Proposed

SACRAMENTO — Assembly and Senate budget negotiators, intent on cutting $1.4 billion from the proposed $45-billion state budget, sharply cut proposed spending increases for state colleges and universities Friday, and slashed even deeper into Gov. George Deukmejian’s programs.

The Democrat-dominated six-member budget conference committee reduced the University of California budget by $75 million, a cut of 3.7%. The committee cut the California State University system budget by the same 3.7%, a $56.9-million trim. Despite the cuts, the budgets of both institutions would increase by nearly 3% from the current year.

The UC and CSU spending cuts were among dozens made by the committee during its third full day of work on the budget for the 1988-89 fiscal year that will begin July 1. The committee hopes to wrap up its work Monday, then send the budget out for votes by the Assembly and Senate in time for final action by the start of the new fiscal year.

In addition to the cuts already made, Democrats on the committee are considering reducing the basic public school financial aid budget of $8.4 billion by $300 million to $400 million, which would take half to three-quarters of the increase being proposed by Deukmejian.

Although the committee’s four Democrats are cutting spending in nearly every area, they continued to go after programs earmarked as high priorities by the governor with a special vengeance. They remain angry over Deukmejian’s retreat on tax increase legislation that he first proposed, then dropped because of political opposition.

On Friday, the Democrats, with the two Republicans on the committee dissenting, cut the budget of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, run by a Deukmejian appointee, by 20%, or about $1.4 million. Moments later, they removed the $91,000-a-year salary of Department of Industrial Relations Director Ronald Rinaldi from the budget. Rinaldi is a key Deukmejian Administration adviser who oversaw the dismantling of the popular CAL/OSHA worker safety program.

On Thursday, the committee, with its two Republican members dissenting, cut the $1.6-billion state prisons budget by $100 million, and took another $17 million from the California Youth Authority. The action came on the heels of earlier votes that would completely wipe out the state Resources Agency and the Department of Commerce’s office of tourism, both controlled by Deukmejian appointees.

Assemblyman William P. Baker of Danville, one of the committee’s two Republican members, said the Democrats “are just trying to embarrass the governor” with their actions. He said most of the budget actions were shortsighted. “The prison system’s going to have 10,000 more prisoners next year. Cutting the budget $100 million doesn’t make sense. What are we going to do with the prisoners?” he asked.

Predicts Defeat

Baker’s GOP colleague, Sen. Marian Bergeson of Newport Beach, said the budget in its present form probably will not be able to get the two-thirds majority vote it will need in both the Assembly and Senate for final approval.

“We’ll have to backtrack and undo a lot of these actions. You can’t reduce the dollar amounts of some of these budgets, like the Department of Corrections, without causing irreparable damage,” Bergeson said.

But Democrats insisted that Deukmejian’s flip-flop on tax increase legislation left the Legislature with a huge hole in its budget.

“We just don’t have the revenues to support the governor’s budget. We have to cut somewhere,” said Sen. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove).

Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), chairman of the committee, said Deukmejian is responsible for the cuts. He called the series of reductions “the Deukmejian destruction derby.”

Governor Drops Plan

Deukmejian had proposed raising taxes $800 million in late May to help deal with a $2-billion revenue shortage caused by changes in federal and state tax law, but then the Republican chief executive dropped the plan.

The loss of the $800 million in revenues that would have been generated by the tax bill, coupled with $600 million in an additional spending added to the budget by lawmakers, left them with a need to cut $1.4 billion. By Friday, they had reduced the budget by nearly $1 billion.

One issue the committee has yet to resolve is which set of tax revenue projections it will use as a basis for next year’s budget projections. Revenue estimates being made by the Legislature’s two nonpartisan budget advisers–the legislative analyst’s office and the Commission on State Finance–are about $370 million higher than the estimates being used for the budget by the Department of Finance.

The committee so far has been using the Department of Finance’s estimates, but if it decides to use the higher revenue projections it will substantially ease the committee’s problem of proposing a balanced budget.

In another of its dramatic reductions, the committee voted to end state support for the operations budget of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

The electric carmaker had unveiled chief Elon Musk’s proposed $1 trillion compensation plan in September.

Tesla’s proposed $1 trillion pay package for CEO Elon Musk has come under renewed scrutiny after proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) urged investors to vote against what could be the largest compensation plan ever awarded to a company chief.

ISS’s comments on Friday marks the second consecutive year that it has urged shareholders to reject a compensation plan for Musk.

Proxy advisers often sway major institutional investors, including the passive funds that hold large stakes in Tesla.

The ISS recommendation adds pressure on Tesla’s board before a closely watched November 6 shareholder meeting and renews scrutiny of Musk’s compensation after a Delaware court earlier voided his $56bn pay package.

Musk’s record Tesla pay plan could still hand him tens of billions of dollars even if he falls short of most of its ambitious targets, however, thanks to a structure that rewards partial achievement and soaring share prices.

Last month, Tesla’s board proposed a $1 trillion compensation plan for Musk in what it described as the largest corporate pay package in history, setting ambitious performance targets and aiming to address his push for greater control over the company.

ISS said that while the board’s goal was to retain Musk because of his “track record and vision”, the 2025 pay package “locks in extraordinarily high pay opportunities over the next ten years” and “reduces the board’s ability to meaningfully adjust future pay levels.”

Tesla’s shares rose after the compensation plan was unveiled last month, as investors believe the pay package would incentivise Musk to focus on the company’s strategy.

“Many people come to Tesla to specifically work with Elon, so we recognise that retaining and incentivising him will, in the long run, help us retain and recruit better talent,” Director Kathleen Wilson-Thompson said in a video posted to Tesla’s X handle on Friday.

Unlike the 2018 pay deal, Musk will be allowed to vote using his shares this time, giving him about 13.5 percent of Tesla’s voting power, according to a securities filing last month. That stake alone could be enough to secure approval.

The proxy adviser cited the “astronomical” size of the proposed grant, design features that could deliver very high payouts for partial goal achievement and potential dilution for existing investors.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

ISS valued the stock-based award at $104bn, higher than Tesla’s own estimate of $87.8bn.

The grant would vest only if Tesla reaches market capitalisation milestones up to $8.5 trillion and operational targets, including delivery of 20 million vehicles, one million robotaxis and $400bn in adjusted core earnings.

The proxy adviser’s guidance on Musk’s pay was part of a wider set of voting recommendations issued on Friday.

As of 3:45pm in New York (19:45 GMT), Tesla’s stock was up 2.4 percent.

Turkey’s conservative government has proposed extreme and hateful reforms targeting the LGBTQIA+ community.

On 15 October, Turkish lawmakers shared a draft of their 11th Judicial Reform Package, which includes updates to existing laws that restrict trans and queer people.

Under the proposed legislation, “any person who engages in, publicly encourages, praises, or promotes attitudes or behaviours contrary to their biological sex at birth and public morality” could face one to three years in prison, per Türkiye Today.

Another portion of legislation would reportedly make the legal age for gender reassignment surgery change from 18 to 25.

Individuals looking to have the procedure would also need to be unmarried, receive a medical board report confirming that the procedure is “psychologically necessary” from a Ministry of Health-approved hospital; obtain four separate evaluations that are spaced three months apart; and have a court order amendment to their civil registry once the aforementioned medical report is approved.

Individuals with genetic or hormonal disorders would be the only ones exempt from the proposed regulations.  

Medical professionals who perform gender affirming surgery without going through the aforementioned archaic steps could face three to seven years in prison and fines.

In addition to severely limiting trans people’s accessibility to gender affirming care, the proposed reforms target same-sex couples.

If a couple is caught having an engagement or wedding ceremony, they can face between one and a half to four years in prison.

The penalty for “public sexual acts or exhibitionism” would also increase from six months to a year to one to three years.

As for the stated purpose for introducing the hateful amendments, the document claims that it’s “to ensure the upbringing of physically and mentally healthy individuals and to protect the family institution and social structure, per Türkiye Today.

While homosexuality is not banned in Turkey, and despite the country being home to numerous LGBTQIA+ associations, homophobia is widespread and anti-discrimination laws are nonexistent.

Over the last decade, events for the community – like Pride marches and other queer-focused gatherings – have faced censorship by government authorities. The conservative country has even opted out of competing in Eurovision due to the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ contestants.

In November 2024, Turkish authorities banned the screening of Luca Guadagnino’s drama Queer at Mubi Fest Istanbul, leading the organisation to cancel the event altogether.

Murdoch will be part of a group of US investors – including Trump allies – trying to take over TikTok’s US operations.

United States President Donald Trump has said media executive Lachlan Murdoch will join a group of American investors seeking to take control of TikTok’s operations in the United States.

In an interview on the Fox News programme Sunday Briefing, Trump said the proposed deal would transfer TikTok’s American assets from Chinese parent company ByteDance to US ownership. He described those involved as prominent people and “American patriots”.

“I think they’re going to do a really good job,” Trump said, adding that TikTok had helped him expand support among young voters during the 2024 election campaign.

One of the proposed investors – Larry Ellison, the co-founder of the tech firm Oracle – is a prominent Republican donor. Lachlan Murdoch’s father Rupert has backed right-wing causes and parties for decades, but has a complicated relationship with Trump, who is currently suing him.

The initiative would give Trump’s allies in corporate America influence over a platform with about 170 million US users, one of the most widely used apps shaping political and cultural debate.

Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corp, recently consolidated control of his family’s media empire, which includes Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, after settling a long-running legal dispute with his siblings. Trump said the 94-year-old Rupert Murdoch may himself also be involved in the deal.

Murdoch’s media outlets attract right-leaning audiences, but they have occasionally clashed with Trump. The US president’s lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal is for defamation over a July report linking him to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The newspaper has defended its reporting.

Other business figures named by Trump include Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell, who, along with Ellison, has previously been connected to discussions on TikTok’s future.

US law passed under the administration of former US President Joe Biden requires ByteDance to divest its TikTok operations, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting the legislation due to security concerns that Beijing could have access to American users’ data.

However, the spotlight on TikTok has also been linked to growing support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel among young Americans, with many pro-Israeli politicians blaming the popular app for the shifting tide.

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for a ban on TikTok soon after the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, calling the app biased towards anti-Israel content.

Trump had proposed to ban TikTok during his first term as US president, signing two executive orders in August 2020 that were aimed at restricting the app. However, the US president did a U-turn, pledging to “save” the popular app during his 2024 re-election campaign.

The Trump administration has since tied negotiations over TikTok to wider trade talks with China.

China has consistently denied claims by US lawmakers that Beijing pressures apps like TikTok to collect personal information for the state.

California electric customers would pay $9 billion more to shore up the state’s wildfire fund under a last-minute deal reached behind closed doors that was introduced as legislation on Wednesday.

Southern California Edison, and the state’s two other large for-profit electric companies, had been lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, urging them to pass legislation to replenish the state’s $21-billion fund that pays for damages of utility-caused fires.

State officials have warned the fund could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed a large swath of Altadena on Jan. 7.

Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing $10.5 billion to the original fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bills.

If approved, the bill amendments made on Wednesday would have customers pay $9 billion more by extending that surcharge by 10 years beyond 2035, when it was set to expire.

Under the deal, the three electric companies’ shareholders would also pay an additional $9 billion into the fund. That means the fund would increase by $18 billion if the legislation, known as SB 254, passes.

Consumer advocates and environmentalists tracking the bill said they were still trying to understand all the provisions of the 229-page bill, which had been debated in hearings in recent months, but was then significantly amended without public input. The new draft of the bill was published at 9:12 a.m. on Wednesday.

“It’s a complete gut and amend,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group. “It’s an end run around the normal legislative process.”

The complex proposal was introduced just days before the state legislature’s session ends, which means it may receive little public debate.

The session was scheduled to end on Friday, but any amendments must be public for 72 hours, which would push a vote to Saturday morning.

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said he was disappointed that ratepayers — who are already paying the country’s second highest electric rates — would have to pay more. But he pointed to some measures that could help reduce the upward pressure on bills.

For example, utilities would be required to finance some expensive transmission projects through a lower-cost method of public financing that legislators said could save ratepayers $3 billion.

Toney said after reviewing the bill’s language his group planned to support it even though it “falls short of addressing the growing affordability crisis.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the bill’s co-author, defended the last minute amendments, saying the legislature needed to move quickly to bolster the fund as the wildfire season begins in California.

She said many of the provisions added to SB 254, including the public financing of transmission lines, had been included in other bills that had been repeatedly been debated in public hearings.

Petrie-Norris, who is chair of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, defended the process and said that she believed electric customers were getting “a good deal” since half the $18 billion addition into the fund would come from utility shareholders.

Also, under the plan, she said, the three utilities must spend billions of dollars more on wildfire prevention costs, which they can’t earn a profit on.

The share prices of Edison International, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric all rose Wednesday on the news.

Newsom and lawmakers created the state wildfire fund in 2019 through a bill known as AB 1054 to protect the three utilities from bankruptcy in the event their electric lines sparked a catastrophic wildfire.

Under the law’s protective measures, Edison could pay nothing or just a fraction of the damages for the Eaton fire if its equipment is found to have sparked the fire.

A representative for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The investigation into the fire is ongoing. Edison has said a leading theory is that a century-old transmission line, not used since the 1970s, somehow re-energized and sparked the blaze.

The insured property losses alone could be as much as $15.2 billion, according to an estimate released in July by state officials. That amount does not include uninsured losses or damages beyond those to property, such as wrongful death claims. A study by UCLA estimated losses at $24 billion to $45 billion.

Damages from the Palisades fire, which also ignited on Jan. 7, are not covered by the state wildfire fund. The city of Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power, a municipal utility, services the area of Pacific Palisades destroyed by that fire.

Only customers of Edison, PG&E and San Diego Gas & Electric pay to support the wildfire fund. And only those three utilities are covered by its protections.

Jockey Tom Marquand said he and wife Hollie Doyle, also a leading rider, could be forced to move abroad if the funding of British racing is hit.

“It seems pretty sad we might have to think about emigrating somewhere else to make a living out of the sport that we so enjoy,” he told BBC Sport.

“It’s an important day for racing and hopefully a step in the right direction. It’s a huge industry employing 85,000 people. The effect would be enormous.”

When the BBC filmed at Windsor races on Monday, many punters were supportive of the action.

“It’s a wonderful day out and we have a little flutter,” said racegoer Alan Mills.

“Bookmakers need the money to come in to keep the business going. The sport should be promoted, rather than taking people’s livelihoods away.”

But the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) – which represents betting shops, online betting and gaming operators and casinos – says it was not consulted.

“Racing’s decision to reschedule fixtures was taken without consultation with betting operators, whose support for the funding of the sport is mission critical,” it said in a statement.

“We are concerned that futile political gestures will only antagonise the government and frustrate punters instead of delivering a solution to a shared challenge facing both racing and betting.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom spearheaded a bold overhaul of California’s congressional map, a move that could dramatically shift the state’s political landscape.

A Times analysis of recent election results found the redistricting effort, which will go to voters on Nov. 4 as Proposition 50, could turn 41 Democratic-leaning congressional districts into 47. Democrats currently hold 215 seats in the House, while Republicans control 220. If California voters approve the new map, the shift could be enough to threaten the GOP’s narrow majority.

Newsom’s plan was pushed by state and national Democratic leaders, following a move by Texas to approve its own maps that could give the GOP five more House seats. There’s also a push by the Republican-led states to redraw their lines before the 2026 midterm elections to help the Republicans remain in control. The governor’s plan was approved by the state Legislature last week and now goes to the voters in a November special election. This week California Republicans filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block the ballot measure.

To get a sense of how the proposed maps might alter the balance of power in Congress, The Times used results from the 2024 presidential election to calculate the margin of victory between Democrats and Republicans in the redrawn districts.

In some cases, districts were split apart and stitched together with more liberal areas. In one area, lines have been redrawn with no overlap at all with their current boundary. As a result, four formerly Republican-leaning swing districts would tilt slightly Democratic, while two others would shift more heavily toward the left. Four out of the five remaining Republican strongholds would become even darker red under the proposed map.

1st District: Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale)

In its current form, California’s 1st Congressional District sweeps south from the Oregon border almost to Sacramento. For the last 12 years, it has been represented by Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who won reelection last November with nearly two-thirds of the vote.

But under the proposed map, that district is split in two. The new 1st District would run inland from Santa Rosa through Chico to the Nevada border. The redrawn 2nd District would follow the north coast from Marin County and the border with Oregon. It would also include deep red Shasta County.

The Times analysis found the proposed 1st District experienced the largest Democratic shift, among all the districts that flipped from red to blue, moving from a 25-point advantage for Trump to a 12-point advantage for Harris. That gain was made possible in part by pulling in more Democratic-leaning areas from the 2nd District, making it slightly less blue.

3rd District: Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin)

Rep. Kevin Kiley has represented the 3rd District since 2022. But he would face an uphill battle to keep the seat on the redistricted map. The new lines lop off the conservative-leaning Eastern Sierra and instead pulls in Democratic voters from Sacramento.

In the 2024 presidential election, the current 3rd District backed Trump by 4 points. Under Newsom’s proposed map, that same area would have gone for Harris by 10 points, creating a 14-point swing that transforms the district from purple to solidly blue.

Kiley, whose district is targeted for elimination under Newsom’s plan, has called for a ban on all mid-decade congressional redistricting. The 3rd District’s boundaries are significantly reduced in the new map, and shifting demographics, including growth in the Asian American population, could further tilt the seat away from Republicans.

41st District: Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona)

Rep. Ken Calvert’s 41st District, long centered in the competitive western Inland Empire, would be eliminated and completely redrawn in Los Angeles County. The district would transform from a swinging GOP-leaning seat into one where Democrats would hold a 14-point advantage.

Parts of the new 41st would be carved out of the current 38th District, represented by Democrat Linda Sánchez. That change shifts some of Sánchez’s Democratic base into the new 41st district, making it more favorable to Democrats while leaving the 38th slightly less blue.

At the same time, the Hispanic share of the population would rise, further bolstering the Democrat‘s strength in the proposed district. The new 41st seat would become a majority-minority district. The redistricting proposal includes 16 majority-minority districts; the same number as the current map except for swapping the 41st District for the 42nd.

A section of the current 41st district would be added to Rep. Young Kim’s 40th District. The reshaped 40th District would move 9.7 points to the right — the biggest rightward shift among Republican-held districts.

48th District: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall)

The 48th District, a Republican stronghold represented by Darrell Issa, carried a 15-point GOP margin of victory under the current map. But the proposed lines would shift voters into San Diego County, giving Democrats a new edge. The district’s demographics would also change, with a larger share of Hispanic voters. As a result, what had been a safe Republican seat would become a swing district, where Democrats would hold a narrow 3-point advantage. The proposed 48th District includes Palm Springs, a liberal patch that was previously in the 41st District.

Deepening blue

Beyond flipping Republican-leaning swing districts, another aim of the redistricting plan is to shore up vulnerable Democratic seats. Democrats have long fought to hold onto these coastal Orange County seats, eking out narrow wins. Rep. Derek Tran of Cypress unseated a Republican incumbent by just about 650 votes, while Rep. Dave Min of Costa Mesa survived last November with a margin of less than 3 percentage points. Asians are the largest minority currently in Districts 45 and 47.

Under the current map, Harris carried the 45th District by only 1.5 points and the 47th by 4 points. But in Newsom’s proposed map, those advantages widen to 4 and 10 points, respectively, transforming fragile footholds into far safer Democratic turf.

The new changes dilute the number of GOP voters in both Rep. David Valadao’s District 22 and Rep. Adam Gray’s District 13.

— Additional development by data and graphics assistant editor Sean Greene.

The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and likely headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years and determine which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections.

Maps made public Friday afternoon show how California Democrats hope to reconfigure the state’s 52 congressional districts. The plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress, and is designed to counteract the redistricting efforts in Texas that would favor Republicans.

The state Legislature is expected to place the new map and a constitutional amendment to override the state’s independent redistricting process on a Nov. 4 special election ballot.

Enter your address below or select somewhere on the current map to see how the districts could change.

Sean Greene and Hailey Wang contributed to this report.

State lawmakers are considering a bill meant to protect access to HIV prevention drugs for insured Californians as threats from the federal government continue.

Assembly Bill 554 would require health plans and insurers to cover all antiretroviral drugs used for PrEP and PEP regimens. The drugs just have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and would not require prior authorization. The bill would also prevent health plans from forcing patients to first try a less expensive drug before choosing a more expensive, specialty option.

The bill requires insurance providers to cover these drugs without cost-sharing with patients, and it limits the ability of insurers and employers to review treatments to determine medical necessity. To streamline reimbursements and expand the range of PrEP medications doctors can pick for their patients, the legislation allows providers to directly bill insured patients’ pharmaceutical benefit plans.

LGBTQ+ public health advocates worry that the Trump administration’s recent attempt to slash $1.5 billion in HIV prevention funding from the federal budget — along with its decisions to stop offering suicide-prevention counseling for LGBTQ+ individuals through the national 988 lifeline and to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender Americans — amounts to an assault on the queer community.

The state bill would act “as a shield against this administration’s cruelty,” said California Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) who co-sponsored AB 554 with Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco).

A recent cause for alarm among LGBTQ+ health advocates, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, is news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to replace the entire U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because its 16 appointed members are too “woke,” according to unnamed individuals cited by the Journal.

At a news conference Monday, Kennedy confirmed that he is reviewing the makeup of the panel, adding that he hasn’t made a final decision.

The bill was introduced earlier in the year out of fear that Kennedy’s skepticism about vaccines might spill over into HIV/PrEP drug coverage and because of worries that President Trump would dismantle the task force, González said.

The task force wields immense influence, making recommendations about which cancer screenings, tests for chronic diseases and preventive medications are beneficial for Americans and therefore should be covered by insurers — including drugs for HIV/AIDS prevention.

Drugs prescribed in a PrEP regimen — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — block the virus that causes AIDS from multiplying in a person’s body. They can be taken in either pill or injection form on an ongoing basis. PEP refers to post-exposure prophylaxis and involves taking medication within 72 hours of potential exposure and for a short period of time, in order to prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Both regimens are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS when used correctly.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 by congressional authorization to issue evidence-based advice to physicians on which screenings and preventive medicines are worth considering for their healthy patients. The panel’s recommendations are closely watched by professional societies when adopting guidelines for their clinician members. In many cases, when insurers are on the fence about whether to cover a given screening or diagnostic test, they’ll turn to the panel’s recommendations.

The panel, made up of doctors, nurses, health psychologists, epidemiologists and statisticians who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine and who serve four-year terms on a voluntary basis, is meant to be free from conflicts of interest and outside influences.

Some of its past recommendations, however, such as its advice on prostate cancer screenings, have been met with criticism.

When it comes to HIV prevention, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to back up the task force with its July 11 ruling in Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which upheld a key mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover preventive care, including for HIV.

However, in the same ruling, the court also declared that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to review decisions made by the task force, and to remove members at his or her discretion.

Kennedy abruptly postponed the task force’s July meeting, sparking concern among public health advocates and Democratic leaders.

“The task force has done very little over the past five years,” Kennedy said at Monday’s news conference. “We want to make sure that it is performing, that it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public.”

González said he worries that the Supreme Court gave the administration a new way to meddle in the healthcare decisions of LGBTQ+ people.

“The Braidwood decision was both a relief and a wake-up call,” González said. “While it upheld the Preventive Services Task Force’s existing recommendations — keeping protections for PrEP, cancer screenings, and vaccines intact — it handed unprecedented authority to RFK Jr. to reshape that very task force and place existing protections under direct threat once again.”

González described AB 554 as “a measure to protect LGBTQ+ Californians and ensure we never return to the neglect and devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis.” The state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the bill on Aug. 29.

“These attacks aren’t isolated,” the lawmaker said. “They are coordinated, deliberate, and aimed squarely at our most vulnerable communities.”

July 14 (UPI) — The 50% tariffs proposed by Donald Trump could cut Brazil’s gross domestic product by between 0.3 and 0.8 percentage points in 2025, according to Brazilian economists and consulting firms.

The final impact will depend on how Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva‘s administration responds and whether Brazil can redirect its exports.

Brazil’s annual export loss could range from $12 billion to $17 billion, representing 3.6% to 5% of the country’s total exports, according to Rogério Marin, CEO of Tek Trade and president of the Foreign Trade Companies Union of Santa Catarina, in comments to the Brazilian digital outlet Agricultura y Negocios.

Marin estimates an annual negative impact on GDP of between 0.6% and 0.8%.

According to XP, one of Brazil’s major investment and financial services firms, the tariffs could reduce GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points in 2025 and 0.5 percentage points in 2026, with Brazilian exports to the United States projected to fall by $6.5 billion in 2025 and $16.5 billion the following year.

Agribusiness firm FGVAgro said in a statement that the proposed 50% tariff would particularly impact the agricultural sector, which accounts for 30% of exports to the U.S. market.

“Food exports are estimated to fall by as much as 75%, which could cause a contraction of up to 0.41% in Brazil’s GDP. Domestic consumption is also projected to decline by as much as $13 billion,” the firm said.

Brazil’s National Confederation of Industry, or CNI), and other business groups have urged a diplomatic resolution. “A rupture in the relationship with the United States would cause serious harm to our economy,” said Ricardo Alban, president of the CNI, who called for “intensifying negotiations to reverse this decision.”

The American Chamber of Commerce for Brazil, Amcham Brasil, has urged avoiding a trade war, saying it “has no winners.” The group argues that the arbitrary imposition of tariffs serves neither side’s interests and instead creates uncertainty that discourages investment and economic growth.

Brazil maintains a strong trade relationship with the United States, exporting about $41 billion annually, primarily in industrial and agricultural goods. That volume represents roughly 1.7% of Brazil’s GDP.

“Brazilian industry — especially manufacturing — has broken export records to the United States in recent years, underscoring the importance of maintaining a stable trade environment,” said Marcos Santos Carena, director of the Business Observer, a consulting firm that operates in Brazil, Colombia and the United States.

The announced tariffs could significantly impact several sectors of Brazil’s economy. Experts warn that about 40% of the affected exports are manufactured goods with limited potential to be redirected to other markets.

The agricultural and agribusiness sectors could be among the hardest hit, as the United States is a key market for products such as coffee and orange juice. One-third of the coffee and half of the orange juice consumed in the United States comes from Brazil, Santos Carena said. Other agricultural exports could also be affected.

In the aerospace sector, Embraer — the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer — has been identified as one of the companies that could be hit hardest, with sharp declines in its market value. The tariffs could hurt the competitiveness of its exports to the United States.

Brazil’s steel and aluminum industries are already subject to additional tariffs, and a new 50% levy would make these exports unviable, according to industry representatives.

Although the United States accounts for a small share of Brazil’s mining exports — about 4% — the tariffs could affect sales of gold, natural stones, ornamental rocks, iron ore, kaolin and niobium.

Other exports that could be affected include engines and generators, parts for industrial machinery, data processing equipment, measuring instruments, wood and forest products — such as pulp and fiberboard — and meat.

In a meeting lasting more than four hours at the Palácio da Alvorada on Sunday, Lula convened his cabinet ministers — including those from finance, industry, agriculture, and foreign affairs — along with the Central Bank president and Senate leaders to coordinate a response to the tariffs announced by President Donald Trump.

Among the agreed measures was the creation of a committee led by Vice President Geraldo Alckmin. The group, which includes business leaders, will bring together affected sectors to develop joint proposals and advise the president before any official announcement.

The government pledged to issue a decree by Tuesday outlining legal and technical criteria for triggering countermeasures if the U.S. tariffs take effect Aug. 1, as Trump promised.

While officials have not ruled out reciprocal action, Lula’s administration said its priority is negotiation, multilateral diplomacy — through channels such as the World Trade Organization — and non-tariff solutions.

June 28 (UPI) — The latest version of the Senate’s federal budget reconciliation bill would limit the availability of student loans for future borrowers by revising federal student loan programs and regulations.

The budget bill that already has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate version would place a maximum amount on how much people could borrow through the federal Parent PLUS and graduate student loans to help them pay for their college educations.

The House-approved version would limit undergraduate borrowing to $50,000, while the Senate version would limit that amount to $65,000.

Graduate students would see limits of $100,000 for most master’s programs, while the borrowing limit for professional degrees would be $150,000 in the House version and $200,000 in the Senate bill.

Supporters of the proposed limits say they could save taxpayers more than $300 billion and make it harder for college and university administrators to raise tuition costs and fees.

Opponents say it would make it harder for disadvantaged students to attend college.

“It’s abundantly clear that the budget reconciliation package would reduce access to higher education and healthcare and jeopardize [the University of California’s] ability to carry out its public service mission,” Chris Harrington, U.C. associate vice president for Federal Governmental Relations, said on Monday in a letter to the state’s House delegation in May.

The House-approved bill would eliminate Pell Grants for part-time students, subsidized loans for undergrads and Graduate PLUS loans for graduate and professional students, according to the University of California.

It also would limit eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid benefits for low-income students.

The Senate’s version of the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget reconciliation bill numbers 940 pages and might be voted on as soon as Saturday night.

SACRAMENTO — In response to immigration raids by masked federal officers in Los Angeles and across the nation, two California lawmakers on Monday proposed a new state law to ban members of law enforcement from concealing their faces while on the job.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor for local, state and federal law enforcement officers to cover their faces with some exceptions, and also encourage them to wear a form of identification on their uniform.

“We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-author of the bill.

During a news conference in San Francisco announcing the legislation, Wiener criticized the Trump administration for targeting illegal immigrants without criminal records and alleged that current tactics allow ICE agents to make themselves appear to be local police in some cases. Under the proposal, law enforcement officials would be exempted from the mask ban if they serve on a SWAT team or if a mask is necessary for medical or health reasons, including to prevent smoke inhalation.

Recent immigration enforcement sweeps have left communities throughout California and the country frightened and unsure if federal officials are legitimate because of their shrouded faces and lack of identification, said Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), co-author and chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee. He said the bill would provide transparency and discourage impersonators.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agencies, called the proposal “despicable,” saying it posed a threat to law enforcement officers by identifying them and subjecting them to retaliation.

“We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,” the department said in a post on the social media site X. “Make no mistake, this type of rhetoric is contributing to the surge in assaults of ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE.”

Wiener, however, said members of law enforcement are public servants and people need to see their faces so they can be held accountable for their actions.

He likened ICE officials to Stormtroopers, fictional helmeted soldiers from the movie “Star Wars,” and said masking the faces and concealing the names of law enforcement officials shields them from public scrutiny and from the communities they are meant to serve.

“We don’t want to move towards that kind of model where law enforcement becomes almost like an occupying army, disconnected from the community, and that’s what it is when you start hiding their face, hiding the identity,” he said.

California law already bans wearing a mask or other disguise, including a fake mustache, wig or beard to hide your identity and evade law enforcement while committing a crime, but there are no current laws about what police can or cannot wear. It was unclear whether the proposal would affect undercover or plainclothes police officers, or if a state law could apply to federal police forces.

The proposal is being offered as an amendment to Senate Bill 627, a housing measure that would essentially be eviscerated.

The bill also includes an intent clause, which is not legally binding, that says the legislature would work to require all law enforcement within the state to display their name on their uniforms.

“Finding a balance between public transparency and trust, along with officer safety, is critical when we’re talking about creating state laws that change the rules for officers that are being placed into conflict situations,” Jason Salazar, president of the California Police Chief Assn., said in a statement. “We have been in touch with Senator Wiener, who reached out ahead of the introduction of this bill, and we will engage in discussions with him and his office to share our concerns so that we ensure the safety of law enforcement first responders is a top priority.”

Wiener said the new measure would make it clearer who is a police officer and who is not, which would be essential in the wake of the politically motivated killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the attempted killing of another politician and his wife. The suspect, Vance Boelter, is accused of knocking on the doors of the lawmakers in the middle of the night and announcing himself as a police officer to get them to open up, authorities said.

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), wrote in an X post that the bill would endanger ICE agents.

“Do not forget — targeted attacks on ICE agents are up 413%. This is yet another shameless attempt to put them in harm’s way,” she said.

CRIMINALS will be forced to pay back every penny they steal under proposals being drawn up by Tory Robert Jenrick.

The move could let courts claw back many billions of pounds of ill-gotten gains which would be returned to victims or help tackle crime.

1

Under the proposal, fines on burglars and thieves will be hiked so they have to pay for the full amount of damage they inflict.

Rules which stop courts pursuing criminals for unpaid fines after six years would be torn up so a thief can always be made to pay up.

The shadow justice secretary is proposing the crackdown in an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill, which is being debated in parliament next week.

Mr Jenrick said: “There’s never been a better time to be a criminal. That has to change: crime should never pay.

“Thieves and burglars must be fined the full cost of the damage they cause.

“If they can’t pay immediately, they should be made to pay it back over their whole lifetime.

“Our criminal justice system must put victims first and yobs last.”

Criminals owe a record £4.4billion in unpaid fines and court fees.

It is made up of over £1bn in fines and £3.4bn in legal costs and confiscation orders slapped on convicts.

This is enough cash to build 20,000 prison places.

Courts can impose fines on criminals as part of their sentence. The size of the fine depends on the severity of the crime and the offender’s ability to pay it.

But thieves and burglars routinely fail to pay up. And some dodge these fines by serving an extra day in prison – racking up a bigger bill for the taxpayer.

Labour have a giant majority in Parliament, so they would have to back the amendment for it to become law.

SACRAMENTO — Latino legislators criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget cuts to Medi-Cal Monday afternoon, saying the plan to freeze enrollment and charge premiums for those adult immigrants without documentation already enrolled was a betrayal of California’s promise to protect the vulnerable.

Legislative pushback for the May budget revision, released by Newsom last week, comes after the governor announced an additional $12-billion budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year.

State Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) said the plan to charge adult undocumented immigrants $100 per month for Medi-Cal was a form of redlining, and Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) said she doubted the two-tiered system was constitutional.

“The governor is proposing a troubling precedent — raising prices on one group of Californians based solely on their immigration status. It is illegal for Kaiser to do this. It is illegal for United Healthcare to do this. It is illegal for any doctor, hospital or clinic to charge higher prices to undocumented customers,” Durazo said at a California Latino Legislative Caucus rally outside the state Capitol on Monday.

The influential Latino Legislative Caucus has staunchly opposed cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s expanded version of the federal Medicaid program. The objections come despite California expecting decreased revenue in part due to President Trump’s tariff policies and increases in state spending, including the recent expansion of Medi-Cal coverage to cover all eligible Californians, including immigrants lacking documentation.

State Senator Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), chair of a budget subcommittee on health, said Newsom’s proposal scapegoats immigrants for California’s economic woes. Immigrants, she said, are essential to California’s robust economy, recently ranked as the fourth largest in the world.

“If you were to remove the name from this document — if you were to remove the state, and people would just read this off to you and you closed your eyes — you would think, ‘Oh, that’s a budget proposed by a Republican in, perhaps, Alabama,’” she said.

During his news conference on Wednesday, Newsom encouraged state lawmakers and specially members of the Latino caucus to offer alternatives to balance the state budget if they disagreed with his proposal.

“Good people have different ideas, and I look forward to their ideas,” Newsom said.

On Monday, members of the Latino caucus did not mention any specific measures they would take instead of cutting Medi-Cal access, but pledged to offer budget balancing proposals in the days and weeks to come.

May 17 (UPI) — Maryland Governor Wes Moore vetoed a measure that would have created a commission to study reparations in the former slave state.

Moore vetoed the bill on Friday but said he will propose other methods to address the effects of slavery, Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination against blacks in Maryland.

“Together, we must take urgent action to address the barriers that have walled off black families in Maryland from work, wages and wealth for generations,” Moore said Friday in a letter to state lawmakers.

Moore said he will make an announcement regarding the wealth gap in Maryland during the Juneteenth holiday.

The bill was among several that Moore vetoed about 10 days before the deadline to act on them.

The proposed commission would have explored options for addressing the state’s past and subsequent laws deemed discriminatory toward blacks from 1865 to 1965.

The options would have included a formal apology, cash payments or enacting laws that would make amends for past wrongs.

“You can’t have unity without justice, and you can’t have justice without truth-telling, and you can’t have truth-telling without courage,” Delegate Gabriel Acevero, D-Montgomery County, said upon the measure’s introduction in April.

The measure would have created a 23-member commission tasked with studying the effects of slavery and how to make amends with the descendants of former slaves.

Potential state policy changes might have included help with social services and down payments, debt forgiveness, child care coverage and property tax rebates.

A Maryland lawmaker who opposed the proposed reparations commission said it would create a race-based reparations tax.

“It is disgraceful that we are going to set up a reparation tax that will tax one race and give to another race, all in the name of equity,” Delegate Matthew Morgan, R-Calvert and St. Mary’s counties, said upon the bill’s passage in April.

He called “equity” a “Marxist term.”

A key committee of the Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to cut the number of employees targeted for layoff by Mayor Karen Bass by more than half, bringing the total down to an estimated 650.

The council’s budget committee took steps to save more than 1,000 jobs by pursuing an array of cost-cutting measures, such as hiring fewer police officers and scaling back funding for Bass’ Inside Safe program, which moves homeless people into temporary or permanent housing.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who chairs the committee, said those and many other moves would help the city protect core services, including tree trimming, street resurfacing, street light repair and sanitation teams that address illegal dumping.

“We looked for ways to save positions — not for the sake of job counts only, but to make sure the departments can still do the work our constituents need them to do for their quality of life,” said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside.

The committee’s recommendations for the proposed 2025-26 budget now head to the full council, which is scheduled to take them up on Thursday.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who sits on the committee, expressed some optimism after the vote.

“We were in very rough waters, and a very different landscape, when we started this process,” said Hernandez, who represents part of the Eastside. “And now there seems to be some light between the clouds.”

As part of Friday’s deliberations, the budget committee voted to recommend a slowdown in sworn hiring at the LAPD, which would leave the agency with 8,400 officers by June 30, 2026. That represents a reduction of about 300 from the current fiscal year and 1,600 compared with 2020.

The budget committee also agreed to eliminate 42 emergency incident technicians at the fire department, a move opposed by interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva, while also canceling Bass’ plan for a new homelessness unit within that agency.

In addition, the five-member panel recommended a hike in parking meter fees, which is expected to generate $14 million in the upcoming fiscal year.

Yaroslavsky said the changes endorsed by the budget committee on Friday would save about 150 civilian workers in the police department.

Chief Legislative Analyst Sharon Tso, who advises the council, said she believes that city officials will keep finding ways to reduce the number of layoffs, by transferring workers to vacant city positions or to agencies that are unaffected by the budget crisis, such as Los Angeles World Airports and the Port of Los Angeles.

“I think we’re going to be able to truly get that number down to less than 500,” she told the committee.

Bass, faced with a nearly $1-billion shortfall, released a proposed budget last month that called for the layoff of about 1,600 employees, a fourth of them civilian workers at the LAPD. Some of the largest reductions were planned at agencies that handle sanitation, street repairs and maintenance of city facilities.

Friday’s deliberations set the stage for many positions to remain intact, particularly at the Department of City Planning, which had been facing 115 layoffs. Kevin Keller, executive officer with that agency, said the committee found the funding to restore more than 100 of those positions.

“I know there’s a lot of city workers that are breathing a big sigh of relief tonight,” said Roy Samaan, president of the Engineers and Architects Assn., whose union represents planning department employees.

L.A.’s budget crisis has been attributed to a number of factors, including rapidly rising legal payouts, lower-than-expected tax revenue and a package of raises for the city workforce that is expected to add $250 million to the upcoming budget, which goes into effect on July 1.

Bass and the council have been hoping to persuade city labor unions to provide financial concessions that would help avoid more cuts. So far, no deals have been struck.

On Friday, before the committee began its deliberations, Bass said she is optimistic about avoiding layoffs entirely. At the same time, she spoke against a budget strategy that pits the hiring of police officers against the preservation of other jobs, calling it “a Sophie’s Choice.”

If the LAPD slows down hiring, it will have fewer officers in the run-up to next year’s hosting of the World Cup, she said.

“I’m not going accept that as my choice,” she said.

During the final minutes of Friday’s five-hour meeting, council members made some last-minute restorations, identifying additional funds for youth programs, tree trimming and fire department mechanics. Hernandez pushed for the committee to restore $1 million for Represent LA, which provides legal defense of immigrants facing deportation or other enforcement actions, and $500,000 for graffiti paint-out crews.

Hernandez said the city needs to stand by immigrants amid a harsh federal crackdown. And she described graffiti removal as crucial for public safety in her district.

“Getting graffiti down quickly prevents a lot more people from getting shot, prevents them from getting killed,” she said.

Republicans have proposed the remittance tax as part of a broader push to crack down on undocumented immigration.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has denounced a provision in a tax bill being considered in the United States Congress that would impose duties on remittances — a term used to describe the money people send abroad for non-commercial reasons, often as gifts to family and loved ones.

On Thursday, during her morning news conference, Sheinbaum addressed the tax bill directly, calling the remittances proposal “a measure that is unacceptable”.

“It would result in double taxation, since Mexicans living in the United States already pay taxes,” she said.

She added that her government was reaching out to other countries with large immigrant populations to voice concern about the US proposition.

“This will not just affect Mexico,” she said. “It will also affect many other countries and many other Latin American countries.”

According to World Bank data from 2024, India is the top recipient of international remittances, with $129bn coming from abroad, followed by Mexico with more than $68bn.

In Mexico, in particular, experts estimate that remittances make up close to 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

But a far-reaching tax bill championed by US President Donald Trump includes language that would impose a 5-percent excise tax on remittances sent specifically by non-citizens, including visa holders and permanent residents.

That bill would affect nearly 40 million people living in the country. US citizens, however, would be exempt from the remittance tax.

Trump has led a campaign to discourage immigration to the US and promote “mass deportation” during his second term in office, as part of his “America First” agenda.

Proponents of that platform say taxing remittances would serve as clear deterrence to immigrants who come to the US looking for better economic opportunities for themselves and any loved ones they hope to support back home.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, told The Associated Press news agency that he believes barriers to remittances can help curb undocumented immigration to the US.

“One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,” Krikorian said. “If that’s much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.”

Under the bill being weighed in the House of Representatives, the 5-percent tax would be paid by the sender and collected by “remittance transfer providers”, who would then send that money to the US Treasury.

But President Sheinbaum and other leaders have called on Republicans in Congress to reconsider that provision, given the unintended consequences it could create. Sheinbaum even suggested that the tax could be seen as unconstitutional in the US.

“This is an injustice, apart from being unconstitutional,” she said on Thursday. “But in addition, it is the tax on those who have the least. They should charge taxes to those at the top, not those at the bottom.”

Critics of the measure point out that remittances can help stabilise impoverished areas abroad, thereby limiting the likelihood of undocumented migration from those areas.

Additional barriers to sending remittances could create economic setbacks for those communities, not to mention make the process more difficult for US citizens who are exempted from the proposed tax.

Still, even if the tax bill is defeated or the provision on remittances removed, the Trump administration has signalled it plans to move forward with other measures designed to discourage migrants from sending funds abroad.

On April 25, Trump posted on his media platform, Truth Social, a list of “weekly policy achievements”.

On the final page, the top bullet point under “international relations” was “finalizing a Presidential Memorandum to shut down remittances sent by illegal aliens outside the United States”. Trump called the document a “MUST READ”.

May 14 (UPI) — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. defended proposed 2026 budget reductions during separate House and Senate committee budget hearings on Wednesday.

Kennedy started the morning by fielding questions from members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

Chairman Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., opened the hearing by acknowledging President Donald Trump‘s efforts to enforce the border and its effect on community health and safety.

“The president’s success in securing our border directly benefits public health by reducing the incoming flow of illicit drugs, like fentanyl, which has fallen by 54% since this time last year,” Aderholt said. “That’s no small thing.”

He also commended the Trump administration for reducing the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border and said he wants to hear Kennedy’s ideas for reforming the Department of Health and Human Services and its sub-agencies.

‘Disastrous’ program funding reductions

Ranking Member Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., was less conciliatory and referred to the Trump administration’s budget request for the Department of Health and Human Services as “disastrous.”

DeLauro said the proposed budget would reduce funding for health programs by $33 billion.

The proposed HHS budget for the 2026 fiscal year is $93.8 billion, which is a 26.2% reduction from the current budget and includes funding reductions across most programs.

“I view it as a disgrace,” DeLauro said. “Under your budget proposal, Americans would die needless and preventable deaths.”

DeLauro cited funding cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and accused Kennedy and the Department of Government Efficiency Director Elon Musk of “eliminating entire divisions without consideration for what is being lost.”

The cuts “affect families and communities” and “are dangerous,” DeLauro said.

Kennedy said his goal is to make America healthy again by focusing on the “chronic disease epidemic.”

HHS also seeks to deliver more effective and efficient services for Americans who rely on Medicaid, Medicare and other programs while reducing costs for taxpayers, Kennedy said.

During the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee budget hearing Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy said states and localities can do a better job of responding to disasters at the state and local levels than the federal government.

He cited Florida’s success in handling hurricanes Helene and Milton last year, with no lives lost there, as an example and said the federal government should focus on national disasters.

Drug prices and healthcare as a human right

Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., asked Kennedy if he is willing to work to make drug prices in the United States the lowest in the world, to which Kennedy said he is.

Sanders then asked Kennedy if healthcare is a “human right.”

Kennedy said healthcare is not part of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and called it more of a philosophical matter.

Sanders responded by saying “every other country guarantees healthcare” as a right and said Americans don’t want the choice to be uninsured or not have the ability to see a doctor.

Kennedy said “Obamacare” is not working and he and President Trump want to enable everyone to be insured and have access to quality healthcare.

Sanders then cited proposed cuts to programs that serve middle-class and poor Americans and claimed they would end healthcare coverage for 13 million Americans.

Kennedy said the cuts only are for waste and denied they would affect coverage for Americans.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., followed Sanders and cited examples of wasteful programs that the proposed budget would eliminate.

They include a recent study on the effects of cocaine on lab rats and another study that showed about half of biological males who medically transition to female believe they can get pregnant, the senator said.

Gain-of-function research and COVID-19

Paul also said bipartisan support exists for better controlling gain-of-function research on Ebola, avian flu and other infectious diseases and the potential dangers they pose to Americans.

The senator cited a research study that would put Ebola in an aerosol as a potential biological weapon, which he said could be potentially very dangerous to the general public.

Paul asked Kennedy if HHS would be transparent in gain-of-function research regulations and protect Americans from potentially deadly outbreaks.

Kennedy said HHS would be “absolutely transparent” in regulating gain-of-function research and “bring the public in on the debate.”

He also said National Institutes of Health research “almost certainly” caused the COVID-19 pandemic through gain-of-function research.

Lack of access to critical care

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she opposes staffing reductions at the NIH and cited a constituent with stage-four cancer who recently was told her treatment would be delayed by four weeks due to staffing shortages.

Kennedy offered to intervene on that person’s behalf and ensure she receives needed care right away.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., accused Kennedy of “hiding information” from the American people and asked if he believes lead poisoning is a problem.

Kennedy said he thinks it’s a very serious problem, but Baldwin said “the entire lead-poisoning program staff has been fired.”

She asked if Kennedy intends to eliminate the program that helps communities address lead poisoning, which he said will not happen.

She also said HHS has provided about $1 billion less in Head Start program funding and asked why there are funding delays.

“There should not be any delays,” Kennedy said. “The funding is there.”

He suggested staffers who want to make the Trump administration look bad are slowing down disbursements for Head Start and similar programs.

The House and Senate hearings were held before a vote on a proposed 2026 federal government budget measure that Trump has referred to as “one big, beautiful bill.”

Protesters arrested for disrupting hearing

While the Senate hearing was underway, Ben & Jerry’s co-owner and co-founder Ben Cohen and six others were arrested for disrupting the hearing, Axios reported.

Cohen and the others were protesting the United States’ support of Israel in its war with Hamas in Gaza.

The protesters yelled, “RFK kills people with hate!” before Capitol Police escorted them from the room.

They were arrested and charged with crowding, obstructing proceedings or incommoding.

Some protesters also were charged with assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest, but Cohen was not among those so charged.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing to accelerate his administration’s plan to build a $20-billion water tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by short-cutting permitting for the project and limiting avenues for legal challenges.

Newsom urged the Legislature on Wednesday to adopt his plan to “fast-track” the tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project, as part of his revised May budget proposal.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers,” Newsom said. “Our state needs to complete this project as soon as possible, so that we can better store and manage water to prepare for a hotter, drier future. Let’s get this built.”

The tunnel would create a second route to transport water to the state’s pumping facilities on the south side of the Delta, where supplies enter the aqueducts of the State Water Project and are delivered to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland.

Supporters of the plan, including water agencies in Southern California and Silicon Valley, say the state needs to build new infrastructure in the Delta to protect the water supply in the face of climate change and earthquake risks.

Opponents, including agencies in the Delta and environmental advocates, say the project is an expensive boondoggle that would harm the environment and communities, and that the state should pursue other alternatives.

“It’s a top-down push for an unaffordable, unnecessary tunnel that fails to solve the state’s real water challenges,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta.

She said the governor “wants to bypass the legal and public processes because the project doesn’t pass the economic or environmental standards Californians expect.”

Newsom, who is set to serve through 2026 and then leave office, is pushing to lay the groundwork for the project.

Newsom said his proposal would: simplify permitting by eliminating certain deadlines from water rights permits; narrow legal review to avoid delays from legal challenges; confirm that the state has authority to issue bonds to pay for the project, which would be repaid by water agencies; and accelerate state efforts to acquire land for construction.

Announcing the proposal, the governor’s office said that “while the project has received some necessary permits, its path forward is burdened by complicated regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic delays.”

The State Water Resources Control Board is currently considering a petition by the Newsom administration to amend water rights permits so that flows could be diverted from new points on the Sacramento River where the intakes of the 45-mile tunnel would be built.

The governor’s latest proposal was praised by water agencies including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is currently spending about $142 million on the preliminary planning.

MWD General Manager Deven Upadhyay called Newsom’s proposal a “bold step” toward protecting water supplies, saying the approach would support completion of the planning work, reduce “regulatory and legal uncertainties,” and allow the MWD board to make an informed decision about whether to make a long-term investment to help foot the bill for construction.

Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors, said the governor’s approach makes sense to address costly delays and upgrade essential infrastructure that is “in dire need of modernization.”

Environmental and fishing groups, however, called Newsom’s proposal a reckless attempt to bypass the existing legal process and make it harder for opponents to challenge the project over what they contend would be harmful effects on the Delta region and the environment.

Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Assn., a group that represents fishing communities, called Newsom’s proposal “an attack on the salmon fishing industry and the state’s biggest rivers.”

Commercial salmon fishing has been canceled for three consecutive years because of a decline in the Chinook salmon population. Artis said building the tunnel would represent a “nail in the coffin of California’s once mighty salmon runs.”