NEW YORK — A federal immigration court in Lower Manhattan has come to represent the Trump administration’s deportation campaign in New York City, with agents carrying out chaotic and sometimes violent arrests in the hallway as migrants leave hearings.
Now the court is serving as a front in a different kind of battle: one of the city’s most closely watched congressional races.
In the Democratic primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and former city Comptroller Brad Lander — for a district so solidly blue that the June primary is considered its deciding election — both candidates have made the Trump administration’s treatment of migrants at 26 Federal Plaza a feature of their campaigns, but with decidedly different approaches.
Goldman — an heir to the Levi Strauss denim fortune and former prosecutor who was lead counsel for President Trump’s first impeachment — has approached the topic with a lawyerly bent that leverages the power of his office.
He sued the administration to open immigration detention centers to members of Congress, conducts oversight visits and turned his office across the street into what he’s called a triage center that connects immigrants with advocacy groups and legal services that has, his campaign said, helped more than 30 people get released from federal custody.
After a recent visit, Goldman credited his oversight work as a reason conditions at a holding facility inside the building have improved.
“What you see from our multipronged approach is the way that I push back, which is not performative, but it is substantive,” he told the Associated Press outside 26 Federal Plaza after he toured the detention center that is closed to the public.
Meanwhile, Lander — a progressive city government stalwart who is running with the support of Mayor Zohran Mamdani — has acted as protester and court observer, watching hearings and attempting to accompany immigrants out of the building past masked federal agents.
His efforts have gotten him arrested twice, with the most recent case headed to a trial scheduled to take place just before the primary.
“I would characterize his oversight function as strongly worded letters,” Lander told AP when asked about Goldman’s approach. “And my oversight function is: Show up with hundreds of your neighbors and bear witness and accompany people and demand access and stay until they give it to you or they arrest you.”
Lander’s first arrest happened last year when he linked arms with a person authorities were attempting to detain in the hallway outside the court. Lander was running for mayor at the time, and the arrest gave his campaign a jolt of excitement at a time when Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo were considered the front-runners in the race.
A few months later, after losing the mayoral primary but not long before launching his congressional campaign, Lander was arrested again during a large protest at the building and hit with a misdemeanor obstruction charge.
But instead of accepting a deal that would have made the case go away in six months, Lander instead opted to go to trial. He said the case would extract information about the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts at the building during a tense period that predates Goldman’s oversight visits.
Goldman dismissed Lander’s efforts as performative.
“I don’t understand why someone would reject a dismissal of a case so that he can have a public trial, ostensibly to ask for information that I could provide him whenever he wanted because I have the answers from doing my oversight,” he said.
This week, Lander returned to 26 Federal Plaza to sit in on hearings. But just before entering the building, his team got word that federal agents were lingering outside an immigration hearing at a different federal courtroom in a building across the street. He raced over and eventually found the agents, who were wearing masks and milling around in the court’s waiting room.
“The challenge is trying to figure out who they’re going to arrest,” Lander said, popping out of the hearing, where he sat in a back row and took notes. After a while, the agents walked away from the hearing room, down a hallway and exited the floor. It was not clear why they left.
“Maybe we have different styles,” Lander said of his opponent after the agents departed. He later went back across the street and filmed a campaign video in front of 26 Federal Plaza.
That’s the mantra of a multiracial group of civil rights leaders and activists organizing opposition to a mostly white conservative alliance dismantling the Voting Rights Act and political districts that allowed Black and other nonwhite voters to choose more of their elected leaders for the last half-century.
“We have to respond as quickly as possible,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in an interview. “The real question,” Johnson told the Associated Press, “is how do we as a country really address the effort to shrink us backwards into a 1950s reality?”
Johnson’s 117-year-old association, which was at the forefront of legal and legislative fights for Black political rights in the 20th century, is among scores of groups coming together Saturday in Alabama for a rally and tribute to the Civil Rights Movement that helped bring about the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They plan events in Selma, where voting rights advocates were attacked by white law enforcement officers on Bloody Sunday, and Montgomery, where a rescheduled march concluded two weeks later.
Unlike 61 years ago, the Alabama events are not the pinnacle of a protracted movement. Instead, civil rights activists hope they serve as a catalyst for a renewed crusade after the U.S. Supreme Court, two weeks ago, further weakened the VRA by no longer allowing race to be considered in how congressional and other districts are drawn.
They acknowledge difficulty in countering a white-dominated conservative network entrenched in the White House, Capitol Hill, federal courts and many state legislatures of the Old Confederacy, where a majority of Black Americans still live.
The VRA “was the foundational nucleus of the Civil Rights Movement,” said Jared Evans of the Louisiana-based Power Coalition for Equity and Justice. “They’ve taken that from us,” he said, with the recent Louisiana v. Callais decision on congressional districts and the earlier Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013 that rolled back federal oversight of election procedures in states and localities with a history of discrimination.
Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, who is senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, said from his pulpit that the result is “Jim Crow in new clothes.”
Warnock pointed to King and the last voting rights movement. “We need political power. We need economic power. We need personal power,” he said, assuring parishioners that “your adversaries know that your voice matters” because they’re “bending over backwards” to diminish it.
Evans reached further back into history to say what must happen next.
“Our response must be and will be a second Reconstruction period,” Evans said.
Some Democrats want an answer from Congress
The ultimate goal, organizers said, is to win more elections, sway policy fights and protect diverse political representation at all levels.
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, a Black lawmaker who represents Selma, Alabama, said an immediate priority is to “reform and reintroduce” Democrats’ flagship voting bill, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Sewell, whose seat ultimately could be threatened under redistricting, said Democrats want to “completely” eliminate partisan gerrymandering.
She also said the legislation would “bring back pre-clearance,” the requirement for certain federal approvals that the court struck down in Shelby.
“We need to come up with a modern-day formula for showing just how egregious the behavior of these state actors is,” Sewell said.
The Supreme Court ruled in Callais that states do not have to draw majority nonwhite districts under the Voting Rights Act and, in fact, should not consider race at all when drawing boundaries. By arguing that the law’s remedies to combat discrimination had themselves become racist, the decision allows states to redraw heavily Black districts that have historically elected Democrats while arguing that the designs are based on party interests, not race.
President Trump praised the decision as “a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination.”
Groups mobilized for redistricting sessions
Many of the same groups who’ll be in Alabama on Saturday have already gone to Southern statehouses, where white Republican lawmakers moved swiftly to redraw congressional districts after Callais.
Alabama and Louisiana lawmakers reverted to a single majority-Black district, each scrapping a second district that had been ordered by lower federal courts under now-reversed VRA interpretations. Tennessee lawmakers gutted a majority Black district by splitting greater Memphis into three different sprawling districts — itself an obvious racial gerrymander the court had previously forbidden, Evans said.
Anticipating the Callais outcome, Florida and Texas proceeded with redistricting before it came down. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a term-limited Republican, has called a June session to redraw congressional lines for the 2028 cycle. Mississippi and South Carolina have delayed the matter for now.
South Carolina state Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey was among the few white Republicans who pushed back against GOP redistricting plans. He said that not even pressure from Trump could sell him on disenfranchising Black South Carolinians instead of doing what’s best for his state.
Other white conservatives are still talking openly about ousting Reps. Jim Clyburn and Bennie Thompson, the only Black U.S. House members from South Carolina and Mississippi, respectively.
Evans, the Louisiana activist, predicted the fight ahead won’t just be about congressional representation.
“Look for them to go after state house and state senate seats — and then it will be the local level,” he said, adding that “it’s going to be an entire erasure of Black representation.”
The issue is more than a partisan Washington fight
Heavily minority districts drawn under the VRA before Callais nearly always elect Democrats. Black Americans have overwhelmingly aligned with the party since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, sparking a decades-long migration of most white Southern politicians to the Republicans. Latino and Hispanic voters still lean Democratic in most places as well.
The immediate fight shapes the midterm campaign scramble for control of the U.S. House during the final years of Trump’s presidency. Trump initially pushed Republican-run states to redistrict to protect the party’s fragile House majority.
But Johnson, the NAACP leader, said all voters should see more than partisan warfare or a regional battle over race.
Beyond party allegiance, Johnson argued, white conservatives want to curtail a range of rights “depending on how you pray, depending on who you love,” while also pushing economic policies that punish workers across racial and ethnic lines. From legislation to the confirmation of federal judges who decide constitutional questions, those policy outcomes start with election results.
“It’s not a Black problem,” Johnson said. “That’s an American problem.”
There is no singular movement or leader yet
Evans, Johnson and others acknowledged the complexity in harnessing disparate organizations and galvanizing voters on issues like redistricting and gerrymandering. But they insist the brazen nature of Republicans’ course has spurred engagement.
Johnson said he was on an organizing call in Mississippi this week that had 8,000 participants. Evans pointed to packed hallways in the state Capitols in Baton Rouge and Nashville, respectively.
The NAACP and allies have challenged new maps in multiple states, despite Callais. Many groups want to spur midterm turnout among Black voters, and others are disenchanted with white conservatives’ maneuvers in racially diverse places.
Johnson stressed the need for perseverance.
The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision was seismic, with a unanimous court declaring segregated public schools unconstitutional and reversing 19th-century precedents denying Black Americans’ fundamental rights.
But it took 17 years — and many more court battles — for it to be implemented in most Southern school districts. Fights over mandated student busing continued beyond the South. It was a decade after Brown before Congress and Johnson enacted the movement’s seminal laws.
There’s no clear leader of a modern movement.
Johnson said it’s worth remembering that even with King at the helm before his assassination, “there was tension around strategy” in the 1950s and 1960s.
But even “through that tension, through many episodes, we were able to get directly in the right place.”
SAN FRANCISCO — As Californians cast ballots in the most unsettled governor’s race in recent history, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat surging in the polls, once again took most of the heat during a contentious debate among the top candidates for California governor.
Becerra’s rapid rise as the top Democrat in the race was greeted on stage by a fusillade of political attacks from rival Democrats and Republicans, notably regarding his former campaign manager’s guilty plea to federal corruption charges hours before the clash.
Then came accusations that he wavered on support for single-payer healthcare, and failed to stem healthcare and unemployment fraud while serving as California’s attorney general.
“This is what happens when you take the lead in the polls and you’re ahead of everyone else. They all come at you,” Becerra said. “I get it. So they have to try to beat you down. This is a great Trump tactic that’s used. I didn’t expect it to come from fellow Democrats.”
“With friends like that, who needs enemies?” Becerra later said.
The face-off took place at a critical moment before the June 2 primary. Republican voters appear to be consolidating behind Hilton, who was endorsed by President Trump, while Becerra and billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer are favored most by Democrats.
From left, Katie Porter, Chad Bianco, Antonio Villaraigosa and Xavier Becerra at Thursday’s debate.
(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Pool via Associated Press)
Up for grabs
As ballots land in mailboxes, California voters are finally tuning in to the race to lead the nation’s most populous state and fourth-largest economy in the world. Thursday’s 90-minute CBS debate may have been the final opportunity for candidates to directly address large numbers of voters.
Until now, scandal drew the most attention to the contest, as former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), once an establishment favorite and nominal front-runner, dropped out in April amid allegations of sexual assault and misconduct
Five Democrats — Becerra, Steyer, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — and two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former conservative commentator Steve Hilton — clashed about affordability, housing, public safety, climate, education and healthcare. State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, a Democrat, failed to reach the polling threshold to qualify for the debate.
CBS News Bay Area reporter Ryan Yamamoto, CBS News Los Angeles reporter Tom Wait, and San Francisco Examiner Editor-in-Chief Schuyler Hudak Prionas moderated the face-off in front of nearly 200 people at the historic Julia Morgan Ballroom in San Francisco’s Financial District, with sweeping views of the city.
The opulent Beaux-Arts venue contrasted with the tense confrontations among the candidates that underscored Becerra’s swift rise among Democrats in the field after Swalwell dropped out of the race. Even before the face-off, his Democratic rivals began ramping up their focus on Becerra.
Becerra under attack
The candidate faced a barrage of attacks over a string of unfavorable publicity this week, including a widely circulated exchange with a KTLA reporter in which the Democratic candidate asked, “This is a profile piece, this is not a gotcha piece, right?”
Although Becerra has not been accused of wrongdoing, that did not temper criticism from his political rivals during Thursday’s debate. They questioned his judgment and said Becerra should have noticed where his money was going.
Hilton said Becerra should be preparing his own criminal defense, rather than running for governor. Porter warned that damning evidence against Becerra could come out later — which, if he finishes as the top Democrat in the primary election, could undercut his campaign and lead to a Republican being elected California’s next governor.
Becerra defended himself, pointing out that federal prosecutors never accused him of being involved and stated that none of the candidates for governor were implicated in scandal.
Democrats also painted Becerra as a leader who allowed fraud and mismanagement to fester under his watch.
“He wasn’t minding the shop” as state attorney general, Mahan said, pointing to fraudulent unemployment and hospice claims early in the COVID-19 pandemic. “I mean, the Biden administration had to sideline him during COVID. This is not good leadership.”
Matt Mahan, left, is polling in the single digits and made a last-ditch effort to leave an imprint during Thursday’s debate.
(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Godofredo A. Vásquez/pool Ap Via Ap)
Major focus on kitchen table issues, a critical concern among voters
Affordability was a major theme in the debate, which included an introductory video of a single mother struggling to fill her gas tank and buy groceries.
Steyer said he would reduce costs by taking on special interests and bringing about structural change and breaking up monopolies.
“I am the person who will tax the billionaires like me, and the big corporations so we can afford to make the changes” to pay for healthcare and great education, he said.
Mahan said the answer was to “put more money in people’s pockets by bringing down costs,” and that that would not occur under either Steyer or Hilton.
“Tom Steyer’s structural change sounds to me more like socialism. His plans literally would double the size of state government,” Mahan said. “That’s not going to drive affordability. Steve Hilton is touting his Donald Trump endorsements. You’ve got tariffs and wars driving up costs.”
Hilton returned fire: “I love the way Matt talks about how he’s going to lower costs when his city was recently rated the most expensive, the least affordable for housing, in the world.”
Daylight between Republicans about climate change
The Republican candidates avoided attacking each other during the debates, offering compliments instead. But the two split when asked about whether climate change was having a real-world impact.
Bianco said California is destroying itself with its environmental policies.
“Of course we can say that temperatures are increasing,” he said, but he also said he was not “naive” enough to think that humans can affect or control the climate, which has been changing since he was a child, and that California has to stop all the environmental regulations that are “activist related” and destroying the state’s economy.
Tom Steyer spoke Thursday of affordability, a hot-button issue: “I am the person who will tax the billionaires like me.”
(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Pool via Associated Press)
Hilton said he believes in climate change but that California needs to have “common sense” on the issue rather than ideological responses. He said it is “of course” right to want clean water and air but that policies in California are not working — as has been made clear by the recent “mega-fires” in the state.
The Democrats on stage were closely aligned on the need to respond to the climate crisis and ensure that environmental protections are not dismantled by the Trump administration.
Last-ditch efforts by struggling candidates
Candidates in the crowded field who have struggled to break through — centrist Democrats Mahan and Villaraigosa, who have languished in the single digits in the polls — made a last-ditch effort to leave an imprint during Thursday’s gathering.
Mahan went after nearly every candidate on the stage in the opening moments of the debate.
“The change we need is rooted in accountability for results,” Mahan said. “It’s not the change billionaire Tom Steyer’s offering, which is higher taxes and bigger government. It’s not the change Fox News talking head Steve Hilton’s offering — fear, division and more Donald Trump. And let’s be honest, Xavier Becerra is not offering change; he’s the embodiment of the status quo.”
Villaraigosa leaned heavily into his experiences leading Los Angeles and in the state Assembly to argue that he was most qualified to lead the state while castigating his fellow Democrats’ policies.
“This is a state with big challenges, the challenge of affordability, the challenge of healthcare, homelessness, and dirty streets and crime-filled streets,” Villaraigosa said. “The fact is, I’m the only candidate on this stage who, in addition to hitting Donald Trump, which I do, have challenged us, challenged this party, and said, ‘Hold it, a lot of the problems that we face have come from Sacramento policies.’ We need someone with the courage to take on Donald Trump, but also take on our friends when they’re wrong. I’ve had a record of doing that.”
Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Nixon from San Francisco.
WASHINGTON — House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries had warned Republicans they would come to regret the congressional redistricting fight, and when Democrats counterpunched last month with a redrawn Virginia map, he had made his point.
The net tally of seats gained and lost was essentially a wash.
“F— around and find out,” said Jeffries after the election victory.
But in a matter of days, the race for control of the House — and the speaker’s gavel — was dramatically reset by back-to-back court rulings that wiped out the Democratic gains in Virginia and now threaten to erode Black representation by Democrats in the Deep South.
The shifting political prospects have been a wake-up call for Democrats, who have been favored to win back the House this November, riding the wave of President Trump’s dipping approval ratings, and a test for Jeffries as the party faces an enlarging map of Republican-friendly seats.
The leader’s aligned outside group has spent some $60 million, much of it on Virginia alone, a hit to the Democrats’ resources as they confront Trump’s Republicans.
“It sort of crystallizes the election is now a contest between one side that has the money and the maps, and the other that has the voters and the candidates,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist and former deputy director of the House Democrats’ campaign arm.
Jeffries would make history as the first Black speaker of the House
Jeffries, who is in line to make history as America’s first Black speaker of the House, acknowledged the Democrats may need to flip twice as many Republican seats — a total gain of six rather than just three — to win the majority in the aftermath of the redistricting fights.
But he insisted that Democrats were on track to pick up seats, as they did in 2018 during Trump’s first term, because Republicans are relying on redistricting — rather than policy solutions — to win elections.
Trump Republicans “don’t give a damn” about Americans’ financial struggles, Jeffries said, paraphrasing the president’s own remarks.
During a closed-door meeting on Wednesday with House Democrats, Jeffries described the work ahead in almost existential terms for the country.
He said the court rulings against the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia measure were “disgusting.” And he warned his colleagues that Republicans would proceed with “diabolical intensity” in their campaigns to regain control of the House, which Democrats will not only have to match but “we have to exceed it with righteous intensity at all times.”
“Failure is not an option,” he told the Democrats, according to a person in the room granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks. “We have to win, and we are going to win.”
Path to power depends on a handful of House seats
Never easy, the race to the House majority was also not expected to be this complicated. Republicans hold a slim majority, among the most narrow in modern House history, and midterm elections tend to favor the party out of power, as a check on the White House.
But when Trump said last summer that Republicans were “entitled” to five more GOP seats from Texas, it sparked a redistricting crusade that led Jeffries to respond in kind.
Rather than take what they call the high road, Democrats said they decided to fight back, believing they could not fully count on the nation’s institutions — in this case, the courts — to provide a check on the GOP power play.
Jeffries flew to Austin to join the Texas Democrats fighting the redistricting plan in their state and stood with those same lawmakers in Chicago where they fled to deny statehouse Republicans a quorum. He joined the private meetings of California Democrats as they launched their counter attack, a voter initiative that put five more seats in the Democratic column. The Democrats picked up a seat in Utah.
And on it went.
“We had to very quickly make a decision, set a course and take a risk,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., recalling the closed-door talks last summer. “There was no guarantee this was going to work out.”
The Virginia measure became a turning point, Jeffries’ biggest swing yet, putting Democrats essentially at parity, if not a potential upper hand in the number of seats gained, and shifting Old Dominion more securely into the party’s column.
He rallied some 1,000 churchgoers in Richmond ahead of Election Day as voters headed to the polls.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday called the Democratic play for Virginia a “crazy overreach” that was rightly rejected by the state’s high court.
“Fortunately, the plan failed spectacularly,” Johnson said.
Redistricting battles push into 2028
While Democrats said they expected the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act, the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to toss last month’s election results blindsided many of them.
Jeffries joined a call with furious Virginia Democrats over the weekend who said they were more determined than ever to win the Republican seats outright, regardless of their loss over the map changes.
The overall tally after nearly a year of redistricting battles is still shifting as Republican legislatures in the South rush to redraw their maps in the aftermath of the ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, many of them preparing to eliminate districts held by some of the most senior Black lawmakers in Congress.
Rep. James Clyburn, the veteran Democratic legislator from South Carolina whose own seat is at risk, blamed the justices, not Jeffries, for the outcome in Virginia and elsewhere.
“What the hell, he can’t control the courts,” Clyburn said, vowing to run for reelection regardless of where his district is drawn. “Don’t put that on Jeffries. We won the vote.”
Jeffries acknowledged that this year’s maps are almost set, and pivoted to 2028 when he said Democrats will redouble their efforts to confront the GOP redistricting battle ahead of the next election.
“We know this unprecedented assault on Black political representation, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jim Crow era, the ghost of the Confederacy” will continue, he said. “The challenge that is in front of us is ensuring that there is a decisive and overwhelming response in advance of 2028.”
A briefing memo obtained by The Times appears to support former Rep. Katie Porter’s accusation that a Tom Steyer staffer leaked a video of her yelling at an employee, an outburst that tainted her gubernatorial prospects when the video became public.
The video, which was obtained in October by Politico, showed Porter erupting at a staff member who appeared in the background of a prerecorded Zoom call between the former congresswoman and then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.
During a nationally televised interview on CNN by Dana Bash on Monday, Porter accused the Steyer campaign of leaking the damaging video.
“I am confident that is the case,” Porter said after Bash asked how she knew Steyer was the source. “I’ve been told by many people it’s a Department of Energy video, it was only held by the Department of Energy, and people can follow the trail to who his campaign staffers are and understand what happened there.”
Following the CNN interview, Steyer’s campaign denied that the candidate was involved with the leak.
Gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer hosts an “LA Block Party” campaign event Wednesday at East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park. Rocky Mosse, 9, waits his turn for a photo with Steyer.
(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)
“Tom has nothing to do with that video,” Steyer campaign spokesperson Sepi Esfahlani said after Porter levied the accusation on Monday. “This is an attempt from Katie Porter to deflect from her past mistakes. Katie Porter only has one person to blame for her standing in the race, and it’s herself.”
According to a briefing memo from the meeting obtained by The Times, Steyer spokesman Kevin Liao was listed as an “expected participant” on the video call between Granholm and Porter, which took place on June 21, 2021, and was filmed to promote electric vehicles by the Biden administration. Granholm and Liao were the only participants listed from the Energy Department, according to the document obtained by The Times.
“This is a 20 minute recorded Zoom with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to discuss the importance of investing in electric vehicles,” the document apparently prepared for Porter and her staff states. “Kevin Liao, Granholm’s press secretary, reached out to set this up. His team will edit this video down into a 2-3 minute clip for social media. Secretary Granholm will have a whiteboard, as noted in the script.”
The edited video conversation was posted on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Facebook page in early July 2021. Politico reported that the Porter staff member snapped at by the congresswoman was not the source of the video provided to the news outlet.
The clip from the Porter-Granholm call was the second unflattering video of the candidate to surface last fall. Days earlier, another clip began to circulate, showing Porter threatening to end an interview with CBS California reporter Julie Watts after becoming frustrated by Watts’ questioning.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm speaks during the UNFCCC COP29 Climate Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, in 2024.
Before the videos became public, Porter had a narrow edge in the race, according to a poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, though many voters at the time remained undecided. Though Porter has continued to hover in the upper tier of gubernatorial hopefuls, she currently trails behind two Democrats — Steyer and former Biden cabinet member Xavier Becerra — and one Republican, former Fox News host Steve Hilton.
The UC Irvine law professor has repeatedly said she apologized to the employee, who spent four more years working in Porter’s congressional office. Dozens of former staffers also came to her defense in an open letter last month.
Liao declined to comment when reached Wednesday evening. He is a primary spokesman for Steyer’s campaign and sent the press release announcing the San Francisco billionaire’s campaign for governor in November. Granholm, when reached via text message, denied leaking the video and said she did not know who did.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Liao, a Los Angeles-based political consultant, worked as Granholm’s press secretary from January through October 2021, during the time the Porter video was recorded. In 2024, he founded Frontrunner Strategies, a consulting firm which has been paid more than $45,000 by Steyer’s campaign, according to campaign finance records.
Porter’s campaign declined to comment on the document.
Voting is underway in the primary election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is term-limited and exploring a 2028 presidential bid.
A Wednesday Emerson College poll showed Democratic former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra leading with 19%, followed by both Republican former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Steyer at 17%. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, had support from 11% of likely voters and Porter had 10%. San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond were in single digits. Twelve percent of voters were undecided, according to the poll.
Top candidates, with the exception of Thurmond, are slated to appear in a Thursday night debate hosted by CBS California and the San Francisco Examiner.
Sacramento — A veteran California political consultant has agreed to plead guilty in a scheme to steal campaign funds from Xavier Becerra, now a leading candidate for governor, when he served in the Biden administration, according to filings in her criminal case on Thursday.
Dana Williamson will plead guilty to three counts, including bank fraud and lying to authorities. In exchange, the federal government will dismiss 20 other counts against her related to her tax filings and a federal COVID-era loan she received.
A court hearing is scheduled Thursday morning.
Williamson, a former chief of staff to Gov. Gavin Newsom, was arrested in November and pleaded not guilty. The government secured guilty pleas in December from two advisors who worked with alongside her to skim money from Becerra.
Prosecutors say that Williamson, Becerra’s then-chief of staff Sean McCluskie and lobbyist Greg Campbell took part in a scheme to siphon money from Becerra’s dormant campaign account and funnel it to McCluskie.
McCluskie needed the money, according to prosecutors, so he could afford to fly home frequently to see his family in California while working for Becerra, who was Biden’s health secretary, in Washington, D.C.
As part of the scheme, Williamson and another consultant charged Becerra’s account up to $10,000 a month to manage one of his dormant state campaign accounts.
Becerra approved the payments, even though he had never paid such a high amount for a similar job. He told The Times that McCluskie told him to pay the fees.
Becerra’s rivals in the governor’s race are hammering him over his decision, arguing he should have known something wasn’t right. Becerra has said that he didn’t know about the criminal behavior and has called the charges a “gut punch.”
Known as an hard-nosed and aggressive operator, Williamson’s career in politics also included working for former governors Jerry Brown and Gray Davis and mentoring other women.
McGregor Scott, Williamson’s attorney, told reporters last year that federal authorities initially approached Williamson about helping them with a probe into Newsom. She refused, he said, and was subsequently charged.
Details contained in the indictment and other public records suggest that federal authorities were looking into the state’s handling of alleged sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard Inc., a video game company.
Each one says less about the candidates involved, and more about this moment in politics and where the races for California governor and L.A. mayor may be headed. Each ad also hints at deeper issues that haven’t quite reached the water-cooler conversation level, but maybe should.
Becerra blunder
The first ad that grabbed my attention was a quick-turn by San José Mayor and gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan (still stuck in single-digit polling numbers), who jumped on Xavier Becerra’s first major mess-up.
Becerra chastised KTLA interviewer — on camera — not to give him too many hard questions because, “This is not a gotcha piece, right?”
That left a lot of folks wondering about his temperament and transparency, something rival Katie Porter knows a bit about.
The video went viral, and Mahan mashed it up with now-infamous clips of Porter walking out of a different interview earlier in the campaign cycle.
The result was a fast, funny, pointed jab that made both Becerra and Porter look prickly and unaccountable. For Porter, that damage was done long ago. But this moment for Becerra, the very-slim-margin front-runner, could have sticking power.
The bigger issue is that there are many hard questions that Becerra will likely need to answer if he does make the general election — questions he’s largely been dodging with pat answers.
This week, one of the lobbyists charged in a scheme that allegedly stole more than $200,000 from one of Becerra’s old campaign accounts will appear in court again.
She’s apparently been working on a plea deal, so it’s likely either that will be formalized, or the case will move forward to a trial. Becerra is not accused of any wrongdoing and told my colleague Dakota Smith that he had testified before the grand jury in the case.
But Becerra has also said he was aware that up to $10,000 a month was being paid out of a dormant campaign account to manage that money, since his role as the Health and Human Services Secretary made it illegal for him to be involved directly.
The question that seems relevant in this age of fraud-and-waste panic is who pays $10,000 a month to have someone watch over a dormant account and doesn’t think that’s excessive? Becerra may have been an innocent victim, but $120,000 a year is a lot of money to pay someone to babysit a largely unused stack of cash.
If Becerra does make it through to the primary and faces Hilton or potentially Steyer, both successful businessmen, expect this lack of financial acumen to be an issue — a hard question that is fair to ask of the person who wants to run the fourth largest economy in the world.
Steyer backers
Speaking of money, the second ad (or sort-of ad) that caught my attention is tied to Steyer, the billionaire who has spent more than $100 million of his own money in this race.
The Sacramento Bee reported that Steyer’s campaign has been paying influencers to post support of him online. The account mentioned in the Bee’s report seems to have removed those videos, but others have archived some of them.
These posts are meant to decidedly not feel like advertisements, but just organic support from Steyer supporters. Steyer’s is far from the first campaign to do this and won’t be the last.
While there may be nothing shocking in Steyer’s digital strategy, it should alarm us on the larger level of having a healthy democracy. We’ve largely forgotten the black hole of delusion that millions of Americans fell into during the pandemic era from online misinformation brokers. Remember QAnon?
Influence campaigns are shockingly powerful, and growing in sophistication by the minute. While Steyer’s efforts may be run-of-the-mill, it’s an area of political communication that demands greater transparency and regulation.
Pratt problems
Which brings us to Spencer Pratt, and the ad (ads, really) that caught everyone’s attention — the AI-generated mini-movies that blatantly steal the “Batman” and “Star Wars” intellectual property and which have earned so much viral attention that the mayor’s race can now fairly say it’s got national reach.
Pratt did not make these ads, but he’s reposted them, and millions have watched. Though it may seem obvious they are made by artificial intelligence, they are not identified as such.
Though parody is protected speech, one of the AI videos Pratt has promoted ends with a crowd, including a child, pelting L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris with fruit until they flee.
I disagree. While a certain segment of conservative white male voters might find it hilarious to pelt women of color until they run in fear, I’m pretty sure there are some messages in that missive that aren’t getting the scrutiny they deserve.
The links between hate speech and political violence are well documented. Outrage and action are tied, but now increasingly removed from reality. How AI — especially AI depicting political rivals as unhinged, evil villains — will affect voters, and democracy in general, isn’t yet understood.
I doubt these ads on behalf of Pratt will change the minds of many voters, but they do change politics.
SACRAMENTO — As Xavier Becerra rose to the top echelons of power in Washington and Sacramento over the last two decades, his trusted advisor Sean McCluskie joined him at every step.
The son of a Scottish immigrant, McCluskie had a reputation as a political street fighter and his gruff style complemented Becerra’s more measured, cerebral approach.
Rivals in the California governor’s race have seized on the case to question whether Becerra, one of the front-runners in the contest to succeed outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom, is fit for office and could be swept up in the case.
“We can’t have someone who is running as a Democrat who could run into legal difficulties,” said candidate Tom Steyer, who is close to Becerra in the polls.
Becerra has not been accused of wrongdoing, and prosecutors’ court filings describe him as a victim. He told The Times that he cooperated with investigators, including appearing before the grand jury.
“Sean was as close as any staffer that I’ve ever had,” Becerra said in an interview last week, describing how McCluskie moved across the country twice to work for him.
He added that he’s “racked” his brain to understand the case involving McCluskie and his longtime political consultant, Dana Williamson, both of whom he described as “very highly accomplished people.”
Williamson, who also served as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff, was indicted in November. She had refused to cooperate with federal investigators and pleaded not guilty, but recently discussed a plea deal with prosecutors. A court hearing is set for Thursday, according to court filings.
Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, one of the Democrats who has watched Becerra’s rapid ascent in the race, said in a CNN interview Monday that California can’t risk having Becerra in the race with the specter of the ongoing criminal case.
She acknowledged that “I do not have the facts” about the case, but said if Becerra were to finish in the top two in the June 2 primary and then be indicted by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, a Republican ultimately could win the governor’s race in November.
“Secretary Becerra cannot and has not guaranteed or promised the people of California that he will not be named as a co-conspirator and indicted,” she said.
Other candidates, and reporters, have questioned whether Becerra had a blind spot in trusting McCluskie.
Appearing on Fox40 News last year, Becerra likened the criminal case to being “married for 20 years” and “all of a sudden you find out that your spouse has been cheating.”
According to prosecutors, McCluskie, Williamson, and another consultant skimmed $225,000 from one of Becerra’s dormant campaign accounts and funneled it to McCluskie through various entities.
McCluskie, who declined to speak to The Times, sought the money because he’d taken a pay cut after joining Becerra in Washington when Becerra became Health and Human Services secretary in 2021, according to prosecutors.
And unlike Becerra, he didn’t move full-time to D.C., and was splitting his time between the nation’s capital and California, where his family lived.
On a phone call recorded by the FBI in 2024, McCluskie talked about the scheme and told a consultant, “This money you guys are giving me is helping me fly back and forth to D.C. and live there half part time.”
Becerra, in an interview, said McCluskie never mentioned his money problems. The pair worked together when Becerra served in Congress and as California attorney general.
After President Biden appointed Becerra to lead Health and Human Services, the pair discussed the move back to D.C.
“Even before we went to HHS, we had talked about whether we wanted to do this,” Becerra said. “We both agreed, ‘Yeah, you know, it’s going to be a sacrifice. We’re going to have to make changes.’”
Former Becerra staffers told The Times that Becerra and McCluskie were such a close team that they have a hard time imagining Becerra working in government without McCluskie.
Another former staffer, Amanda Renteria, said the two men bonded over their humble immigrant backgrounds. McCluskie’s family came from Scotland and Italy; Becerra’s relatives came from Mexico.
McCluskie relished going to battle for those less fortunate, she said.
“When Becerra became A.G., [people questioned] whether or not he had the style that could really take on Trump. If you were to meet Sean, you’d be like, Oh yeah, Sean is totally ready for a fight, he’s ready to take him on.
“That was sort of a difference with Becerra. Becerra had that fight in him. Sean wore it a little bit more,” said Renteria, a political strategist.
Becerra has faced repeated questions about his financial judgment after the criminal case revealed that he agreed to pay up to $10,000 a month to Williamson and another consultant to oversee one of his dormant campaign accounts.
The consultants charged him the fee as part of the scheme to divert money to McCluskie, prosecutors allege.
At the time, Becerra, a Biden Cabinet member, was barred from involving himself in campaign matters.
Becerra defended the payments during an interview with Fox40 last year, stating, “I was told that’s the rate I would have to pay to get someone who could manage that and make sure that I don’t have to worry about [violating any federal rules].”
Campaign finance records show Becerra had never paid such a high fee for his other accounts.
Becerra told The Times that his longtime attorney Stephen Kaufman, whom he was also paying to oversee the account, didn’t flag the payments. “I would have expected him to raise issues if he thought there was something wrong,” Becerra said.
Kaufman didn’t respond to questions about the account.
Los Angeles-based political consultant Eric Hacopian told The Times that the fees are “certainly high.”
“It’s obviously something he should’ve noticed. Either he was not paying attention, or was too trusting of these people,” said Hacopian, who isn’t involved in the governor’s race. “At the end of the day, he’s the primary victim.”
At a debate last week, rival candidate Antonio Villaraigosa pounced on the payments made by Becerra, saying that the politician “has to be under suspicion because it doesn’t pass the smell.”
Danni Wang, a spokesperson for Steyer, said in a statement, “So, which is it — did Becerra know about the illegal payments and participate in the campaign’s corruption, or was he a totally incompetent manager oblivious to what was going on underneath his nose?”
Renteria, the former Becerra staffer, said the allegations against McCluskie and others are particularly surprising given Becerra’s reputation as a “straight A student.”
“Part of it broke my heart,” she said.
Jonathan Underland, a Becerra spokesperson, said Becerra “has always been consistent and clear: Every action he took was in accordance with the law.”
“What he didn’t know — and what the FBI’s own investigation goes out of its way to clarify — is that his staff cooked up a scheme designed to deceive him.”
Becerra, in an interview, repeatedly said that he relied on McCluskie. It was McCluskie, he said, who advised him to make the payments. “I trusted him to handle the accounts,” he said.
He also said he was unaware of some of the details laid out by prosecutors.
Prosecutors said Williamson and others created a “no show” job for McCluskie’s wife, Kerry MacKay, to do work for the consultants.
MacKay never was paid, however, and the money went to an account controlled by McCluskie. MacKay, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, was not charged.
McCluskie’s plea agreement states that he told Becerra about his wife’s job with the consultants, though he didn’t tell the politician that his wife wouldn’t actually be doing any work.
Becerra, in an interview, said he didn’t recall McCluskie informing him about his wife’s work.
McCluskie’s sentencing is scheduled for June 4, two days after the primary.
Termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have dug the state into a deep financial hole, and it faces severe deficit spending through the next governor’s first term.
The only honest solution is an unpopular mix of program cuts and tax increases, plus a focused, earnest and unlikely effort at making government more cost-effective and efficient.
The worst option would be the easy one that got Sacramento into its current mess: gimmicky budgeting that includes excessive borrowing, program delays rather than outright eliminations and fudged numbers.
Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek recently estimated “the state faces structural deficits running from $20 billion to $35 billion annually.”
He warned the state’s financial commitments funded by its revenue “[are] not sustainable” and added that mopping up the red ink “will likely require at least some — if not significant — spending reductions.”
The analyst pointed out that since 2019, under Newsom, state general fund spending has risen by $100 billion to $248 billion in the governor’s latest budget proposal in January. About 70% of the growth went to maintaining existing services and 30% was for expanding or creating new programs.
“In retrospect,” Petek continued, “the state could not afford to sustain its existing services while funding … expansions and new programs.”
Last week, the analyst reported some good news coupled with bad. He estimated a $25-billion boost in unanticipated revenue, driven by artificial intelligence enthusiasm and “the related stock market boom.” But, he added, “these surging revenues likely are not sustainable.”
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
The analyst said the stock market appears to be “in a speculative bubble, rivaled only by the dot-com boom” (that led to the Great Recession) “and the Roaring ‘20s” (that ushered in the Great Depression).
“The state should be prepared for revenues to be tens of billions lower within one or two years.”
Newsom will get another crack at legitimately balancing a budget on Thursday when he revises his spending proposal for the next fiscal year.
You can’t really blame the governor’s wannabe Democratic successors for dodging this fiscal thicket. Program cuts and higher taxes don’t attract voters. Moreover, the subject is weedy and boring. For that reason, I suspect, moderators didn’t even delve into it during three recent televised gubernatorial debates.
Regardless, budget-crafting is a governor’s most sacred duty and the source of much of their power. It would help voters to know where the candidates stand. Right now, they’re in hiding.
Former state Senate leader Don Perata, a Democrat, posted this last week about the chronic deficits:
“Apparently, candidates find this untroubling or maybe someone else’s worry. None … even mentioned it during those juvenile television ‘debates’ and the hundreds of millions spent on campaign commercials.”
Instead, various contenders have been promising voters a Santa’s sleigh of goodies: state-run single-payer healthcare, free childcare, partial no-tuition college, suspension of the gas tax, no state income tax for people earning under $100,000 and generous subsidies for Hollywood filmmaking.
But this concept seems far beyond the state’s financial reach and operational capability. Its cost could exceed twice the current state budget. And I shudder to think of our state bureaucracy trying to handle healthcare for 39 million people. First, get the DMV working right and the botched bullet train rolling.
Centrist San José Mayor Matt Mahan chimed in, asserting: “The candidates who are fighting for single-payer don’t know how to pay for it, and they’re not being honest about it.”
Practically everyone jumped on new Democratic frontrunner Xavier Becerra — former state attorney general and U.S. health secretary — for seemingly being unable to specify whether he’s for or against single-payer.
“I’ve been consistent for over 30 years,” he said, trying to explain that he favors Medicare-for-all as “the most efficient way that we can do healthcare.”
It was a silly waste of debate time. They were arguing over oranges and lemons — both citrus, but different. Becerra should have just made clear that he’s opposed to single-payer and supports a separate version of universal healthcare: Medicare-type coverage with a supplemental private insurance option for all Californians. If that’s indeed what he favors.
Mahan bragged that he’s “the only candidate in this race who is calling for a suspension of the gas tax.” It’s a highlighted Republican talking point. But no other Democratic candidate advocates suspending the tax because it’s a screwy idea.
The roughly 60-cent-per-gallon state gas tax pays for filling potholes and more serious road repairs and improvements. Moreover, the next governor won’t take office until January. Suspending the tax then — even if the Legislature approved — wouldn’t reduce today’s soaring pump prices.
My take on the debates:
Becerra survived. He’s refreshingly calm but needs to be more crisp.
Steyer was articulate and may have attracted Bernie Sanders fans.
Porter is a talented debater, but seemed overly defensive about her past hot temper.
Mahan was fine, but he just got off the bench and it’s late in the game.
Villaraigosa was straightforward as usual, and finally had a broad audience.
All should bone up on budget-balancing and tell us their thinking.
CHONGQING, China — Three years ago, in the idyllic town of Woodside south of San Francisco, the United States and China held their first high-level talks on the dangers posed by artificial intelligence. President Xi Jinping and his longtime foreign minister appeared serious in their conviction that a channel should be a established between Beijing and Washington — a red phone for AI in case of emergencies.
They authorized a diplomatic effort that would begin in 2024 in Switzerland, only months before the U.S. presidential election. A large U.S. delegation arrived with high hopes that were abruptly dashed, according to four sources who attended the talks. The Chinese contingent dismissed American concerns over runaway AI as academic, almost theoretical, quickly turning the conversation to export controls seen in Beijing as yet another U.S. effort to hold China back.
“They naturally view any American diplomatic initiative involving limitations or restrictions of one flavor or another on a capability as being a trap,” Jake Sullivan, U.S. national security advisor under President Biden, said in an interview.
Despite the distrust — and Democrats losing the White House to Donald Trump — an accord was struck in November of that year in Peru, where both sides agreed to keep AI out of the command and control of nuclear weapons.
“It was a breaking of the seal that we could actually do something on AI,” Sullivan said. “In the transition, I told the incoming Trump team that they should really pick up that dialogue. But the Trump administration’s view was just far more laissez-faire, and they didn’t seem particularly interested in it.”
“That’s all changed in the past few weeks,” he added.
A Trump administration once eager to gun for technological supremacy is now, for the first time, reckoning with the power AI could unleash if left unchecked.
In a surprise reversal, quiet discussions have taken place ahead of President Trump’s state visit to China this week to explore reviving talks on an emergency channel, officials told The Times, prompted by shared alarm in Beijing and Washington over the debut of Mythos, Anthropic’s powerful new model.
One senior administration official told reporters Sunday that the White House was looking to create a channel of communication for AI like others that they have “in many areas that have intense focus with the U.S. and China.”
“I think what that channel of communication looks like, its formality and what that looks like, is yet to be determined,” the official said, “but we want to take this opportunity with the leaders meeting to open up a conversation. We should establish a channel of communication on that matter.”
Mythos’ capabilities are seen across the industry and government as those of an unprecedented cyberweapon, able to infiltrate and exploit digital communication systems — including government databases, financial institutions and healthcare programs — with untold consequences.
Whether an announcement will come to fruition this week is not yet clear. Any talks between the United States and China over AI regulations — designing some kind of arms control agreement governing the use of a technology that neither side fully understands or controls — will be fraught with suspicion, misunderstandings and risk, experts say.
“Right now, there is almost no support from U.S. policymakers to engage in formal discussions on AI governance with China,” said Aalok Mehta, director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“The logic is that this is a winner-takes-all race,” Mehta said, “and that it’s imperative to accelerate AI progress to ensure that the United States wins that race.”
America in the lead
China would enter those discussions with a powerful argument, that U.S. leadership in AI — and the prevailing strategy of American AI companies — is propelling the world to a fraught frontier.
Every major U.S. player in the arena — OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Microsoft and Meta Platforms — is racing to be the first to build a model capable of artificial general intelligence, or AGI, a threshold without a common definition, but that most agree will require a model to perform any intellectual human task.
The prevailing theory is that the first to achieve AGI will secure a prize that multiplies itself: a self-training, recursively improving intelligence, growing exponentially and leaving all competitors in its wake.
Chinese companies, by contrast, are following a state-sanctioned strategy focused on integrating AI into siloed industries and systems, training models to improve individual tasks and accelerate growth in a more tailored approach.
“The Chinese believe there is no single race, but multiple races,” said Scott Kennedy, senior advisor on Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “The U.S. is focused on achieving AGI, while China is focused on diffusion and applications of AI into the rest of their economy — manufacturing, humanoid robotics, all aspects of the internet of things.”
China scholars, AI industry insiders and successive administrations have questioned Beijing’s strategic thinking and forthrightness.
“It’s so baked into the community here that AGI will have this transformative potential that people can’t believe China isn’t focused on this, as well,” said Matt Sheehan, a scholar of global technology issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with a focus on China. “It says it’s focused on applications, but is that a fake out for an AGI program hidden in the mountains somewhere?”
But most insiders believe that Beijing’s guidance to Chinese companies reveals its true intentions.
“They are not as AGI-pilled as the United States is, and I think that remains the case today,” Sullivan said, “so they regarded a lot of the conversation in the U.S. around extreme frontier risk — misalignment and loss of control — as a bit abstract, and not really as relevant to how they saw AI diffusing in China.”
President Biden greets Chinese President Xi Jinping in Woodside, Calif., in 2023.
(Doug Mills / Pool Photo)
Although China’s progress has exceeded U.S. expectations — especially since DeepSeek released its model over a year ago — the state has focused computer power on specific applications rather than the broad strategy needed to develop more powerful models capable of advancing toward AGI.
“It’s not just chips. It’s money,” Sheehan added. “China’s leading companies are much more financially constrained than U.S. companies. There’s concern over a bubble here, but OpenAI is valued at something near $800 billion. Leading Chinese companies that have gone public are valued at $20 billion. There’s just an orders-of-magnitude gap in available financing.”
Still, some in the U.S. government fear China won’t need comparable computing power if it simply steals the technology wholesale.
Doing so isn’t simple. But last month, in a memo, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy accused Chinese actors of “industrial-scale campaigns to distill U.S. frontier AI systems,” in effect replicating the performance of the most advanced existing models “at a fraction of the cost.” The memo did not accuse Beijing of endorsing the activity.
In the process, the memo added, carefully constructed security protocols are deliberately stripped away.
China’s negotiating advantage
Whatever its strategic calculus may be, China would enter talks with the Trump administration trailing in the race — while disagreeing on the nature of the finish line.
AGI, in theory, could reach a stage of recursive self-improvement that results in a loss of human understanding or control. But if it is only the Americans, and not the Chinese, seeking to reach that threshold, then who is responsible to stop it?
Daniel Remler, who led AI policy at the State Department during the Biden administration and took part in the Geneva talks, cast doubt on Chinese claims of disinterest in AGI and ignorance of its risks. China falling behind in the race is no strategic design, he said.
“Chinese technologists are close observers of the U.S. AI ecosystem, and sometimes they say what they think,” Remler said. “Many were impressed by the [Mythos] model to the point of despair. Leaders in China’s top AI labs have been vocal in recent months, even before Mythos, about how compute-constrained they are at the frontier. Some have said they may never catch their American competitors.”
Talks at this point in the race could follow a familiar pattern in the recent history of U.S.-China diplomacy, in which Beijing claims it is behind the United States in development, ultimately securing a handicap and greater concessions at the negotiating table.
In other competitive domains — such as with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and in cybersecurity negotiations between Beijing and the Obama administration — agreements were ultimately reached that Washington believes in hindsight disadvantaged American companies.
The Trump administration, Remler added, “needs to approach AI diplomacy with China with clear-eyed expectations anchored to our own national interests.”
Silicon Valley itself is divided over regulating AI. Anthropic, which was founded on concerns that other AI companies were failing to take safety and alignment concerns seriously, raised alarms over Mythos, its own model, to the Trump administration, a moment that has prompted reflection at the White House on the best path forward.
Spooked after meeting with leaders from America’s top banks over their vulnerabilities, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent internally advised U.S. government reviews of future model releases — a practice already underway in China, where the training parameters for models, known as “weights,” have been publicly released.
Even the suggestion of government oversight sparked backlash from Silicon Valley. Last week, the White House sent out a memo to reassure industry allies that submitting new models for federal review would be strictly voluntary.
If talks ultimately resume between Washington and Beijing on AI, experts believe the negotiations would be far more complex than those that resulted in arms control agreements governing nuclear weapons in the Cold War.
The superpowers would not only be discussing threats of instability to the global financial system, but also fears of proliferation — advanced AI tools getting into the hands of bad actors interested in using bio- or cyberweapons that could target both countries.
And they ultimately would have to decide whether to discuss regulating the integration of AI into the Chinese and U.S. militaries, an almost unfathomable goal between the world’s biggest adversaries, where trust is lowest and verification would be hardest.
Those in the industry who most fear what artificial superintelligence could bring have told the Trump administration that talks with China are an existential necessity.
Dario Amodei, the chief executive and co-founder of Anthropic, speaks at an event in New York in 2025.
(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)
But even within Anthropic, which has championed diplomacy, there are concerns that Beijing could exploit its current disadvantage to entangle American industry at the cusp of its crowning achievement.
Rather than pushing for a single sweeping agreement, industry insiders are advising the administration to pursue targeted deals with Beijing to mitigate specific risks, like the pact on nuclear command and control, two industry sources said.
In private, both Xi and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi seemed to understand that the gravity of the emerging technology before them required some form of cooperation, Sullivan said.
“At a conceptual level, I believe they had a conviction on that and authorized it,” Sullivan said, “but I believe their level of urgency was considerably lower than ours, and saw this as a longer-term process that would play out over time.”
“Their level of urgency and their stake in it has gone up,” he added.
In Congress, Katie Porter’s blunt, combative style helped rocket her to progressive stardom. It has also become her biggest vulnerability as she campaigns to be California’s next governor.
Her brusque approach, prosecutorial instincts and suburban mom appeal fueled Porter’s rise during her three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where she rattled CEOs and Trump administration leaders and batted away GOP challengers in a competitive Orange County district.
Her tack, however, made her a polarizing force within her own party, where fidelity remains an essential currency of success and power. In Congress, Porter clashed with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and L.A.’s Rep. Maxine Waters.
The same rough edges that endeared Porter to many voters have also alienated some Democratic insiders and interest groups whose support could prove critical in the race to replace outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Then-Rep. Katie Porter meets with parents, doctors and diabetic patients in her Irvine office in 2019.
(Mark Boster / For The Times)
“She came in [to the governor’s race] as an outsider, as a mom, as a fighter. She wasn’t pulled into the establishment,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “I think that’s why she’s popular with voters, because they want somebody who’s going to fight, and sometimes that ruffles feathers.”
In the campaign for governor, Porter, a single mother of three, has struggled to convert grassroots popularity into broader institutional support. Even after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race amid allegations of sexual assault, she has yet to see a major surge in support or endorsements from Democratic power brokers.
A pair of embarrassing videos continue to hang over her campaign. The videos, which surfaced in October, showed Porter yelling at a staff member and threatening to walk out of a television reporter’s interview.
As former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has ascended and she remained stagnant in polls following Swalwell’s exit, Porter has increasingly sought to redeem her image. She poked fun at the incident with her staffer in an ad, smilingly asking a group of whiteboard-wielding supporters behind her to “please get out of my shot.”
In recent debates, Porter has sought to play up the qualities that made her a standout among resistance-era progressives, needling former hedge fund executive Tom Steyer over his past investments in private prisons and the pressing Becerra for a “yes” or “no” on statewide single-payer healthcare. Porter emphasizes her support for single-payer healthcare, providing free child care and college tuition and making wealthy corporations pay their “fair share” in taxes.
Porter said she wants to increase taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents but doesn’t support the proposed billionaire’s tax ballot measure because it is a “one-time tax” that won’t solve the state’s underlying budget issues.
“I can’t believe, with [the] interrupting and name-calling and shouting and disrespect for everyone up here who’s stepping into public service that anyone wants to talk about my temperament,” she said during the May 5 debate on CNN.
Though she acknowledged she mishandled both caught-on-tape situations and said she apologized to the staffer, the videos hindered her early momentum and have undercut her efforts to make inroads with potential allies in the race.
Porter speaks at a gubernatorial candidates forum on Sept. 28, 2025, in Los Angeles.
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
Influential lawmakers, labor groups and party insiders have coalesced behind Becerra and Steyer, her top Democratic rivals.
Porter has scored some key endorsements. She is one of three candidates backed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, along with Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. She also has support from Teamsters California, the National Union of Healthcare Workers and progressive groups such as Emilys List and California Environmental Voters, which dual-endorsed her and Steyer.
Union support is pivotal for Democratic candidates in California, sending a clear signal that they support the priorities of working-class voters. For Porter, who has proudly refused to accept corporate donations throughout her political career, the labor endorsements also help her attract the small-dollar donations that are essential to her campaign.
While in Congress, Porter proved to be a prodigious fundraiser. In her last reelection campaign for the House of Representatives in 2022, she raised more than $25.6 million in contributions — the second-most in Congress, behind only Bakersfield’s Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who was then the House Republican leader.
Still, her backing from elected Democrats remains comparatively thin. Along with her mentor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), just three members of Congress have endorsed her gubernatorial bid: Reps. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, Dave Min of Irvine and Derek Tran of Huntington Beach. She also picked up an endorsement from Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) after Swalwell dropped out.
Though none would speak publicly, multiple sources who work in and around the state Capitol expressed concerns about Porter’s temperament and her willingness to work collaboratively with people she disagrees with.
“Katie Porter hurt herself big time because she needs anger management and she doesn’t have the temperament” to be governor, Democratic former Sen. Barbara Boxer said during a recent interview with NewsNation’s Leland Vittert.
Through her campaign spokesperson, Porter’s declined to be interviewed for for this story.
Porter questions Tim Sloan, president and chief executive officer of Wells Fargo, during a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington in 2019.
(Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg)
Defenders argue the backlash reflects a double standard for women in politics — a salient point in a state that, despite its liberal reputation, has never elected a woman as governor.
“Sacramento sizes up every gubernatorial candidate the same way: Can they win, and is this someone I actually want to work with?” said Elizabeth Ashford, a Democratic consultant who is not working with any of the candidates running for governor. “The videos showed an angry woman, and for a lot of people that translated to ‘I don’t want her as my boss.’
“It’s a double standard that dogs women in politics. Jerry Brown was famous for his loud, unfiltered outbursts and nobody questioned whether he was up to the job,” said Ashford, who served as the former governor’s deputy press secretary.
Gonzalez agreed, arguing that women who stand up for themselves “are often labeled as ‘difficult.’ Probably a lot of people think I’m difficult,” the labor leader added with a laugh.
Born in Iowa, Porter often connects her politics to her family’s financial struggles after losing their farm during the 1980s farm crisis. She earned degrees from Yale and Harvard, where she studied bankruptcy law under Warren. In 2012, while working as a law professor at UC Irvine, Porter was appointed by then-Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris to oversee California’s $18-billion mortgage settlement.
After defeating Republican incumbent Rep. Mimi Walters in 2018, Porter quickly emerged as one of the Democratic Party’s most recognizable progressives. Armed with a whiteboard and other visual aids in congressional hearings, she confronted banking and pharmaceutical executives over drug prices, consumer debt and corporate profits.
The props, theatrical at times, seemed to aggravate Waters, then the Democratic chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee. On several occasions, Waters sided with Republicans who challenged Porter’s use of visual and audio aids during hearings.
“Please do not raise your board. We’ve talked about this before,” the chairwoman scolded when Porter tried to hold up a “Financial Services Bingo” card during a 2019 hearing on debt collection. (She later got to show the board on “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”)
Eager to force change they campaigned on, Porter and other freshmen, including members of “The Squad,” at times clashed with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.
Porter speaks to volunteers while campaigning in Mission Viejo in 2018.
(Victoria Kim / Los Angeles Times )
Porter has slammed lawmakers, including Democrats, for stock trading and funneling earmark funding to their home districts, arguing that such practices breed corruption and mistrust in Congress. The critiques irked Pelosi, a powerful force in California politics.
In her second term, the Orange County Democrat lost her coveted spot on the Financial Services Committee after she listed it as her third choice and requested a waiver to stay on it. Typically, members prioritize such high-profile committees and request waivers to serve on lesser ones in addition. The move was seen as a risk, the result a check on Porter’s ambition.
“So many of us, regardless of ideology, run on ‘shaking up Washington.’ But then when you actually come here, there’s a lot of consequences for doing that,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told The Times after Porter lost the committee position.
Porter’s willingness to buck party norms also raised eyebrows during her Senate campaign, when she entered the race for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat before Feinstein had announced retirement plans in early 2023. Although then-Rep. Adam Schiff also launched an early campaign, he did so only after privately seeking Feinstein’s blessing. She ultimately finished third in the primary.
Her decision to run for Senate did not ingratiate her with Washington’s Democratic leadership. The party was forced to spend millions to ensure another Democrat was elected to her contested Orange County congressional seat, and Schiff, her top rival in the race, was a close ally of Pelosi — who endorsed him — and helped lead the first impeachment effort against President Trump.
Controversy surrounding Porter’s personal relationships have also surfaced during previous campaigns. In 2024, she obtained a five-year restraining order against a former boyfriend who she said bombarded her and her children with threatening messages.
When a whisper campaign about the end of her marriage threatened her first House run, Porter shared details of her 2013 divorce with the Huffington Post, including that her ex-husband, Matthew Hoffman, physically intimidated and verbally abused her. Hoffman also claimed to be the victim of abuse, including an incident in which Porter allegedly threw hot mashed potatoes at him. Both filed for restraining orders and sought anger management during the divorce.
Former employees have also rallied to her defense. In an open letter last month, 30 former staffers described Porter as a “workhorse” who “asked of us what she expected of herself.”
“She demanded a lot, but she also fought for us, mentored us, and stood by us when life got hard,” the former aides wrote. “We believe the public should understand the full person we know, not a caricature built from a few clips on a bad day.”
Porter has argued that voters are looking for someone willing to challenge powerful interests rather than accommodate them.
Katie Porter is interviewed after the California Gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.
(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
“It’s on me to keep campaigning and keep demonstrating that,” she told reporters after a recent gubernatorial debate in San Francisco. “It’s also not lost on me that the last time the Democratic Party had a woman nominee for governor was 1994, when I was in college.”
The affordability crisis is at the forefront of the race to replace term-limited Newsom. As a single parent, Porter argues she is acutely aware of gas and grocery prices — as well as higher-stakes consequences.
She described feeling shocked when, during a recent conversation with her 17-year-old son, he asked if she would visit him if he moved to another state.
“I said, ‘Paul, you love California, why would you leave California?’ And he said, ‘Well, I’m thinking I might want to have a family and I might want to have a house, and I know that means I’ll have to leave California,’” Porter recounted at a March forum hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors. “We need to be a state that doesn’t just retain people like my son … but welcomes new families.”
The centerpiece of her proposed “affordability solutions” are free child care, free tuition at UC and CSU schools for students who complete two years of community college, and ending income taxes for those who earn less than $100,000 — an idea she acknowledges she “stole” from Republican candidate Steve Hilton. “I will take a good idea anywhere I can get it,” she said at a recent forum.
To pay for it, Porter would impose a progressive corporate tax, meaning more profitable businesses and corporations would pay a higher rate. A less than 1% tax hike on businesses that earn hundreds of millions in profit would bring in around $8 billion, according to her website.
“I think she deeply and personally understands the everyday struggles that so many Californians are grappling with right now,” said Petrie-Norris, who last month became the first state legislator to endorse Porter.
While Petrie-Norris describes herself as more politically moderate than Porter, the Irvine assemblywoman praised her as a “pragmatic problem-solver” and “proven fighter” who has taken on corporate interests and the Trump administration.
For a while, Porter was one of four women among the major candidates running for governor. One by one they have dropped out of the race, citing difficulties raising money and support.
After sharing the debate stage with five men recently, Porter was asked whether California is ready for a female governor.
In the Celtic dressing room, there is experience of reeling off wins to secure a title.
Winning their last five league games nods to the defending champions’ ability to harness experience.
They might not have been challenged to the final day much before, but in contrast to Hearts their winning experience is considerable.
“I honestly do feel that Celtic will be calm, just because they’ve been in this situation so many times before,” Halliday said.
“Now, some people don’t think that counts for much. For me, I personally do.
“Hearts have felt the pressure of being the team that’s been hunted for 30 weeks consecutively now, and they’ve handled it already extremely well.
“You talk about a manager’s role, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that Derek McInnes has played a huge part in that.”
O’Dea also believes that however different players and managers handle these situations, neither Celtic nor Hearts, who have come from behind to take points in their last five games, have shown signs of toiling.
“Both teams have an abundance of character,” he said.
“I don’t know if I could pick a winner in terms of the character from both groups, they’ve both shown it, so it makes for a good ending.”
Voters in California may get a chance to remake the state’s open primary system in two years.
Political consultant Steve Maviglio filed an application Friday with state officials that seeks to alter California’s voting system by reverting to a traditional primary. Under the proposal, the top candidates from each party would advance to the general election in November.
The current system allows the top two candidates, regardless of party, to move on to the runoff. That has led to instances in which two Democrats or two Republicans have faced off in the general election.
The state’s gubernatorial election, for example, has prompted concern that two Republicans could shut out the Democratic candidates. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton have polled high in various surveys and are facing a large field of Democrats.
Democratic voters vastly outnumber Republicans in California, yet some political consultants said they feared there were so many Democrats running that voters wouldn’t coalesce around one candidate and the field would be split. Those fears have eased somewhat in recent months as some Democratic candidates advance from the pack.
The state’s top-two primary system has been in place since California voters passed Proposition 14 in 2010. The goal was to help end partisan gridlock in Sacramento and force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters, rather than just those in their own party.
Proposition 14, as well as the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process, has led to some dramatic races, including the 2012 face-off between Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman for a congressional seat in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Amid aspersions and attack ads, the pair nearly came to blows at a community debate.
Maviglio described the ballot measure as a simple repeal of Proposition 14, and said he was inspired by the governor’s race.
“It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it,” Maviglio said.
The New York Times first reported on the ballot measure proposal.
A news release from Maviglio states that the proposed repeal of Prop. 14 “is fueled by concerns that California’s primaries are disenfranchising a majority of California voters by limiting choice to candidates from one party.”
A website for the effort includes criticisms of the current primary system by Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and Ron Nehring, former chairman of the California Republican Party.
Maviglio’s ballot initiative proposes to appear on the 2028 ballot and take effect in 2030.
Talk of changing Proposition 14 has been swirling in Sacramento for months.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told reporters at an unrelated news conference last week that she had voted years ago against Proposition 14. She questioned whether it had actually succeeded in creating more diversity.
“I did not like the open primary,” Weber said. “I didn’t think it would solve any problems. They had a list of problems it would solve, and none of those have been solved.”
No, on top of all that voters have been subjected to — the horror! — a dull and drab gubernatorial campaign, burdened by a surfeit of C- and D-list candidates with all the electricity and elan of a tepid bath.
That, anyway, is the perspective one gets reading a certain genre of campaign dispatch, written from the perspective that all of California, Land of Reagan and Schwarzenegger, home to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, incubator of the Next Big Thing, is a stage. Woe unto those who fail to entertain, animate or amuse.
With no glitz, no glamour, what’s a star-seeking, celebrity-hungry voter to do? If you believe the stereotype, Californians take their political cues more from Variety and In Touch magazine than, say, their voter guide or the flood of TV ads and campaign mailers that inundate the state every two years.
In truth, the Hollywood stars elevated to the governorship, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been the exception — spaced nearly four decades apart — and far from the norm. Both political insurgents were elected under extraordinary circumstances. Reagan amid the tumult and tectonic fracturing of the 1960s Civil Rights and Free Speech movements. Schwarzenegger in an unprecedented, rapid-fire recall of an enormously unpopular governor.
The three were, to use Newton’s description, “mainstream, politically tested, not flashy.” Which also happens to describe several of those currently aspiring to be governor.
Drab, but true.
Boring as it may seem, most Californians want someone who’ll focus on their workaday concerns, not jollification. For all the talk of the “attention economy” — the hearts and minds won by jokey memes, viral videos and other snackable morsels on social media — voters are much more focused on the real economy, which is to say putting food on their table, maintaining a roof over their head and keeping their car fueled and home at a bearable temperature.
“That may not be interesting to the punditry and the East Coast,” Madrid went on, “but it still matters. Reality still matters. The performative nature that has dominated our discourse for 10 years in the Trump era is fading away.”
Imagine, for a moment, if former Vice President Kamala Harris had jumped into the governor’s race, as contemplated. The contest, for all intents, would have ended then and there, save for months of airy speculation on which Democrat or Republican would make the November runoff en route to eventual defeat. That would have been boring.
In Harris’ absence,the sprawling field of candidates has been a good and healthy thing, yielding the most competitive California gubernatorial contest in a quarter century. Fears of a Democratic shutout in June’s top-two primary and a fluky Republican being elected — which were always overwrought — have faded dramatically. Even if they hadn’t, would it really be better for politicians in Sacramento and Washington to anoint the Democratic favorite and cut voters out of the equation?
When Gavin Newsom ran for California governor in 2018, his support for a state-run single-payer healthcare system was considered a risky move and earned him hefty labor endorsements.
Today, leading Democrats in the wide-open race to succeed Newsom have embraced single-payer healthcare as a political necessity, an answer to voters fed up with rising premiums and other spiraling healthcare costs.
But with no clear front-runner, they are sparring among themselves in debates and political ads over who is most committed to a government-run model. No candidate has outlined how California would fund comprehensive health coverage for its 40 million residents, leaving voters unable to discern which candidate has a concrete plan for the nation’s most populous state.
Healthcare and political experts said the concept of single-payer has shifted from progressive pipe dream a decade ago to today’s mainstream talking points in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. Democrats have pledged the model as the best way to lower costs in an attempt to woo voters worried about affordability as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary. The top two Republicans, meanwhile, have dismissed government-run healthcare as a “disaster” and “socialism.”
“In many ways, single-payer healthcare has become a progressive litmus test,” said Larry Levitt, a former White House policy advisor and a healthcare expert at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
Few voters fully understand the term single-payer, let alone expect the next governor to achieve it, Levitt said. Rather, he added, the term has become more of a signal to voters about a candidate’s approach to healthcare reform.
Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, who for decades backed single-payer healthcare in Congress, has come under criticism from opponents for a nuanced but clear shift away from single-payer. It came after Becerra secured an endorsement from the California Medical Assn., a powerful group representing doctors and a longtime opponent of single-payer healthcare bills in California.
At a May 5 debate put on by CNN, Becerra declared his support for “Medicare for All,” a proposal for a federally run system that’s been stalled for years, but he declined to say whether he’d pursue a California-led effort. He said his immediate focus would be on mitigating the drastic federal cuts expected to hit low-income and disabled enrollees in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than a third of residents.
Becerra is counting on voters not to distinguish between the often-confused terms single-payer, Medicare for All, and universal coverage, noting during the debate that “Californians don’t care what you call it, so long as they have affordable healthcare.”
“A lot of people aren’t clear what single-payer is, and they need a metaphor to understand it,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and one of the lead pollsters for former President Biden’s 2020 campaign.
Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who’s touted his self-funding as a signal he can’t be bought, has emerged as the race’s most vocal advocate of single-payer after opposing it during a short-lived 2020 presidential bid. As governor, Steyer has said, he would pass legislation backed by the California Nurses Assn. that has failed to come to fruition under Newsom’s tenure. Pressed on how he would cover the estimated $731.4-billion cost, Steyer told KFF Health News that “God is going to be in the details.”
At a forum last year, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter said she didn’t believe achieving such a system was realistic in the near term, but the Orange County Democrat later told party delegates that she would “deliver single-payer.” Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Democrats who are trailing their competitors in the polls, don’t support single-payer. The top two vote-getters — regardless of party — advance to the November general election.
Some of the most seasoned politicians have failed to deliver single-payer. Newsom, who campaigned on the promise of being a “healthcare governor,” dialed back his ambitions upon taking office, choosing instead to pursue “universal access” to health coverage under a series of Medi-Cal expansions and efforts to contain healthcare spending.
The campaign bus for billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who has made single-payer healthcare a central pillar of his run for governor, in downtown Oakland.
(Christine Mai-Duc/KFF Health News)
Vermont, which remains the only state to pass a single-payer healthcare law, reversed course when leaders there couldn’t identify a funding source.
To enact single-payer, California would need permission from the federal government to redirect billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare and other funding that currently flows to the system — approval not likely to come from the Trump administration.
More than half of adults nationally say healthcare costs will have a major impact on whom they vote for in November, according an April KFF poll.
Danielle Cendejas, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who works with state legislative candidates, said single-payer healthcare increasingly appears on candidate questionnaires from small-business advocates as well as hyperlocal Democratic clubs, in state legislative races and national union endorsements. What most California voters want to hear, Cendejas said, is how candidates plan to give them more immediate relief from higher premiums, expensive drug costs and long waits to access care.
The high price tag doesn’t faze Jennifer Easton, a 63-year-old Democrat from Oakland, who said other countries with similar models have proved they can lower costs. She said she supports a single-payer health system because it’s clear to her that Americans have reached the limits of working within the existing system. But she isn’t expecting any of the current candidates to succeed in implementing one, and she hasn’t decided whom to support.
“No one can in four years,” she said. Seeing a candidate enthusiastically support the concept gives her a good idea of their philosophy. “It is, if we’re lucky, a 20-year, 25-year plan.”
Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said while Americans may be supportive of single-payer in polls, focus groups suggest that approval drops quickly when voters realize it could mean losing their current doctor or insurance plan.
At the CNN debate, Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate President Trump has endorsed, said Californians would end up with subpar patient care and “taxes sky high to pay for it,” like in his native United Kingdom. Instead, Hilton suggested the state stop providing “free healthcare for illegal immigrants who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place.”
Mai-Duc writes for KFF Health News, anational newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
However, playing Motherwell at Fir Park this season is among the toughest tests in the league. Only Falkirk, twice, have won there and Motherwell have conceded just nine goals in 17 home games – the fewest of any side in the division.
Hearts put in a conservative performance to get a 0-0 draw in their other visit back in November.
But even the games at Tynecastle between the sides have been keenly contested.
Then Motherwell pushed Hearts to the final few moments last month before succumbing to a 3-1 defeat. Had the visitors been more clinical, it could have been a different result.
Motherwell have already derailed Rangers’ title challenge with a 3-2 win at Ibrox a fortnight ago, and Hearts will be well aware of the threat Jens Berthel Askou’s side pose.
Given Celtic visit Fir Park on Wednesday, Motherwell could well be the kingmakers as they chase fourth place and European football for themselves.
A Hearts victory would be a giant step towards history and ensure Celtic have no room for error. So far the men in maroon have handled everything thrown at them.
Sigal’s most recent book is “The Secret Defector” (HarperCollins). He teaches journalism at USC
“We don’t go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York–of being obliged to print both sides. We’re going to beat this son of a bitch Sinclair any way we can. . . . We’re going to kill him.”
The speaker: Kyle Palmer, Los Angeles Times political editor, to Turner Catledge of the New York Times.
The time: 1934, when socialist writer Upton Sinclair, who had just swept the Democratic primary for governor of California, threatened to beat handily the GOP candidate, Frank Merriam, in the November election.
Kyle Palmer, the pope of Southern California right-wing politics, was neither kidding nor exaggerating. Nor was he exceptional in his venom toward Upton Sinclair and his mass movement, End Poverty in California (EPIC). According to Greg Mitchell in his fascinating and valuable study, EPIC “was nothing less than a roundabout route to socialism.” On this point, “Political pundits, financial columnists, and White House aides, for once, agreed: Sinclair’s victory represented the high tide of radicalism in the United States.” This tide had to be pushed back, or California would suffocate under the weight of Sinclair’s “maggot-like horde” of supporters, as the Los Angeles Times called EPICers.
In 1934, a year racked by general strikes and epidemic unemployment, the maverick pamphleteer-novelist Sinclair–author of muckraking tracts like “The Jungle” and the most widely translated American writer abroad–was a menace not only to the so-called Vested Interests. Down deep, he embodied a revulsion felt by many Californians toward the capitalist system. EPIC’s program of production-for-use-not-profit, land colonies, barter exchanges and cooperation versus competition was a potentially deadly blow to the American Dream. It was subversive because it spoke to the misery of desperate, Depression-ruined Americans yearning for relief from the day-to-day savagery of a skewed, inefficient system that seemed to be failing everybody but the very rich. At its height, EPIC enrolled 100,000 members from San Diego to Sacramento, and its newspaper sold 2 million copies.
In “The Campaign of the Century,” Greg Mitchell has chosen to focus not on EPIC itself but “on the cataclysmic response to Sinclair’s emergence as the Democratic nominee.” Thus we learn relatively little about EPIC or about Sinclair, but a lot about the nuts and bolts of the “most astonishing . . . smear campaign ever directed against a major candidate.” Our present-day “media politics” with its emphasis on image over substance, was born in the ferocious, fraudulent anti-Sinclair campaign, says Mitchell.
A subtext of Mitchell’s book is how strongly adherents felt about Sinclair and EPIC. They “came from every strata, although nearly all were white. It was not . . . a poor people’s movement. Most of the activists were middle-class and middle-aged . . . Many were down-on-their-luck businessmen.” Any given EPIC club might include “Utopians, technocrats, Townsendites, progressive Republicans, New Deal Democrats, ex-Socialists and secret Communists, all united by a belief in a perfectible society.” No EPIC, aside from clerical staff, earned a cent from the movement. “Members paid a dollar, penny, or a collar button” to join; “Some EPICs hocked the gold fillings in their teeth to raise money.” Although broad-based and decentralized, “EPIC was far from democratic” and indifferent to unions. And Sinclair’s portrait occupied a holy place in many homes.
In any other state, EPIC might never have flown. But California’s populist tradition, open-mindedness (or wackiness), absence of party bosses or deep ethnic loyalties meant that a challenge to established authority was as relatively easy to mount as it was difficult to organize a counter-revolution. At first, the state’s wealthy were so rattled that their political representatives were caught completely off balance by Sinclair’s spectacular rise. Only loonies had expected him to win the primary, and nobody had been crazy enough to predict he would outpoll all six of his opponents together.
But like a great octopus, California’s Republicans and conservative Democrats, equally terrified of EPIC, slowly thrashed up from the murk of politics-as-usual to deal with the “enemy within.” “The prospect of a socialist governing the nation’s most volatile state,” says Mitchell, “sparked nothing less than a revolution in American politics.”
Spurred by “fear and desperation,” ad men like Albert Lasker and especially Clem Whittaker, hired conservative guns, broke the old rules and “virtually invented the modern media campaign.” Whittaker and his associate Leone Baxter introduced the radical idea that free-lance outsiders like themselves, not party chiefs, would “handle every aspect of a political campaign.” Whittaker’s “cozy relationship” with California’s 700 newspaper publishers meant that local editors were happy to run his press releases “as news stories–even as editorials.” The anti-Sinclair “lie factory” twisted and distorted; but worst of all, his enemies quoted from Upton Sinclair’s own works, in which he had attacked everything from wedded bliss (“marriage plus prostitution”) to religion (“a mighty fortress of graft”) and the Boy Scouts. After his defeat, Sinclair confessed wearily and with justice, “I talk too much. I write too much, too.”
By most accounts, Sinclair was a decent, generous, puritanical man of genuine sweetness. What his blurted half-jokes and honest indiscretions failed to supply, Hollywood and Madison Avenue concocted by way of movie propaganda and, probably even more effectively, radio shots–like an anti-Sinclair “One Man’s Family”-type series. Film studio bosses, alarmed by Sinclair’s not-very-serious threat to socialize movie production, colluded with what a Scripps-Howard reporter called a “reign of unreason bordering on hysteria.” Big-time screenwriters like Carey Wilson and directors like Felix Feist (later of “Peyton Place” fame) were enlisted or dragooned to produce Goebbelsesque films, often using faked footage, that drilled home the message: EPIC equals Armageddon. Studio workers were forced to contribute to Frank Merriam’s campaign. Very few Hollywood stars had the guts to refuse. (Holdouts included James Cagney and Jean Harlow.)
Law ‘n’ order also came to the rescue of the anti-Sinclair forces. Election officials, GOP activists and local district attorneys intimidated EPIC supporters away from the polls by challenging the credentials of at least 150,000 voters and threatening to arrest them. All across the state preachers thundered, “Go and Sinclair no more!” and Aimee Semple McPherson, hungry for respectability after her recent kidnaping hoax, turned against Sinclair, despite the pro-EPIC sympathies of her flock.
Finally, the Democrats themselves carved up EPIC. At first friendly to Sinclair, President Roosevelt, needing conservative support for his faltering New Deal, cut a deal with the Republicans. In return for Frank Merriam converting to a pallid form of New Dealism, the party dumped the divisive Sinclair. Frightened Democrats and “third party” anti-EPICers formed around a candidate named Haight, who may have drawn off enough votes to beat the insurgent–but not by all that much. Final results: Merriam 1,100,000; Sinclair 900,000; Haight 300,000. In defeat, Sinclair received twice as many votes as any previous Democratic candidate for governor.
EPIC soon disappeared in a backlash of internal Red-baiting. (The communists and socialists opposed EPIC, but the Communist Party also tried to take it over.) Sinclair stopped muckraking to write the “Lanny Budd” series of best-sellers. Waves of fright and self-interest quickly covered over EPIC’s writing in the sand. Today, who remembers it?
Later, Sinclair insisted that the EPIC campaign had “changed the whole reactionary tone of the state.” EPIC was “the acorn from which evolved the tree of whatever liberalism we have in California,” claimed state Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk, a Sinclair supporter in ’34. And as a direct result of EPIC and the studio bosses’ much-resented bullying, “politics in Hollywood moved steadily to the left over the next few years.”
Of course, the Right learned, too. “A number of men who would become legends in California politics, on both sides of the ideological fence, virtually cut their teeth on the ’34 campaign,” writes Mitchell. These included Earl Warren (Merriam’s campaign manager), Asa Call, Edmund G. (Pat) Brown (sending what encoded messages to his son today?), Murray Chotiner, Augustus Hawkins, Cuthbert Olson–a whole generation of pols whose experience taught them just how powerful the rich, who own the media, can be when aroused.
Lessons for liberals are harder to come by in this sizzling, rambunctiously useful book. If we take note of this nation’s recent rash of insurgencies–from Carol Moseley Braun to Ross Perot–maybe one lesson is that nothing good ever completely dies, it just goes to sleep for a while.
BOOK MARK: For an excerpt from “The Campaign of the Century,” see the Opinion section, Page 6.
In the ancient days of 2022, when the Supreme Court sledgehammered abortion rights with the Dobbs decision, the (Republican) party line was that the issue had returned to where it belonged: the states.
Fast forward to 2026 and it would now seem that the antiabortion crowd, faced with the aggressive pro-choice response of states such as California and lethargy on the part of the Trump administration to do more toward implementing a national ban, is no longer satisfied with that outcome.
They are now out to stomp on California, and a handful of other reproductive health sanctuaries, to ensure that what happens inside our borders fits their ideology.
“It’s strategic, it’s targeted,” Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “Even if you’re in a ‘blue state,’ you’re not safe.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next week whether to take up the abortion issue again, in a case that could end medication-only procedures as we know them.
That would force women into a less-safe regimen with a lower success rate that would almost certainly lead to more complications — and therefore more controversy. Even in California, which would not be spared by what the court could do, and whose policies are central to the case.
Let’s break it down.
Union members, immigrant rights supporters and anti-Israel demonstrators participate in a May Day rally and march in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
(Robyn Stevens Brody / Sipa USA via Associated Press)
Six other states put early time limits on the procedures, and others passed bans in the second trimester, leaving women in much of the South and the Great Plains with no access to in-person care for hundreds or even thousands of miles.
In many of those places, those bans include making it illegal to receive abortion-inducing medications in the mail from states such as California. But that’s a hard law to enforce unless you go around opening lady-mail.
In recent years, the number of U.S. abortions arranged through telehealth and mailed medication has skyrocketed to more than a quarter of all procedures, though the often illegal nature of this route probably means the number is higher but underreported.
To protect the doctors and providers who are prescribing and sending these medications, California and other states have passed numerous laws to make it easier and safer — from allowing the prescriber to remain anonymous to shield laws that ensure those providers can’t be penalized or extradited to other states for prosecution, though some states are trying.
Earlier this year, Louisiana (a state with a full ban) tried to extradite a California doctor with no luck. Gov. Gavin Newsom gleefully denied that request, promising to “never be complicit with Trump’s war on women.”
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during the annual March For Life at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.
(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Rogue Louisiana
In the Supreme Court case, Louisiana is thinking bigger — and expressing antiabortionists’ frustration with the Trump administration. The state is suing Trump’s Food and Drug Administration because it allows mifepristone, one of two medications used in abortions, to be prescribed via telehealth.
“Patients and these states with bans and extreme restrictions have relied on providers in blue states, abortion access states, to really help provide care,” Timmaraju said. “And this is a way to stop that.”
Antiabortion groups had hoped (and pushed) Trump to simply have the FDA remove its approvals of mifepristone, but Trump ain’t that dumb. Despite all his promises on the campaign trail, the administration would prefer to kick the can instead of the hornet’s nest on this one, especially before the midterms — since most Americans support abortion rights. So the FDA has said it’s “studying” mifepristone, which could take awhile.
Louisiana is claiming it had to spend $90,000 in taxpayer money to help two women who sought medical treatment after medication abortions (though it has not said they received the medication in the mail).
That’s a real harm, it argues, and gives them standing to sue the FDA to stop mifepristone from being prescribed by telehealth at all, claiming the FDA hasn’t done its due diligence to ensure that’s safe and it makes them really sad that they can’t stop women from ordering it.
The FDA has remained “completely silent on this point because the Trump administration doesn’t want to get involved,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and expert on reproductive law.
“It’s totally one of the signs that the antiabortion movement is in an open rebellion, and is using the federal courts to express that because the political branches have been pretty non-responsive,” she said.
The Contemplation of Justice statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday in Washington.
(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
The Supreme Court lifted a stay Monday imposed by the 5th Circuit that stopped mifepristone from being tele-prescribed. So it’s available until at least May 11.
After that, who knows. It’s up to a court that has proven it’s no friend to reproductive rights.
It’s an issue with real consequence for Trump. If the court takes the case, the midterms must contend with abortion. If they don’t, the pressure on Trump to do so sometime intensifies. But its also an issue with real consequence for Californians.
Consequences in California
In California, there are 22 counties without an abortion clinic, Ziegler points out. In the far north of the state, women without access to telehealth abortions would be little better off than those in Louisiana if mifepristone by mail is stopped.
Instead, women would probably be forced to use the second medication, misoprostol, alone. This single-drug regimen has a lower effectiveness rate than the combined drugs, meaning more women will have to seek out secondary care — often in places where even in-person care is hard to come by. That could lead to more real harm, and therefore more high-profile cases of botched abortions to fuel a further ban on misoprostol.
Steve Hilton takes an interview after the California gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
And then there’s the fact that Newsom won’t be governor for much longer, and it will be up to the next chief executive to protect in-state providers from extradition. The top Republican contender, Steve Hilton, has previously said he would allow Louisiana to grab our California doctor if he were in charge.
Those kinds of threats have a chilling effect, both Ziegler and Timmaraju said. If enough providers are scared of the consequences of providing telehealth — or any — abortions, a ban becomes self-imposed.
PORTLAND, Maine — Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins says she has a benign essential tremor, disclosing the longtime health condition for the first time in her decades-long political career as she seeks reelection in one of this year’s toughest Senate races.
Collins first confirmed the tremor to WCSH-TV in Maine on Wednesday after facing questions about her health from appearances in recent videos, including her campaign announcement video.
The condition causes trembling in Collins’ hands, head and voice, and she said she has had it for the entirety of her nearly three-decade Senate career. It affects millions of Americans over the age of 40 and “does not interfere” with work, Collins said in a Thursday statement to the Associated Press. She said it is not a neurodegenerative condition.
“The tremor is occasionally inconvenient, and sometimes the subject of cruel comments online, but it does not hinder my ability to work and, as I said, is something that I have lived with for decades,” the statement said.
Health issues and candidates’ ages have drawn increased scrutiny in high-profile elections following Democratic President Joe Biden’s decision not to seek reelection in 2024 at age 81. Those questions have only lingered with Republican President Trump, who’s 79 and in recent months has been seen with bruising on the back of his hand, sometimes concealed with makeup. The White House acknowledged last year that Trump was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency.
Collins is up for reelection in a seat Democrats need to flip to have a chance to take back the Senate. Her likely opponent is Democrat Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and combat veteran, after Democratic Gov. Janet Mills suspended her campaign last week. Age has been an issue in the contest, with Collins, 73, and Mills, 78, more than three decades older than Platner, 41.
Platner acknowledged early in his campaign his own health problems. He has spoken openly about chronic pain in his shoulder and knees stemming from combat service, and he has said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after serving at war. Platner has said he has a 100% disability rating from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs but continues to work as an oyster farmer.
“There are a lot of disabled combat veterans, or just disabled vets, at 100%, who still work,” Platner told WCSH last year. “It’s a very normal thing.”
Collins was first elected to the Senate in 1996 and said in her statement that she has had the condition for all of that time. Over the years, the condition has been noticeable in Collins’ debates and frequent public appearances.
As chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Collins has been at the forefront of the chamber’s many spending disputes this Congress, often leading the floor debate and providing the GOP’s closing arguments. She frequently engages with reporters in the hallways. Her streak of never missing a Senate vote is up to 9,966 and stands as the second-longest consecutive voting streak in the chamber’s history.
Tremors happen when nerves aren’t properly communicating with certain muscles. Essential tremor, sometimes called benign essential tremor, is one of the most common movement disorders, according to the National Institutes of Health.
The risk of developing it increases as people get older, but at least half of cases are inherited, meaning the tremor runs in the family, and those tend to begin at younger ages. It almost always involves shaky or trembling hands but also can affect the head, voice or lower limbs.
Whittle and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. Kruesi reported from Providence, R.I. AP writers Kevin Freking and Lauran Neergaard in Washington contributed to this report.
A rider has died after an accident in Superbike qualifying for the North West 200 international road race on Thursday.
The incident happened at Station Corner and a red flag brought the session to a close.
The rider has not been named due to the wishes of his family.
“The session was immediately red flagged and emergency services attended the scene but unfortunately the rider succumbed to his injuries,” said North West 200 organisers in a statement.
“The family have given their approval for the event to continue but have requested that the rider not be named at this time.
“Coleraine and District Motor Club, the organisers of the races, offer our sincere condolences to the family and team.”
Superbike qualifying was the first session of the day and the remaining sessions in the afternoon did not take place.
The qualifying sessions have been moved to Thursday night to replace the planned opening three races, and it has not yet been confirmed by race organisers if Saturday’s schedule will contain any additional races on top of the planned six.
The fatality is the first at the North West 200 since Malachi Mitchell-Thomas was killed in a Supertwins race in 2016, and the 20th rider to lose their life in the 97-year history of the event.
The event is an international road race that takes place on 8.97 miles of closed public roads.
The Southern Section will hold its four track and field prelims on Saturday at four high schools, but lots of focus will take place at the Division 3 meet at Yorba Linda.
Servite, with its outstanding sprinters, and Sherman Oaks Notre Dame, with sprinters, hurdlers and shotputters, will be trying to qualify their best athletes in preparation to battle it out at the Southern Section championships on May 16 at Moorpark High.
“We’re trying to qualify but also build upon all our races,” Servite coach Brandon Thomas said.
Servite looks finally healthy. Robert Gardner, a sprinter who was hurt all season, ran 10.87 seconds last week in the 100 meters in his comeback race. He’ll be one of four Servite athletes trying to qualify in the 100. Another previously injured athlete, Jaelen Hunter, has also returned and will be in the 400.
Notre Dame’s Brayden Borquez recovered from his spill at the Arcadia Invitational to win the 110 hurdles last week at the Mission League finals. JJ Harel, the defending state champion in the high jump, is also gearing up to score points in the long jump and triple jump.
