proposal

With the symbolic passing of a golden bear pin, Democratic businessman Stephen Cloobeck announced Monday evening that he was bowing out of the governor’s race and throwing his support behind noted Trump critic and close friend Rep. Eric Swalwell.

Cloobeck shared this news while appearing alongside Swallwell on CNN, saying that the San Francisco Bay Area Democrat will be the “greatest leader of this great state California.”

“I’m happy to say tonight that I’m going to merge my campaign into his and give him all the hard work that I’ve worked on,” said Cloobeck.

The announcement puts an end to the entrepreneur and philanthropist’s first-ever political campaign, which he funded through a fortune amassed in the real estate industry. In a recent UC Berkeley poll co-sponsored by The Times, Cloobeck received less than half of 1% of the support of registered voters polled.

Cloobeck said he had launched his run because he could not find a single qualified candidate — that was until Swalwell tossed his hat into the ring last week, sending an infusion of energy into the relatively sleepy race.

Pin now affixed to the lapel of his navy blue suit, Swalwell thanked his pal for the support and said he was looking forward to drawing on Cloobeck’s expertise as he worked to bring more housing and small business to the Golden State.

Swalwell, a former Republican who unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, has said he is seeking the governorship to combat the threats President Trump poses to the state and to increase housing affordability and homeownership for Californians.

During his Monday evening interview, Swalwell doubled down on his proposal to implement a vote-by-phone system, despite the sharp criticism it invoked from the White House and two of his Republican challengers for governor, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative political commentator Steve Hilton.

Swalwell said the proposal would make democracy more accessible, contending that if phones are secure enough to access finances and healthcare records, then they can be made secure enough to cast a ballot.

The backing of Cloobeck, a major Democratic donor, is good news for the congressman, who seeks to make a splash in an unusually wide open race to lead the world’s fourth-largest economy and the country’s most populous state.

About 44% of registered voters said in late October they did not have a preferred candidate for governor. The recent decisions of former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla to opt out of the running further solidified that the state’s top job is anyone’s to win.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Sudan’s army chief Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan blasted a new US-led ceasefire plan as “the worst one presented,” accusing mediators — including the United Arab Emirates — of bias. The RSF says it accepted the truce. Sudan’s 30-month war has killed tens of thousands and is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

Nov. 22 (UPI) — Two of the United Kingdom’s largest media outlets and traditional competing newspapers would unite under a proposed $655 million sale.

Publisher Daily Mail and General Trust announced it has begun negotiations with RedBird IMI to buy the Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspapers for $655 million

RedBird IMI is a joint venture between U.S.-based RedBird Capital Partners and the United Arab Emirates-based IMI.

“The Daily Telegraph is Britain’s largest and best quality broadsheet newspaper, and I have grown up respecting it,” DMGT Chairman Jonathan Rothermere said in a statement shared with The New York Times.

“It has a remarkable history and has played a vital role in shaping Britain’s national debate over many decades,” Rothermere added.

Any agreement would require the approval of Britain’s Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy to ensure the proposed buyer fulfills “the public interest” and prevents “foreign state influence” of media, the BBC reported.

Such scrutiny prompted U.S.-based RedBird Capital Partners to withdraw a prior offer to buy the news outlet outright.

RedBIrd IMI acquired a tangible interest in the newspaper when the Barclay family announced it was for sale amid financial problems in 2023, according to The Washington Post.

RedBird IMI arranged a debt deal with the Barclays that gave it the inside track on buying The Daily Telegraph and sister publication the Spectator.

The British government blocked the sale, though, partly due to concerns of foreign influence by UAE-based IMI.

RedBird IMI then sold the Spectator to British hedge-fund owner Paul Marshall in 2024, but a potential sale of The Daily Telegraph to New York Sun publisher Dovid Efune did not materialize.

RedBird Capital then tried to buy the newspaper with the help of a minority investor from Britain, while limiting IMI to a 15% ownership stake.

RedBird withdrew that plan in October and now has its hopes pinned on the proposed $655 million deal with DMGT.

Nov. 22 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said his proposed peace plan to end the war raging between Ukraine and Russia since 2022 is not his final offer.

Trump has given Ukraine a deadline Thursday to accept the 28-point proposal.

When asked by reporters outside the White House whether it is the final offer, Trump responded, “No. We’d like to get to peace.”

“One way or another we’ll get it ended,” he said, adding his familiar refrain that “the Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened. If I were president, it never would have happened.”

Asked what would happen if Ukraine rejects the plan, Trump said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “can continue to fight his little heart out.”

Trump spoke to reporters before playing golf with Jack Nicklaus at the Joint Base Andrews golf course.

The president sent officials to Geneva, Switzerland, to meet Sunday with a Ukrainian delegation, including Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, a top U.S. official told ABC News on Saturday.

National security advisers from Germany, France and Britain are also going to Geneva for talks, a diplomatic source told CNN Saturday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday posted on X about the talks.

“In the coming days, consultations with our partners will take place on the steps needed to end the war,” he said in a video.

“Our representatives know how to defend Ukraine’s national interests and exactly what must be done to prevent Russia from launching a third invasion, another strike against Ukraine — just as it has repeatedly committed crimes against our people and against other nations in the past,” Zelensky said.

His office said Friday noted that “Ukraine never wanted this war and will make every effort to end it with a dignified peace.

“Ukraine will never be an obstacle for peace, and the representatives of the Ukrainian state will defend legitimate interests of the Ukrainian people and the foundations of European security,” they said. “We are grateful for our European partners’ willingness to help.”

There are planned meetings with a Russian delegation.

Russia worked with the United States on the peace plan, which was presented to Ukraine last week. Russian President Vladimir Putin said “it could form the basis of a final peace settlement.”

But the plan includes what Ukraine has said are nonstarters, including giving up land not yet occupied by Russia and cutting its armed forces by more than half.

Ukraine also would be forbidden from possessing long-range weapons and Moscow would retain virtually all the territory it has occupied — notably, its 2014 seizure of Crimea.

Additionally, Ukraine would not be permitted join NATO, which has been a demand by Russia.

“Since the first days of the war, we have taken one, extremely simple position: Ukraine needs peace,” Zelenskyy said in an address on Friday. “And a real peace — one that will not be broken by a third invasion.”

Driscoll met with Zelensky on Thursday about a “collaborative plan to achieve peace in Ukraine,” according to a U.S. official.

Allies: Additional work needed

U.S. allies have been skeptical of the plan, including those attending the G-20 summit in South Africa.

The U.S. is absent because of “human rights violations” in the nation, Trump said on Nov. 8.

Twelve European Union leaders, joined by the Canadian and Japanese prime ministers, released a joint statement saying it welcomed “continued U.S. efforts to bring peace to Ukraine. The initial draft of the 28-point plan includes important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace.”

Bur it noted the draft proposal “will require additional work. We are ready to engage in order to ensure that a future peace is sustainable. We are clear on the principle that borders must not be changed by force. We are also concerned by the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces, which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack.”

And these leaders said they must sign off on portions of the agreement that affect them.

“We reiterate that the implementation of elements relating to the European Union and relating to NATO would need the consent of EU and NATO members respectively,” the statement said.

Zelensky, in successive posts on X to leaders, wrote “thank you for your support!”

In a statement ahead of the meeting, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he expected friends and partners of Ukraine to “meet in the margins of the G-20 summit to discuss how we can secure a full ceasefire and create the space for meaningful peace negotiations.”

“We will discuss the current proposal on the table, and in support of President Trump’s push for peace, look at how we can strengthen this plan for the next phase of negotiations,” Starmer added.

Republicans unhappy with plan

The plan was also criticized by U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the former Republican majority leader, as a way to appease Putin.

“Putin has spent the entire year trying to play President Trump for a fool,” McConnell posted Friday on Facebook. “If Administration officials are more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing real peace, then the President ought to find new advisors.

“Rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America’s interests. And a capitulation like Biden’s abandonment of Afghanistan would be catastrophic to a legacy of peace through strength,” he said.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, called parts of the plan “problematic and can be made better” in a post on X.

“The goal of any peace deal is to end the war honorably and justly — and not create new conflict,” Graham said. “Finally, to the world: what about the fate of the almost 20,000 Ukrainian children kidnapped by Putin’s forces? This issue has to be addressed in any negotiated settlement.”

A bipartisan coalition of pro-Ukraine legislators will seek to force a House vote to impose crippling sanctions on Russia

Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said in an X post Friday that he and his allies have “officially notified both the Clerk of the House and House leadership of our discharge petition to force a vote on crushing Russian sanctions immediately upon our return” from the Thanksgiving holiday recess.

BILLINGS, Mont. — President Trump’s administration moved Wednesday to roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live, reviving a suite of changes to Endangered Species Act regulations during the Republican’s first term that were blocked under former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The changes include the elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule” that automatically protects animals and plants newly classified as threatened. Government agencies instead would have to craft species-specific rules for protections, a potentially lengthy process.

Environmentalists warned the changes could cause years-long delays in efforts to save species such as the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl and North American wolverine.

“We would have to wait until these poor animals are almost extinct before we can start protecting them. That’s absurd and heartbreaking,” said Stephanie Kurose with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The proposals come as extinctions have accelerated globally because of habitat loss and other pressures. Prior proposals during Trump’s second term would revise the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act and potentially bypass species protections for logging projects in national forests and on public lands.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the administration was restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent while respecting “the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources.”

The changes answer long-standing calls for revisions to the 1973 Endangered Species Act from Republicans in Congress and industries including oil and gas, mining and agriculture. Those critics argue the law has been wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth.

Another change proposed Wednesday tasks officials with weighing potential economic impacts when deciding what habitat is crucial to the survival of a species.

“These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense,” Burgum said in a statement.

The Interior Department was sued over the blanket protection rule in March, by the Property and Environment Research Center and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The two groups argued the rule was illegal and discouraged states and landowners from assisting in species recovery efforts.

PERC Vice President Jonathan Wood said Wednesday’s proposal was a “necessary course correction” from the Biden administration’s actions.

“This reform acknowledges the blanket rule’s unlawfulness and puts recovery back at the heart of the Endangered Species Act,” Wood said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Sending women who get abortions to prison for decades. Outlawing IUDs. Sharply restricting in vitro fertilization.

These are the strictest abortion prohibitions and punishments in the nation being considered by South Carolina lawmakers, as opponents of the procedure are divided over how far to go.

The bill faces a long legislative path and uncertain prospects, even if it clears the state Senate subcommittee that’s reviewing it.

But the measure up for a second hearing Tuesday would go further than any considered since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, as abortion remains an unsettled issue in conservative states.

What’s in the bill

The proposal would ban all abortions unless the woman’s life is at risk and eliminates exceptions for rape and incest victims for pregnancies up to 12 weeks. Current law blocks abortions after cardiac activity is detected, which is typically six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.

The proposal would also go further than any other U.S. state. Women who get an abortion and anyone who helps them could face up to 30 years in prison. It appears to ban any contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. That would ban IUDs and could strictly limit in vitro fertilization.

Providing information about abortions would be illegal, leaving doctors worried they couldn’t suggest legal abortion elsewhere.

OB-GYN Natalie Gregory said passing a bill like this would make so many discussions in her practice — about contraceptives, losing a pregnancy, in vitro fertilization options — a “legal minefield” that could have her risking decades in prison.

“It constitutes a unconstitutional reach that threatens the very fabric of healthcare in our state,” she said during an eight-hour public hearing on the bill last month, adding that the proposal is a waste of time and public money.

The proposal has even split groups that oppose abortion and once celebrated together when South Carolina passed the six-week ban in 2021, a trigger law that took effect after Roe vs. Wade was overturned the next year.

South Carolina Citizens for Life, one of the state’s largest and oldest opponents of abortion, issued a statement the day of last month’s hearing saying it can’t support the bill because women who get abortions are victims too and shouldn’t be punished.

On the other side, at least for this bill, are groups including Equal Protection South Carolina. “Abortion is murder and should be treated as such,” the group’s founder, Mark Corral, said.

Past messaging fuels divide

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis who has written extensively about abortion, said the divide stems from long-standing messaging that labeled abortion murder while avoiding punishment of women.

Ziegler refers to groups pushing for more penalties and restrictions as “abolitionists” and said their success in reshaping laws in conservative states, as well as shifting the broader political climate, has emboldened them to push ideas that don’t appear to have broad public support. They also have enough influence to get lawmakers to listen.

“It’s not going to go away. The trajectory keeps shifting and the abolitionists have more influence,” Ziegler said.

As the nation’s social and political discussions lurch to the right, with debates over whether same-sex marriage should be made illegal again or whether women should work outside the home, Ziegler said it has become easier to push for restrictions that might have never been brought before legislatures before.

“There is more breathing room for abolitionists now,” she said.

The bill’s prospects

A similar House bill last year got a public hearing but went no further. As the subcommittee met, Republican House leaders issued a statement that they were happy with the current state law, and that bill went nowhere.

But things are less certain in the Senate, where nine of the 34 Republicans in the 46-member chamber were elected after the current law was passed. Three of them unseated the Senate’s only Republican women, a trio who called themselves the “Sister Senators” after helping block a stricter abortion ban after Roe was overturned.

Republican Sen. Richard Cash, who sponsors the bill and is one of the Senate’s most resolute voices against abortion, will run Tuesday’s subcommittee. He acknowledged problems last month with potentially banning contraception and restricting the advice doctors can give to patients. But he has not indicated what changes he or the rest of the subcommittee might support. Six of the nine members are Republicans.

GOP Senate leaders said there is no guarantee if the bill passes out of the subcommittee that it goes any further.

“I can say this definitively — there has been not only no decision made to bring up that bill, there’s been no discussion about bringing up that bill,” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey said.

Collins writes for the Associated Press.

Valerie Valentine bought a triplex in South Los Angeles two weeks ago, and already she wonders whether she made a terrible investment.

Bills are immediately adding up for the small-time landlord, from $1,000 to get the water turned on to $6,000 in annual property taxes. She worries that the amount she collects in rent will not be enough to cover her expenses.

With the city on the verge of making the first major change to its rent stabilization ordinance since 1985, potentially capping annual rent increases at 3%, landlords such as Valentine fear that Los Angeles will become a hostile environment for them.

“It’s draconian,” said Valentine, who also owns a four-unit building in the Inland Empire. “Lowering the amount we can raise rent is a slap in the face. They are favoring one side of the aisle more than the other.”

On the other side, renters, who far outnumber landlords in the city, have turned out in force to City Council hearings to support the proposed 3% cap for units built before 1978, which house 42% of the city’s residents.

The current cap for rent-stabilized units is between 3% and 8%, depending on inflation, going up to 10% if landlords pay for utilities.

One tenant, Cindy Moran, 31, has lived in a rent-stabilized one-bedroom apartment in Exposition Park with her parents since she was born. They are now fighting eviction, she said, with their landlord stating that he wants to move into the property.

Moran believes he is trying to turn the site into 120 units of affordable housing. She fears they will not be able to find another apartment as affordable as the $700 a month they pay.

“I meet people every day who pay $2,000 for a one bedroom. They can’t afford a 10% increase,” Moran said. “We need to think about the most vulnerable right now.”

The proposed update to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance, which has been on the books since 1979, would be a massive shift in favor of tenants. It comes as many parts of the country are struggling with a housing affordability crisis, and after democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayor’s election on a pledge to “freeze the rent.”

Most Angelenos are renters, and more than half are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, according to the Los Angeles Housing Department. One in 10 Angelenos pays 90% of their income toward rent, the department said in a report this year.

Last week, the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee passed the 3% proposal, written by Councilmember Nithya Raman, in a 3-2 vote. It goes before the full council Wednesday.

Under Raman’s proposal, the annual rent increase would max out at 3%, or 60% of the consumer price index, whichever is lower.

The new floor on annual rent increases, now at 3%, would be 0%. That means that in years where there is no inflation, landlords would not be able to raise the rent at all.

“There is a need to reform it,” said Shane Phillips, housing initiative manager at UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, who wrote a 2019 report calling for reforms to the rent stabilization ordinance. He believes the cap should be around 5%, tied directly to inflation.

“I think this swings the pendulum too far in the other direction,” he said.

On top of making it harder for small landlords to turn a profit, some fear that Raman’s proposal would chill development in a city that desperately needs more housing.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman wrote the proposed rent cap that was passed by the Housing and Homelessness Committee in a 3-2 vote. It goes before the full council Wednesday.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

In L.A., a new building constructed on the site of one that was rent-stabilized is subject to the rent stabilization ordinance, unless 20% of the new units are affordable for lower-income households.

A lower cap on rent increases may cause developers to forgo building on those lots, said Zachary Pitts, the Los Angeles director of YIMBY Action, which advocates for more affordable housing.

“Such unintended consequences could undermine the City’s housing goals at a time when increasing supply is critical to affordability and homelessness prevention,” he said in a statement.

Raman said she “will work to ensure new production is not impacted by these changes.”

“Only increased supply can help reduce costs for everyone in this city,” she said in a statement.

The current cap on rent increases has helped Jenny Colon stay in her rent-stabilized apartment, a two-bedroom in North Hills, for more than 30 years. She was paying $981 a month but is moving out because of a dispute with her landlord. Her new apartment, outside the city, costs $1,600 a month.

“A low percentage of rent increase every year does really create a very steady and safe housing situation,” said Colon, who supports Raman’s proposal.

But some say that lowering the allowable rent increase could have a downside for tenants, as falling revenues could lead landlords to spend less on maintaining their buildings.

“Certain small mom and pop owners just won’t have that kind of money,” said Paul Jesman, a real estate agent and landlord. “They’re going to push this roof replacement to next year because they don’t have the money for it.”

Landlords also may be more motivated to evict long-term tenants who fall behind on payments, so they can charge market rates to new tenants, said Phillips of UCLA.

City law allows landlords to charge market rates to a new tenant, though the cap on increases kicks in for the tenant after that.

The city’s Housing Department had recommended a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 5%, both tied to the consumer price index. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield put forward a motion to the Housing and Homelessness Committee that aligned with that recommendation, but he was the only vote in favor of it.

A majority of California cities with rent-stabilized apartments set a ceiling of between 3% and 5%, the Housing Department said.

Raman argued that the department’s recommendations did not go far enough to deal with rents that have “skyrocketed.”

“I think what is before us is an opportunity to adjust costs for renters, that to me is long overdue,” she said.

Paramilitary says it will accept a ceasefire proposed by the Quad mediators – the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) says it has agreed to a proposal by the United States for a ceasefire in Sudan after more than two years of fighting with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

The paramilitary group said in a statement on Thursday that it would accept a “humanitarian ceasefire” proposed by the US-led “quad” mediator group, which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, “to address the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the war and to enhance the protection of civilians”.

There was no immediate comment from Sudan’s military.

Earlier this week, the US senior adviser for Arab and African affairs, Massad Boulos, said efforts were under way to reach a truce and that the warring sides had “agreed in principle”.

“We have not recorded any initial objection from either side. We are now focusing on the fine details,” Boulos said on Monday in a statement carried by the Sudan Tribune news outlet.

Reporting from Khartoum, Al Jazeera’s Hiba Morgan said the plan would begin with a three-month humanitarian truce that could pave the way for a lasting political solution, which would include a new civilian government.

The RSF “said that they’re eager to find some kind of end to this two-year conflict”, Morgan said of the group’s agreement to the truce.

SAF has repeatedly said it wants to continue fighting, Morgan reported, adding that army officials do not believe members of the RSF can be reintegrated into Sudanese society.

SAF has previously said it does not want the UAE’s involvement in truce discussions and that it will demand the RSF withdraw from any city it occupies, among other stipulations, she said.

“This humanitarian access the ceasefire would bring about is desperately needed, but the Sudanese army is yet to agree to it. They have conditions,” Morgan reported. “It doesn’t look like the RSF will meet them.”

Earlier on Thursday, army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan had said his forces were “striving for the defeat of the enemy”.

“Soon, we will avenge those who have been killed and abused … in all the regions attacked by the rebels,” he said in a televised address.

The announcement comes as the RSF faces accusations of committing mass killings since it seized the city of el-Fasher in North Darfur state on October 26, following an 18-month siege.

The RSF now dominates the vast western Darfur region and parts of the country’s south, while the army holds the north, east and central regions along the Nile and the Red Sea.

More than 70,000 people have fled el-Fasher and surrounding areas since the RSF’s takeover, according to the United Nations, with witnesses and human rights groups reporting cases of “summary executions”, sexual violence and mass killings of civilians.

The World Health Organization had reported the “tragic killing of more than 460 patients and medical staff” at a former children’s hospital during the city’s takeover.

‘Mass graves’

Researchers at Yale University said in a report on Thursday that new satellite imagery has detected activity “consistent with mass graves” in the city.

The US university’s Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) report said it found evidence consistent with “body disposal activities”.

The report identified “at least two earth disturbances consistent with mass graves at a mosque and the former Children’s Hospital”.

It also noted the appearance of metres-long trenches, as well as the disappearance of clusters of objects consistent with bodies near the hospital, the mosque and other parts of the city – indicating that bodies deposited around those areas were later moved.

“Body disposal or removal was also observed at Al-Saudi Hospital in satellite imagery,” the report said.

The war in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, has pitted the army against the group led by al-Burhan’s former deputy, RSF commander Mohammed Hamdan Daglo, also known as Hemedti.

Both the warring sides have been accused of war crimes. In a September report, the UN Human Rights Council accused both sides of extrajudicial killing, large-scale attacks against civilians and torture. It also reported an “overwhelming volume” of evidence on sexual violence primarily perpetrated by RSF and SAF members.