bruins fans have a better time showing up at Dirks Pool at Spieker Aquatics Center than the Rose Bowl?

Opinion time

Who is most culpable for the state of UCLA football?

Coach DeShaun Foster

Athletic director Martin Jarmond

Former chancellor Gene Block

The college football gods

Click here to vote in our survey

Poll results

We asked last Monday, “Does UCLA’s football team rally immediately against the soft pocket of its schedule, or fall further into despair before facing Penn State on Oct. 4 at the Rose Bowl?” The results, after 607 votes:

The Bruins go 2-1 over their next three games, 38.9%
The Bruins go 1-2 over their next three games, 29.1%
The Bruins go 3-0 over their next three games, 21.1%
The Bruins go 0-3 over their next three games, 10.9%

In case you missed it

UCLA backup quarterback Pierce Clarkson arrested on felony charges

UCLA’s loss to UNLV showcases its plethora of problems once again

Think attendance is bad at the Rose Bowl? It may be worse than you imagined

Have something Bruin?

Do you have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future UCLA newsletter? Email me at [email protected], and follow me on X @latbbolch. To order an autographed copy of my book, “100 Things UCLA Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die,” send me an email. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution announced Thursday it would no longer be printing paper editions of the newspaper and will instead focus only on its digital product, which is expected to see double-digit growth this year.

The newspaper, which has existed under various flags since 1868, will become a purely digital platform beginning Jan. 1, 2026, the AJC announced. President and Publisher Andrew Morse said the change will eliminate 30 full- and part-time jobs involved in producing the the physical newspaper.

The AJC reported it has invested “millions” in technology and new reporting techniques in an effort to modernize its product. As part of that investment, the AJC moved its offices back into Midtown Atlanta after operating for years in the suburbs and based reporters in Athens, Macon and Savannah.

The newspaper said it’s on track to increase digital subscriptions by 25% to 35% this year.

“We will begin the new year as a fully digital organization, committed, as always to being the most essential and engaging news source for the people of Atlanta, Georgia and the South,” Morse said in a letter to subscribers Thursday.

A Pew Research Center survey published in 2023 found that U.S. adults aren’t following the news as closely as previous years, and they’re increasingly eschewing traditional forms of media such as print newspapers, local TV news and public radio. Daily circulation rates in 2022 were less than 21 million across the country, down from a height of more than 60 million in the 1960s to 1990s.

Morse said the digital move was not enforced by the newspaper’s owner, Cox Enterprises.

Cox CEO Alex Taylor said the news organization is critical to the community.

“This change will allow us to reduce the use of trees, plastic, water and carbon, while at the same time increasing our focus on news gathering and public accountability,” Taylor said. “I’m proud of our team for making these decisions, as much as I will miss the nostalgia of seeing the paper in my driveway every morning.”

JOHANNESBURG — U.S. reciprocal tariffs have put an estimated 30,000 jobs at risk, South African authorities said Monday, four days before a 30% U.S. tariff on most imports from South Africa kicks in.

South Africa was slapped with one of the highest tariff rates by its third-largest trading partner — after China and the EU — creating uncertainty for the future of some export industries and catapulting a scramble for new markets outside the U.S. Tariffs come into effect on Aug. 8.

In an update on mitigation measures, a senior government official warned that an estimated 30,000 jobs were in jeopardy if the response to the higher tariffs was “mismanaged”.

“We base this on the ongoing consultations that we have with all the sectors of the economy from automotive, agriculture and all the other sectors that are going to be impacted,” said Simphiwe Hamilton, director-general of the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition.

South Africa is already grappling with stubbornly high unemployment rates. The official rate was 32.9% in the first quarter of 2025 according to StatsSA, the national statistical agency, while the youth unemployment rate increased from 44.6% in the fourth quarter of 2024 to 46,1% in the first quarter of 2025.

In his weekly public letter on Monday, President Cyril Ramaphosa said that South Africa must adapt swiftly to the tariffs since they could have a big impact on the economy, the industries that rely heavily on exports to the U.S. and the workers they employ.

“As government, we have been engaging the United States to enhance mutually beneficial trade and investment relations. All channels of communication remain open to engage with the US,” he said.

“Our foremost priority is protecting our export industries. We will continue to engage the US in an attempt to preserve market access for our products.”

President Trump has been highly critical of the country’s Black-led government over a new land law he claims discriminates against white people.

Negotiations with the U.S. have been complicated and unprecedented, according to South Africa’s ministers, who denied rumors that the lack of an ambassador in the U.S affected the result of the talks. The Trump administration expelled Ebrahim Rasool, South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, in mid-March, accusing him of being a “race-baiting politician” who hates Trump.

International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola highlighted that even countries with ambassadors in the U.S. and allies of Washington had been hard hit with tariffs. However, Lamola confirmed that the process of appointing a replacement for Rasool was “at an advanced stage”.

The U.S. accounts for 7.5% of South Africa’s global exports. However, several sectors, accounting for 35% of exports to the U.S., remain exempt from the tariffs. These include copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber products, certain critical minerals, stainless steel scrap and energy products remain exempted from the tariffs.

The government has been scrambling to diversify South Africa’s export markets, particularly by deepening intra-African trade. Countries across Asia and the Middle East, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have been touted as opportunities for high-growth markets. The government said it had made significant progress in opening vast new markets like China and Thailand, securing vital protocols for products like citrus.

The government has set up an Export Support Desk to aid manufacturers and exporters in South Africa search for alternate markets.

While welcoming the establishment of the Export Support Desk, an independent association representing some of South Africa’s biggest and most well-known businesses called for a trade crisis committee to be established that brings together business leaders and government officials, including from the finance ministry.

Business Leadership South Africa said such a committee would ensure fast, coordinated action to open new markets, provide financial support, and maintain employment.

“U.S. tariffs pose a severe threat to South Africa’s manufacturing and farming sectors, particularly in the Eastern Cape. While businesses can eventually adapt, urgent temporary support is essential,” said BLSA in a statement.

Gumede writes for the Associated Press.

July 29 (UPI) — ChatGPT has unveiled a new function on the widely used intelligence app that it claims will help students learn instead of just feeding them easy answers.

Research company OpenAI announced in a blog post Tuesday the addition of “study mode” for the chatbot that is capable of engaging in human-like conversations and offering quick answers to users’ questions. The company’s announcement appears aimed at concerns that since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, the technology has contributed to student cheating, undercutting learning and a broader dumbing down of society.

Students who use the new mode to complete homework and prepare for exams will be “met with guiding questions that calibrate responses to their objective and skill level to help them build deeper understanding,” according to the company’s blog post.

ChatGPT draws on massive amounts of text to generate responses. Study mode was developed with input from teachers, scientists and other experts that OpenAI claims will encourage deeper learning while offering feedback. The new function includes interactive prompts, Socratic questioning, responses that seek to highlight connections, quizzes and other features.

Leah Belsky, OpenAI’s vice president of education, told TechCrunch in a press briefing that the company is not giving parents or administrators a way to lock students in study mode but said it may introduce those types of controls later.

Glenn Kleiman, a senior adviser at Stanford University’s graduate school of education, told EducationWeek that study mode will help educators but he had questions about how well it would work.

“These are unknowns at this point,” he said.

Study mode is available to logged in users for the Free, Plus, Pro and Team versions of the app. It will be available for its Edu version in coming weeks.

July 23 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission as the case proceeds through the courts in another emergency appeal on firings backed by the conservative-dominated court.

The court, in a 6-3 opinion along ideological lines, ruled in a lawsuit brought by Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., who were nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said the court majority decided on the emergency appeal to “destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress.”

The majority opinion was unsigned and based upon an earlier 6-3 order that allowed the dismissal of two independent labor boards in Trump vs. Wilcox: the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,” the court ruled. “The stay we issued in Wilcox reflected ‘our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.’

“The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect.”

The order is stayed pending disposition by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va. On July 1, the three-judge panel rejected Trump’s request for an administrative stay pending appeal.

“Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority, and no court has found that constraint unconstitutional,” the appeals court said. “The district court correctly declined to permit a President — any President — to disregard those limits.”

District Judge Matthew Maddox found on June 13 that Trump’s removal was unlawful and blocked it. Maddox, who serves in Maryland, was appointed by President Joe Biden.

“Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public’s interest in safe consumer products,” Maddox wrote in his decision. “This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs’ participation on the CPSC.”

The terms of the five members are staggered to overlap during presidencies.

Boyle’s term was to end in October after filling a vacancy in 2022, with Hoehn-Saric in October 2027 and Trumka in October 2028. The board consists of five members, and they are operating as a two-member quorum, which is allowed for six months.

The remaining members are Acting Chairman Peter Feldman, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, and Republican Douglas Dziak, who was appointed by Biden in 2024.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court ruling that Maddox’s decision has “sown chaos and dysfunction” at the agency.

In May, the three commissioners were notified their positions were terminated immediately. A president can legally only remove a commissioner for neglect of duty of malfeasance.

The court has allowed the termination of employees as the cases proceed through the courts.

Lower court judges have relied on a decision in 1935, called Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, about the mass firings. The Supreme Court has said it will act on this matter.

On July 14, the justices allowed the Trump administration to mass fire half of the Education Department. Trump wants the agency abolished, and the court has not ruled on that decision, which requires a vote by the U.S. Senate.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was created in 1972, protects consumers from dangerous products, including issuing safety standards and recalls.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat representing Minnesota, criticized the decision, saying: “For over 50 years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been free from politics so it can remain focused on its core mission of keeping Americans safe – from banning lead paint, to ensuring electronics aren’t fire hazards, to making swimming pools safe for kids. Last year alone, the Commission recalled 153 million unsafe items.”

“By firing the three Democratic commissioners, the President has undermined the independent structure of the Commission and its critical work — and the Supreme Court is letting it happen,” added the member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The Supreme Court signaled again Wednesday that it believes the president has the power to fire the leaders of agencies and commissions that Congress said were independent.

Granting another emergency appeal, the justices set aside a Baltimore judge’s order and upheld President Trump’s decision to fire the three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In a brief order, the conservative majority said it had said agency officials may be fired by the president.

The three liberals dissented.

“Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “By allowing the President to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with Trump and against district judges on matters related to federal agencies, including their spending, staffing and leadership.

They believe the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to control the government, including by firing and replacing the heads of agencies, boards and commissions.

They have ruled for Trump even when his removal orders conflicted with the law as established by Congress.

At issue is whether Congress holds the power to structure the government or instead whether the president has the executive authority to reshape it .

Since 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was established to set railroad rates, Congress has created independent agencies with the aim of giving non-partisan experts the authority to regulate in the public interest.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was established in 1972 to be led by five members who were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They would have seven-year terms and could be fired only for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

The commission investigates complaints about hazardous products, and it can require warning labels, order their recall or remove them from the market.

In May, the Trump White House told the commission’s three Democratic appointees — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — they were “terminated” but without accusing them of wrongdoing or malfeasance.

They sued in a federal court in Maryland where the CPSC has its headquarters. U.S. District Judge Michael Maddox, a Biden appointee, ruled the firings were illegal and reinstated the three to their positions.

The judge pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision that protected the constitutionality of “traditional multi-member independent agencies.”

The court’s opinion in the case of Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and those who served on a board “with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions.”

But the court’s conservatives have hinted they may overturn that precedent.

Five years ago, Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court and ruled the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau can be fired by the president, even though Congress had said otherwise.

But since that case did not involve a multi-member board or commission, it did not overrule the 1935 precedent.

In late May, however, the court cleared the way for Trump to fire a Democratic appointee on the National Labor Relations Board and a second on the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said then in an unsigned order.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, said that decision should have cleared the way for the firing of the three members of the CPSC.

But the 4th Circuit Court stood behind Maddox’s order.

The Constitution “entrusts Congress with the power to design independent agencies that serve the public interest free from political pressure,” said Judge James Wynn of the 4th Circuit. “Here, Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority. … The district court correctly declined to permit a President — any President — to disregard those limits.”

June 30 (UPI) — Home Depot on Monday announced an agreement to buy GMS, a leading specialty building products distributor.

The deal, which is expected to be completed in 2026, will see Home Depot acquire GMS for $4.3 billion as it aims to draw in more sales from contractors and other home professionals.

GMS is a distributor of specialty products which include drywall, ceilings, steel framing and other products related to construction and remodeling projects in residential and commercial end markets.

“We are excited to join with SRS and The Home Depot, and we believe this transaction delivers significant value to our customers, suppliers and team,” said president and CEO of GMS, John C. Turner, Jr.

GMS shares were up more than 11%, while Home Depots’ rose slightly in early trading.

Home Depot subsidiary SRS distribution will buy all shares of GMS for $110, as part of the deal, the company said. The total enterprise value is approximately $5.5 billion.

“The combination of GMS and SRS will provide the residential and commercial Pro customer with more fulfillment and service options than ever before. Together, we’ll create a network of more than 1,200 locations and a fleet of more than 8,000 trucks capable of making tens of thousands of jobsite deliveries per day,” said CEO of SRS, Dan Tinker. “GMS is an industry leader with a proven track record of growth, and we look forward to welcoming the entire GMS team to SRS and capturing the exciting opportunity ahead.”

The GMS acquisition is expected to be completed by early 2026, Home Depot said.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies.

The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Biden.

After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause” — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question.

But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president’s authority extends to dismissing federal employees who “exercise significant executive power,” according to court filings.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful.

He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members “without cause.” Its three liberal justices dissented.

In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president’s authority, finding “no constitutional defect” in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners.

The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.

During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises “substantial executive authority.”

Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose.

Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president’s removal power would violate his constitutional authority.

After Trump announced the Democrats’ firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course.

“This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,” they wrote.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president’s party. They serve staggered terms.

That structure ensures that each president has “the opportunity to influence, but not control,” the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission’s independence.

Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday.

“Today’s opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,” he said in a statement.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

State waste officials have taken another stab at rules implementing a landmark plastic waste law, more than two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom torpedoed their initial proposal.

CalRecycle, the state agency that oversees waste management, recently proposed a new set of draft regulations to implement SB 54, the 2022 law designed to reduce California’s single-use plastic waste. The law was designed to shift the financial onus of waste reduction from the state’s people, towns and cities to the companies and corporations that make the polluting products. It was also intended to reduce the amount of single use plastics that end up in California’s waste stream.

The draft regulations proposed last week largely mirror the ones introduced earlier this year, which set the rules, guidelines and parameters of the program — but with some minor and major tweaks.

The new ones clarify producer obligations and reporting timelines, said organizations representing packaging and plastics companies, such as the Circular Action Alliance and the California Chamber of Commerce.

But they also include a broad set of exemptions for a wide variety of single-use plastics — including any product that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over, which includes all packaging related to produce, meat, dairy products, dog food, toothpaste, condoms, shampoo and cereal boxes, among other products.

The rules also leave open the possibility of using chemical or alternative recycling as a method for dealing with plastics that can’t be recycled via mechanical means, said people representing environmental, recycling and waste hauling companies and organizations.

California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, filed a suit against ExxonMobil last year that, in part, accuses the oil giant of deceptive claims regarding chemical recycling, which the company disputes.

Critics say the introduction of these exemptions and the opening for polluting recycling technologies will undermine and kneecap a law that just three years ago Newsom’s office described as “nation-leading” and “the most significant overhaul of the state’s plastic and packaging policy in history.”

The “gaping hole that the new exemptions have blown” into the bill make it unworkable, practically unfundable, and antithetical to its original purpose of reducing plastic waste, said Heidi Sanborn, director of the National Stewardship Action Council.

Last March, after nearly three years of negotiations among various corporate, environmental, waste, recycling and health stakeholders, CalRecycle drafted a set of finalized regulations designed to implement the single-use plastic producer responsibility program under SB 54.

But as the deadline for implementation approached, industries that would be affected by the regulations including plastic producers and packaging companies — represented by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Circular Action Alliance — began lobbying the governor, complaining the regulations were poorly developed and might ultimately increase costs for California taxpayers.

Newsom allowed the regulations to expire and told CalRecycle it needed to start the process over.

Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said Newsom was concerned about the program’s potential costs for small businesses and families, which a state analysis estimated could run an extra $300 per year per household.

He said the new draft regulations “are a step in the right direction” and they ensure “California’s bold recycling law can achieve its goal of cutting plastic pollution,” said Villaseñor in a statement.

John Myers, a spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce, whose members include the American Chemistry Council, Western Plastics Assn. and the Flexible Packaging Assn., said the chamber was still reviewing the changes.

CalRecycle is holding a workshop next Tuesday to discuss the draft regulations. Once CalRecycle decides to finalize the regulations, which experts say could happen at any time, it moves into a 45 day official rule making period during which time the regulations are reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. If it’s considered legally sound and the governor is happy, it becomes official.

The law, which was authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D- Santa Monica) and signed by Newsom in 2022, requires that by 2032, 100% of single-use packaging and plastic foodware produced or sold in the state must be recyclable or compostable, that 65% of it can be recycled, and that the total volume is reduced by 25%.

The law was written to address the mounting issue of plastic pollution in the environment and the growing number of studies showing the ubiquity of microplastic pollution in the human body — such as in the brain, blood, heart tissue, testicles, lungs and various other organs.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.

Most of these single-use plastic packaging products cannot be recycled, and as they break-down in the environment — never fully-decomposing — they contribute to the growing burden of microplastics in the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil that nourishes our crops.

The law falls into a category of extended producer responsibility laws that now regulate the handling of paint, carpeting, batteries and textiles in California — requiring producers to see their products throughout their entire life cycle, taking financial responsibility for their products’ end of life.

Theoretically such programs, which have been adopted in other states, including Washington, Oregon and Colorado, spur technological innovation and potentially create circular economies — where products are designed to be reused, recycled or composted.

Sanborn said the new exemptions not only potentially turn the law “into a joke,” but will also dry up the program’s funding and instead put the financial burden on the consumer and the few packaging and single-use plastic manufacturers that aren’t included in the exemptions.

“If you want to bring the cost down, you’ve got to have a fair and level playing field where all the businesses are paying in and running the program. The more exemptions you give, the less funding there is, and the less fair it is,” she said.

In addition, because of the way residential and commercial packaging waste is collected, “it’s all going to get thrown away together, so now you have less funding” to deal with the same amount of waste, but for which only a small number of companies will be accountable for sorting out their material and making sure it gets disposed of properly.

Others were equally miffed, including Allen, the bill’s author, who said in a statement that while there are some improvements in the new regulations, there are “several provisions that appear to conflict with law,” including the widespread exemptions and the allowance of polluting recycling technologies.

“If the purpose of the law is to reduce single-use plastic ad plastic pollution,” said Anja Braden from the Ocean Conservancy, these new regulations aren’t going to do it — they are “inconsistent with the law and fully undermine its purpose and goal.”

She also said the exemptions preclude technological innovation, dampening incentives for companies to explore new recyclable and compostable packaging materials.

Nick Lapis with Californians Against Waste, said his organization was “really disappointed to see the administration caving to industry on some core parts of this program,” and also noted his read suggests many of the changes don’t comply with the law.

Next Tuesday, the public will have an opportunity to express their concerns at a rulemaking workshop in Sacramento.

However, Sanborn fears there will be little time or appetite from the agency or the governor’s office to make substantial changes to the new regulations.

“They’re basically already cooked,” said Sanborn, noting CalRecycle had already accepted public comments during previous rounds and iterations.

“California should be the leader at holding the bar up in this space,” she said. “I’m afraid this has dropped the bar very low.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office said Tuesday that President Trump’s tariff policies will reduce state revenues in California by $16 billion through next year.

Despite personal income tax and corporate tax receipts in the state coming in $6.8 billion above projections through April, the Newsom administration is predicting that overall revenues will be lower than they could have been from January 2025 through June 2026 because of the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs.

The governor released the new information, which his team dubbed the “Trump Slump,” on the eve of the presentation of his revised 2025-26 state budget plan, seeking to blame the president for California’s expected revenue shortfall. His office has not released any additional figures about the state budget.

Newsom is expected on Wednesday to project a deficit for California in the year ahead with Medi-Cal costs exceeding expectations, including his signature policy to provide free healthcare coverage to low-income undocumented immigrants. The new shortfall comes in addition to $27.3 billion in financial remedies, including $16.1 billion in cuts and a $7.1 billion withdrawal from the state’s rainy day fund, that lawmakers and the governor already agreed to make in 2025-26.

The deficit marks the third year in a row that Newsom and lawmakers have been forced to reduce spending after dedicating more money to programs than the state has available to spend. Poor projections, the ballooning cost of Democratic policy promises and a reluctance to make long-term sweeping cuts have added to the deficit at a time when the governor regularly touts California’s place as the fourth largest economy in the world.

Trump implemented a series of tariffs on all imported goods, higher taxes on products from goods from Mexico, Canada and China, and specific levies on products and materials such as autos and aluminum, in April. The president has backed down from some of his tariffs, but Newsom alleges that the policies and economic uncertainty will lead to higher unemployment, inflation, lower GDP projections and less capital gains revenue for California.

California filed a lawsuit last month arguing that Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs on his own. On Tuesday, the state said it will seek a preliminary injunction to freeze the tariffs in federal court.