race

For the second time in as many weeks, a leading California-based thoroughbred has been retired.

Nysos, who would have been favored in the $1-million Pacific Classic later this month at Del Mar and was a top early contender for the $5-million Breeders’ Cup Classic this fall, won’t race again, Coolmore America announced Monday.

The 5-year-old son of Nyquist is headed to stallion duty next year at Coolmore’s Ashford Stud in Versailles, Ky., the same farm where Journalism, another horse who was being pointed for those two races, was sent last month after his retirement because of injury.

In a statement, Coolmore said Nysos is sound and uninjured but “the decision was made following a routine diagnostic evaluation that revealed subtle imaging changes on a scan.” Trainer Bob Baffert and Nysos’ owners, Baoma Corp. and Coolmore, “unanimously agreed to take a strict precautionary approach, prioritizing the horse’s long-term health and safety above all else.”

Said Baffert: “Nysos is not hurt or injured, but taking a precautionary approach is strictly about doing what is right for the horse. With the minor changes shown on the evaluation, we simply don’t have the time needed to prepare him for the Breeders’ Cup the way we would want to. He has given us everything and retiring him completely sound and at the top of his game is the proper decision.”

Nysos retires after eight wins and two seconds in 10 lifetime races, with earnings of nearly $5.3 million. He was considered a top prospect for the 2024 Kentucky Derby but was injured that winter and didn’t race again for 15 months.

He returned in May 2025 and won four of five starts last year, including the Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile at Del Mar. This year Nysos finished second to Forever Young in the Saudi Cup before defeating Journalism in the Met Mile in June at Saratoga, which turned out to be his last race.

SACRAMENTO — Today we’re talking about California’s Proposition 39, a bid to turn Trump’s election conspiracy fantasies into California law, and a proposal so disingenuous it’s caused Democratic legislators to sue the Democratic secretary of state in an attempt to stop the misinformation surrounding it.

As these lawsuits move forward and the November election rolls closer, we’re going to hear a lot about Proposition 39 — a measure that would require in-person voters to present government-issued identification, among other provisions. I fear most if not all of this debate will revolve around the false claim that large numbers of undocumented people vote illegally in our elections.

“It’s directly a product of all of the rhetoric that Trump has been putting out there regarding election fraud and voting fraud,” said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

Romero stresses that there is not and has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud in California, and the state already has a system that effectively checks voter eligibility.

Proposition 39 is “seeking a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and a solution that actually could cause additional problems,” she said. “So in and of itself, it perpetuates this false and dangerous narrative that there has been voter fraud in California.”

That lie is part of the ongoing grievance-fueled Trump campaign against non-white “replacement” Americans, meant to undermine trust in elections — you may recall he’s gone so far as to say immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” It’s a venal and dark vein of partisanship aimed at keeping the far-right in power even at the expense of democracy.

But also an effective lie. Because many folks don’t know exactly how their ballots are verified but do have ID, they don’t see the full impacts of Proposition 39.

The easy ID myth

I’ll tell you more about Proposition 39, but I’m starting with a story about an all-American teenager I’ll call “Sofia.” I’ve been helping Sofia,18, attempt to get her first government-issued identification. I stress attempt.

Folks, there’s been hoops, there’s been hurdles, there’s been Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

For people like Sofia that don’t have bills or jobs or even accurate student records (she’s moved a lot), scraping up enough documentation to convince the DMV you are who you say you are is tough. First, you really need a certified birth certificate.

Sofia wasn’t born in the county where she lives (it’s county recorders that keep them), which means she had to either drive hours or go through the state’s third-party online vendor to order one, at a cost of about $30. But here’s the catch — she needed proof of identity to order it.

So to get a birth certificate to get her ID, she needed ID.

Stuck in this circular nightmare, we found, after much effort, a loophole: I could appear in front of a public notary with Sofia, to testify using my ID that she was indeed Sofia. Strange, but whatever. We did it.

That wasn’t enough for the DMV. Sofia also needed two bills or other documents verifying her address. Because they will literally give a credit card to anyone, she applied to an online company, and got her first statement. One document down.

Again, scouring the DMV rules for days, we found another weird loophole: The second document can be a letter from a nonprofit with the person signing it vouching for Sofia’s identity. We got the letter, and Sofia’s Real ID was issued.

But then she had to move before it arrived. She tried to arrange mail forwarding with the postal service, but guess what? They required ID.

So the ID was lost in transit, and we are back to square one.

Who Proposition 39 really targets

That means Sofia is one of thousands of Californians, born and raised in the Golden State, who lack official identification because its not as easy to obtain it as some want you to believe.

And because she lacks it, she could be prevented from voting if Proposition 39 is passed, even though she is a legal citizen with every right to have her ballot counted, and California already has a system in place to ensure only citizens vote.

Sofia is exactly the kind of voter that Proposition 39 is actually aimed at. This is a voter suppression law, plain and simple, and it will harm women with name changes, naturalized citizens, young people, older people and virtually anyone who cares about not returning to Jim Crow-style laws that push people out of voting with subterfuge.

Proponents of the proposition would like you to believe it’s something very different from what I just described. Their fight about how we talk about this proposal has led to two lawsuits so far — one filed by the backers of Proposition 39 because they don’t like the official title the California attorney general put on it, and one filed by the leaders of the state Legislature because they argue the statements written by proponents for official voting materials aren’t truthful.

I’ll give you a taste of both of those arguments. Right now, the state is proposing to title the measure “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the always-Trumper behind Proposition 39, helped lead a lawsuit claiming that is inaccurate.

DeMaio issued a statement claiming Democrats are “trying to deceive voters by putting a false ballot title on it and are now even distracting voters from their tampering of the ballot title with this frivolous lawsuit.”

That frivolous lawsuit he’s complaining about is the one where the Democratic leaders of the Legislature last week sued the Democratic secretary of state and others over the language included in the state voter guide. The Democrats aren’t really angry at each other, it’s just that Secretary of State Shirley Weber is in charge of voter materials, so she’s one of the folks they’ve got to sue to make their case.

The lawsuit alleges, among other complaints, that proponents are falsely framing Proposition 39 as making it “easier to vote” when in fact it does the opposite.

“Prop. 39 requires no burdens be placed on voters,” the materials at issue read, according to the lawsuit. “No additional documents (birth certificate, marriage license, etc.) are required.”

So I take you back to Sofia. Because while Proposition 39 might not ask her to bring her birth certificate to the polls, it would ask her to bring her ID, which required her birth certificate to get.

A distinction without a difference.

“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” wrote the lawsuits’ plaintiffs, House speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón, in a statement. “As Californians and Latinos, we will not let MAGA cronies take Constitutional rights away from voters.”

That lawsuit will likely have its first hearing in court this week. But whatever a judge decides, the ballot box is where the fate of Proposition 39 rests.

Though it seems like average Californians could see through this sham, there are big bucks backing it, and money always speaks loudly.

The donors in support read like the guest list for a White House dinner. So far, they’ve raised more than $15 million. That includes $4 million from Richard Uihlein, the Illinois billionaire and Trump supporter who often funds organizations and causes that promote election conspiracies and far-right candidates.

The crypto-billionaire Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, have each donated $250,000, along with other Silicon Valley types including former RFK Jr. running mate Nicole Shanahan, who ponied up $370,000 in support of Proposition 39.

Oh, and by the way, L.A. developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso has donated $25,000 to the effort.

That’s a lot of dough being poured into stopping certain Californians from voting. If they succeed, it won’t just be an inconvenience at the polls — but instead a double victory for Trump, both suppressing the vote ahead of the presidential election and legitimizing his election lies through law.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: FBI Escalates Trump’s “Voter Fraud” Crusade With Disturbing Move
The California angle: How Trump’s Endangered Species Act rollback is roiling Northern California
The L.A. Times Special: Trump running out of options to fix inflation, economic woes before election, experts say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Esther Kim Varet has gotten a lot of questions recently from “depressed” liberals wondering whom they should vote for in November to represent them in the redrawn 40th Congressional District, which covers a large swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

The Democratic art gallery owner placed third in last month’s closely watched primary for the seat, behind Republican incumbent Reps. Ken Calvert of Corona and Young Kim of Anaheim Hills. Calvert and Kim were pushed into the same district by last year’s Proposition 50 and will be the only two candidates facing off for the seat in November.

Kim Varet said her supporters have “obviously put a lot of thought into” which of the incumbents to support, but they have had a hard time swallowing the idea of voting for either. So she tells them why, “if we’re playing a kind of longer game,” they should vote for Kim.

She says Calvert is favored to win, so supporting Kim will “force both sides to spend more on this race” and reduce Republican spending on other races where Democrats still have a shot at beating a GOP incumbent. She says Calvert is “much more senior” than Kim, so ousting him would be “more significant.” And Calvert, as chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, has funded Trump’s war in Iran and would be “morally the better target.”

In last month’s primary, Kim Varet and other Democratic candidates collectively won 42.9% of the district vote, compared with Calvert’s 34.9% and Kim’s 20.6%. If enough of those Democratic voters coalesced behind Kim, they could end Calvert’s 33-year run in Congress.

Whether they will, however, is unclear. Such “orphaned” voters — those left without a candidate of their party in a general election — are historically just as likely to abstain from voting or to vote based on far less strategic considerations. Californians created that dilemma more than a decade ago when they approved the top-two primary system that puts all candidates on the same ballot and only allows the top-two finishers to advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new congressional map under Proposition 50, said the backers of California’s primary system sold it years ago as a moderating force, where those orphaned voters would be encouraged to select the least partisan general election candidate.

But in reality, Mitchell said, “it doesn’t work that way.”

Voter decisions

Mitchell said intraparty matchups in the past have shown 35% of orphaned voters or more simply abstain from voting in that race.

A recent analysis Mitchell conducted of races, including for seats in the state Legislature, showed such undervoting among orphaned voters in every intraparty race for a state Senate seat in 2024 — one clear example being the competitive and costly battle between two Democrats, Laura Richardson and Michelle Chambers, in South Los Angeles.

Many others vote based on “tertiary things,” he said, such as a candidate’s race or gender, or whether they seem local or a Washington insider.

“Traditionally, it isn’t so much about somebody being more moderate,” he said, in part because voters can’t always discern moderation among candidates of an opposing party. “Republicans might be able to tell the difference between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican, but Democrats can’t tell the difference.”

Incumbency can also be a drag on a candidate if orphaned voters dislike their track record, even if their opponent is even further from those voters politically. As one example, Mitchell pointed to rural, more conservative parts of the state going for Kevin de León over Sen. Dianne Feinstein when he challenged her in 2018, despite his running to her left.

“You’re like, how in the hell did these rural counties vote for Kevin de León? And it was because there were a lot of Republicans who, if they were going to vote in the U.S. Senate race, just wanted to vote against Feinstein,” Mitchell said.

Katelyn Stauffer, an associate politics professor at University of Georgia who has studied voter behavior in top-two races in California, said people “like to make decisions that are easy,” and “for most people, the ultimate cue is, does this person share my party?”

When party doesn’t differentiate candidates, voters tend to rely on other “simple cues or heuristics,” Stauffer said.

For example, based on her research, she said, women regardless of party and Democrats regardless of gender are more likely to vote for a woman in such scenarios.

Candidate messaging

Candidates could consider moderating their message to attract orphaned voters, though that can be perilous.

In a statement to The Times, Calvert accused Kim of trying to woo orphaned voters with a more bipartisan message, as evidence she is untrustworthy.

“Young Kim has bragged to some voters that she’s a moderate who censured President Trump. She’s then claimed to others that she [is] a 100% Trump Republican. It’s obvious Young Kim will say anything to try and hold on to her job, which is why voters from every party just can’t trust her,” Calvert said.

He said he has “been a consistent conservative in Congress for many years and that’s not going to change.” He also claimed to be “one of the most effective members of Congress,” saying he has secured funding to reduce traffic congestion, fight fires and improve water infrastructure in his district — things “voters from all parties want.”

Chris Pack, a spokesman for Kim, denied that Kim is changing her tune depending on her audience, and dismissed Calvert’s claims of serving his constituents well, calling him a “do-nothing dinosaur” who has failed to improve his constituents’ lives for decades.

“The truth is he’s had more than enough time to deliver for the people of California, and he hasn’t,” Pack said.

Similar intraparty battles are playing out in other congressional races between Democrats.

In the 4th Congressional District, which stretches through the Napa and Sacramento valleys, Republican voters could help decide between incumbent Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and his challenger from the left, venture capitalist Eric Jones.

Thompson — who has been in Congress since 1999 and sits on the powerful Ways and Means Committee — won 41% of the vote in the primary, while Jones won 22.2%. A slate of six Republican candidates collectively won 36.1%.

Jones, who backs progressive measures to expand Medicare and cut working-class taxes, said he hopes voters of all stripes look beyond political labels and see that he is the only candidate in the race who will take on big utilities, healthcare lobbyists and other big-business interests who fund Thompson’s campaigns.

“I want voters to realize that there’s a real choice in front of them,” he said.

Thompson said he is focused on doing his job, introducing himself to voters in the new parts of his district, reconfigured under Proposition 50, and “figuring out how I can work with them” to address their concerns. He said there is “a lot of commonality” among voters of all parties who want “good roads, clean air, water, strong [agriculture], safe communities,” and that he’s been endorsed by local Republicans and Democrats alike.

Thompson also rejected Jones’ criticism of his fundraising, saying he has “done a lot of good work that’s not necessarily in the interests” of those who have contributed to his campaign. He also said fundraising is necessary in a race against a wealthy opponent like Jones, who donated millions of dollars to his own campaign.

In the 7th Congressional District, Republican voters will help decide between incumbent Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) — who has been in Congress since replacing her late husband there in 2005 — and her challenger from the left, progressive Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang.

Vang won 31.2% of the primary vote. Matsui won 29.1%. Two Republican candidates together won 37%.

In a statement to The Times, Matsui said November’s general election “will be a significantly different race because there will be many more voters that didn’t vote in the primary,” and that she will “work harder to court voters by meeting them where they are and informing them how I’ve delivered on my promises,” including on healthcare, public safety and jobs.

Vang did not respond to a request for comment but has previously accused Matsui of not delivering on her promises for decades.

“After 20 years, families are living paycheck to paycheck, people of my generation are no closer to owning a home, and you still can’t afford a doctor visit,” Vang said last month.

Party involvement

Political parties have traditionally shunned meddling in races where they lack a candidate of their own, experts said. They sometimes endorse in races where two members of their own party are facing off against each other, but not always.

Nick Poche, a Republican National Committee spokesperson, said his organization is largely focused on three races in which Republicans are either looking to hold or win seats from Democrats: the 13th Congressional District, where Republican Kevin Lincoln is challenging Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced); the 22nd Congressional District, where Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is trying to fend off Democrat Randy Villegas; and the 48th Congressional District, where Republican Jim Desmond is facing off against Democrat Marni von Wilpert for the seat of retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall).

He called the Democrats in those races “radical socialists and emblematic of California’s far-left failures,” and said his party would be campaigning against them. But he declined to speak to the Calvert-Kim race, or the races in which two Democrats are facing off.

The California Republican Party did not respond to a request for comment.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said his party is focused on “fulfilling the promise of Proposition 50” to flip five seats to help his party win control of the House, and is also focused on three competitive races: those for Valadao’s and Issa’s seats, and one in the 6th Congressional District, where Democrat Richard Pan is taking on Republican-turned-independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of Rocklin.

Hicks said the party will not endorse Calvert or Kim, whom he called “two rotten choices,” but has endorsed incumbents Matsui and Thompson in their races against fellow Democrats because they have “been leading” on issues of affordability and access to healthcare and “are best positioned to be reelected.”

Jones scoffed at his party endorsing his opponent. “Are we really excited that the Democratic machine keeps trying to choose our electeds for us?” he said.

Aug. 2 (Asia Today) — Chung Cheong-rae rebounded in the South Korean ruling Democratic Party’s leadership race Sunday, defeating Kim Min-seok in the southeastern region after narrowly losing the opening contest in central South Korea.

Chung and Kim have each won one of the first two regional rounds ahead of the party’s Aug. 17 national convention, leaving the race for party leader virtually even.

Chung received 25,189 votes, or 46.65%, from eligible party members in Busan, Ulsan and South Gyeongsang Province.

Kim finished second with 23,675 votes, or 43.84%, leaving Chung ahead by 1,514 votes, or 2.81 percentage points.

Former party leader Song Young-gil received 5,129 votes, or 9.49%. The officially reported percentages were rounded to 46.65% for Chung, 43.85% for Kim and 9.5% for Song.

Kim had narrowly won Saturday’s opening round in the Chungcheong region, which includes Daejeon, Sejong and North and South Chungcheong provinces.

Kim received 45.05%, compared with Chung’s 44.61%, a margin of 303 votes, or 0.44 percentage points. Song received 10.34%.

After the first two rounds, Chung held a narrow cumulative lead with about 45.5%, compared with Kim’s 44.5%.

The results announced during the regional contests represent only the first-choice votes of eligible party members. Delegate votes and the results of a public opinion survey will be announced at the national convention in Daejeon.

One-person, one-vote system raises importance of members

The Democratic Party finalized an electoral roll last week containing 17,667 delegates and more than 1.52 million dues-paying party members.

The leadership election is the first to apply a one-person, one-vote principle equally to delegates and eligible members, replacing a system in which individual delegate votes carried substantially more weight.

Combined votes from delegates and eligible party members will account for 70% of the final result, while a public opinion survey will make up the remaining 30%.

The large number of party members means their preferences are expected to play a decisive role.

The Chungcheong and southeastern electorates together represent less than 20% of the total party electorate, however, making it too early to predict the final outcome.

Chung told reporters after Sunday’s results that he had regained the lead.

“I have come from behind,” Chung said.

He compared his campaign with former President Roh Moo-hyun’s victory over Lee In-je during the 2002 presidential nomination race.

Chung said Roh defeated an opponent supported by an established political organization and numerous lawmakers despite having little comparable institutional backing.

“Just as Roh Moo-hyun defeated Lee In-je, who lined up organizations and lawmakers behind him, Chung Cheong-rae will defeat Kim Min-seok,” he said.

Chung also told party members during a speech at the BEXCO convention center in Busan that “organization cannot defeat a political wind.”

Candidates exchange accusations of factional betrayal

The close race has intensified a broader conflict over factions within the ruling party.

During a joint campaign speech in Ulsan, Kim called for an end to what he described as a damaging confrontation between factions aligned with President Lee Jae-myung and Chung.

“We must end the vicious cycle of the Lee-Chung conflict,” Kim said.

He said he would refer people responsible for improper factional activity during the campaign to the party’s ethics committee.

Chung responded by invoking Kim’s conduct during the 2002 presidential election.

Kim left Roh’s then-ruling party after joining lawmakers who pushed for Roh to form a unified presidential ticket with independent candidate Chung Mong-joon.

The group was widely criticized by Roh’s supporters as having abandoned the party’s presidential nominee.

“A person who betrays once will betray again,” Chung said, directing the remark at Kim.

The renewed dispute over the episode reflects the extent to which events from the 2002 presidential campaign continue to influence relationships and perceptions inside South Korea’s progressive political camp.

Song also criticized Chung’s attempt to return as party leader.

“The Democratic Party does not permit consecutive terms,” Song said. “Is there really a need to seek another term?”

Ranked-choice votes could determine winner

The Democratic Party is using a preferential voting system in the three-candidate leadership contest.

Voters rank the candidates by preference. Should no candidate receive a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate finishing last will be eliminated and that candidate’s second-choice votes will be redistributed to the remaining two contenders.

The redistribution process will continue until one candidate secures a majority.

The regional percentages released so far include only first-choice votes and do not show how Song’s supporters ranked Chung and Kim as their second choices.

With Chung and Kim each receiving less than 50%, Song’s redistributed votes could determine the winner if the close three-way pattern continues through the remaining regional contests.

The regional campaign will continue Saturday in Jeju and Incheon, followed by Gangwon Province, Daegu and North Gyeongsang Province on Aug. 9.

Voting in the Honam region, covering Gwangju and North and South Jeolla provinces, is scheduled for Aug. 15. The final regional events will take place in Gyeonggi Province and Seoul on Aug. 16.

A 5% strategic-region bonus will apply in the traditionally conservative Yeongnam and Gangwon regions.

The party leader candidates are also scheduled to participate in televised debates on KBS on Wednesday and SBS on Aug. 12.

The final result will be announced at the Democratic Party’s national convention in Daejeon on Aug. 17.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260802010000251

“RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars” winner Alaska Thunderf— will step into the spotlight this fall as the newest star to take on the title role of Mary in Cole Escola’s Tony Award-winning comedy “Oh, Mary!”

“You know how when in the ’90s in the Olympics, they would ask the winner ‘What are you gonna do now that you won the gold medal?’ and they’d say ‘I’m going to Disneyland.’” Alaska said in a recent interview. “I literally feel like that.”

Even after being cast, Alaska said it didn’t fully sink in until she began doing press for the production. Now, she’d celebrate with a flip if she could do one.

“It’s really happening, it’s just the best role, in the best play ever and I’m honored and I’m excited and I’m thrilled and I can’t wait,” she said.

The dark comedy follows a miserable Mary Todd Lincoln in the weeks leading to the assassination of her husband, who will be played by the Tony Award-winning actor J. Harrison Ghee. The one-act play reimagines the forgotten life of Mrs. Lincoln with absurdist comedy.

Since its 2024 premiere, the play written by comedian Escola — who also originated the title role — has become a Broadway sensation, earning $1 million in a single week and breaking its own box office record 13 times.

“RuPaul’s Drag Race” star Alaska will play Mary Todd Lincoln in “Oh, Mary!” at the Ahmanson Theatre this fall.

(Shaun Vadella)

The stage production received critical acclaim and earned multiple Tony Awards including best direction of a play for Sam Pinkleton and best actor in a play for Escola.

Alaska is joining a list of famed comedic actors who have played Mary Todd Lincoln, including Maya Rudolph, Meg Stalter, Tituss Burgess and Jane Krakowski. She isn’t letting the hype surrounding the show make her nervous, and said she remains focused on embracing the role.

“I’m really excited to wear the sacred bratty curls and the hallowed hoop skirt,” Alaska said.

The actor, who was also a finalist in “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” earned an Outer Critics Circle Award for her Off-Broadway play “Drag: The Musical,” which she co-wrote alongside Tomas Costanza and Ash Gordon.

Alaska is thrilled to play opposite Ghee, who won the 2023 Tony Award for best leading actor in a musical for their role in “Some Like It Hot.” Ghee said in a statement that they are excited to “set the road on fire with this electrifyingly hilarious play” alongside Alaska.

“I have seen Oh, Mary! three times and relished the beauty of this show — how different people shine so brightly in these roles, and yet you see the influence of Cole all over the production,” Ghee said. “The opportunity to get a crack at Mary’s Husband is beyond a dream come true.”

“Oh, Mary!” runs Nov. 10 through Dec. 6 at the Ahmanson Theatre. Additional casting will be announced in the coming months.

Come 2028, the Democratic presidential campaign promises to be a banger, with all sorts of intrigue and subplots layered within a wide-open fight for the nomination.

There’s the prospect of same-state rivals going at it. (California’s Gavin Newsom vs. Kamala Harris; Georgia’s Sen. Jon Ossoff vs. Sen. Raphael Warnock.)

There’s sure to be a generational divide, a split over how much time and energy Democrats should spend rehashing the Trump era, and, inevitably, a clash between standard-bearers of the left, the far left and the party’s increasingly small center-left.

All that remains in the offing, however, as none of the major prospects have formally declared their candidacies. Political tradition, and self-preservation, require waiting at least until after November’s midterm election to jump into the race.

In the meantime, Democrats have seemingly resolved at least one 2028 fight, a fracas marked by snarking, backbiting and plenty of acrimony — all the things that make our politics such a grand and glorious endeavor.

We speak of the contest to determine which state will hold the first vote of the 2028 nominating process. And the winner is … South Carolina!

This was a blow to Nevada, the runner-up in the calendar sweepstakes, and not a very sporting one at that. The state Democratic Party issued a huffy news release, insisting Nevada will be the candidates’ first true test of 2028 — emphasis added — reprising the argument over which state offers the best starting path to reclaim the White House and, thus, deserves the coveted lead voting slot.

(California, a perennially frustrated onlooker, is not set to vote until March 7, several weeks into the balloting, which is supposed to start Jan. 22.)

For decades, the political calendar was unchanged and, mostly, unchallenged.

Iowa went first, holding its quaint and quirky precinct caucuses — neighbors gathered in church halls, school libraries and the like as they worked through arcane rules involving “realignment” and “viability thresholds” — followed by New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary.

In 2024, President Biden shook things up.

He’d failed miserably in Iowa in his runs for president, so Biden had no problem slotting South Carolina first after the state resurrected his lifeless 2020 candidacy. (Iowa didn’t help itself by making a thorough mess of its 2020 caucuses, taking nearly a month to certify a winner.)

The change set off a free-for-all this time around, as a dozen states bid for the chance to vote first.

(The two major political parties set the rules for choosing their presidential nominees, independent of one another. Republicans are expected to stick to the traditional lineup, starting with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, followed by contests in Nevada and South Carolina.)

Last month, after nearly a year of consideration, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted for six states to hold their contests in a window between late January and the end of February. They are, in order, South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia. The lineup will be presented to the full Democratic National Committee to be voted on and finalized later this month.

Doubtless, you — a normal person — have paid little or no attention to any of this. You’ve got more important things to do, like binge-watching “Widow’s Bay,” or not melting.

But party leaders and political insiders take the process extremely seriously. At stake: bragging rights, a modest economic boost and the chance for local analysts and office-holders to make frequent appearances as experts on the cable-TV chat shows.

The jostling grew particularly fierce between South Carolina and Nevada.

More than 50% of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina is Black. In Nevada, Latinos are a substantial and increasingly powerful voting bloc. So, naturally, the competition between the two states assumed fraught racial overtones, which is unfortunate but not surprising, given Democrats’ penchant for picking at sore spots and turning on each other at the slightest provocation.

It was also rather pointless. The order of the presidential calendar is consequential, but far from determinative.

South Carolina was vital to Biden’s success. But so, too, was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which sharply curtailed the Democratic nominating fight. Barack Obama’s 2008 victory in Iowa gave him a huge lift, but he lost to Hillary Clinton the following week in New Hampshire and had to fight another six months before winning the nomination.

Presidential campaigns have changed drastically in the 50 years since a little-known Jimmy Carter quietly burrowed into Iowa, spent months bunking in folks’ extra bedrooms, then burst to national fame by outperforming his more prominent rivals. Today, the race is a 24/7 affair, followed by voters in all 50 states.

While local concerns may come up here and there — the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada, beach erosion in South Carolina’s Lowcountry — the same issues and controversies confront candidates and animate the contest regardless of whether a field of soybeans, a white church steeple or a Southern fish fry serves as the backdrop.

Obviously, the voting has to begin somewhere and the competition between states is well and good. But the trash-talking and, especially, antagonism over race and ethnicity is gratuitous and needlessly divisive. Candidates will show they have the stuff to win the nomination, or not, by building their best case and pitching it to voters.

No matter if it’s a Black church in Las Vegas or a Latino neighborhood in North Charleston. Any location will do.

SACRAMENTO — Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is pressuring his Democratic rival, Xavier Becerra, to participate in a series of debates in the weeks leading up the Nov. 3 election to determine California’s next governor.

In a video shared by his campaign Friday, Hilton listed six debate invitations he has received from cable broadcaster CNN and television news stations around the state, beginning in late September.

“I have accepted every single one of these debates,” said Hilton, standing behind a debate-style podium and gesturing at an empty one beside him with Becerra’s name on it . “This guy, Xavier Becerra, has not accepted any of them. That is completely outrageous. We have to have a debate in this governor’s race. So come on, Xavier.”

The video shows Hilton walk out of frame and return with a cardboard cutout of Becerra, which he plunks behind the second podium while urging the candidate to “man up and show up.”

Becerra’s campaign said he will debate Hilton and blasted the Republican for “chasing” publicity.

“Snowflake Steve is melting faster than he can plan another press conference. While he’s there chasing media and doing Donald Trump’s bidding, Xavier Becerra is building a coalition of Californians ready to elect a governor who won’t bring Trump’s chaos to their front door,” Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement to The Times.

Hilton, a British immigrant who once advised a U.K. prime minister, is endorsed by President Donald Trump and finished second in the June open-party primary election with 24.6% of the vote.

Years of hosting a weekly show on Fox News has made Hilton comfortable on camera and the debate stage; he appeared at-ease during a series of debates earlier this year while lobbing attacks at his Democratic opponents and blaming the party for the state’s long list of problems.

Becerra served as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. Before that, he spent four years battling the first Trump administration as California attorney general and more than two decades representing a Los Angeles congressional district.

The longtime Democratic politician became the come-from-behind winner of the primary, finishing with 28.1% of the vote after polling near the middle or bottom of a crowded field for months. His meteoric rise came after another front-runner, former Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out after a former staffer and other women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct.

Becerra has kept a relatively low profile since the election with few public appearances.

Hilton has held several campaign events in recent weeks to court independent and Latino voters. As a Trump-endorsed Republican, he faces a steep climb in California, where the president is deeply unpopular and a GOP candidate has not won a statewide election since 2006.

Last week he accused Democratic leaders of “abandoning” residents in Boyle Heights, where flies, rats and the stench of rotting food have lingered weeks after a frozen food warehouse was damaged by fire.

Hilton also recently took out full-page ads in The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle to make the case to voters who dislike Trump but are dissatisfied with the status quo in California.

Scotland’s Melanie Woods has won the Commonwealth Games women’s 1500m T54 for the second time in under 40 hours after streaking to victory in the restaged final – however England’s Ellis Kottas could not replicate her silver medal.

Woods set a new Games record to triumph in Glasgow on Wednesday evening, but it emerged on Thursday morning that Para-athletics authorities had decided the race should be held again following appeals surrounding a first-lap crash.

However, the Scot kept her composure in her home city to replicate her initial success, break the record again, and reclaim the gold that was already hers – in mind if not around her neck.

Kottas, though, finished fourth, having said she was “low-key traumatised” when the race result was overturned.

Woods led from the start in her home city, although Noemi Alphonse of Mauritius and Australia’s Eliza Ault-Connell kept her honest over the first couple of laps.

The latter had fallen away by the final 200m, though, and the Scot held off the Mauritian as she was roared by down the home straight by the crowd.

“It was in my mind ‘what have I got left?’ and you do question what you’ve got in your arms,” Woods said.

“But I just needed to be confident I could stay out in front and it was nice coming down the home straight and not seeing her wheel moving in front of me.”

Woods – who has used a wheelchair since being hit by a car while riding her bike in 2018 – will also compete in the 400m later on Friday morning.

The heats of that will start a little more than 90 minutes after the replayed final.

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

On July 10, almost exactly a year after the Pentagon announced it was becoming the largest shareholder in MP Materials, the International Energy Agency put a number on what that deal was designed to prevent: $6.5 trillion in global downstream production now sits exposed to China’s rare-earth export curbs — restrictions currently suspended under an October 2025 truce that lapses again around October 2026. In the year between those two dates, Washington did not simply subsidize its way out of dependency on Chinese processing. It bought in: $400 million for 15 percent of MP Materials, a decade-long price floor for neodymium-praseodymium set nearly double the market rate, and a ten-year promise to buy everything a new Texas magnet plant produces. The Pentagon is now, functionally, a mining shareholder. The interesting question is not whether that has worked — MP’s private financing round attracted $1 billion from J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs within weeks — but what it costs to win a state-capitalist contest by becoming a state capitalist.

The stakes are structural, not cyclical. China controls roughly 70 percent of the world’s rare-earth and critical-mineral refining capacity, a chokepoint built over three decades while Western producers treated minerals as ordinary commodities rather than strategic assets. Beijing’s October 2025 tariff-war truce with Washington postponed, rather than cancelled, an expanded licensing regime that already cut U.S. yttrium imports from 333 tonnes to 17 tonnes in eight months — a squeeze aerospace manufacturers say could force production pauses. Washington’s answer has three parts: Project Vault, a $12 billion public-private stockpile signed by executive order on February 2, 2026, covering all 60 minerals on the USGS critical list; a fast-growing portfolio of direct government equity stakes in miners and processors; and a parallel push to sign allied-supply agreements with eight partners, including Australia, Japan, the UK and the UAE. Europe, meanwhile, is running a different playbook: a €3 billion RESourceEU plan, a joint-purchasing platform, and a stockpiling pilot — procurement and coordination, not ownership.

The MP Materials deal is the template, and its mechanics matter more than its headline. The Department of Defense’s July 2025 investment made it MP’s largest shareholder, attached a $150 million loan for expanding the Mountain Pass mine, and guaranteed a $110-per-kilogram floor price for NdPr oxide — a level industry analysts put at nearly double the prevailing market price — alongside a ten-year offtake covering the full output of a planned magnet facility in Fort Worth. Private capital followed the government’s signal almost immediately, which is precisely the point: Washington concluded that a guarantee was worth more to investors than a grant. That logic has since scaled. The administration has taken a $670 million stake in magnet producer Vulcan Elements, a 10 percent, $35.6 million position in Trilogy Metals, converted a renegotiated Energy Department loan into equity in Lithium Americas, and expanded the official critical-minerals list to include copper and metallurgical coal. Total direct equity commitments now exceed $1 billion, on top of Project Vault’s $12 billion stockpile.

The backlash has been immediate and specific, and it is worth taking seriously rather than waving off as sour grapes. Rival producers argue the price floor lets MP “undercut commercial bids, using federal subsidies to shield its margins,” while former White House and Pentagon officials warn the arrangement could “distort global NdPr pricing, crowd out innovation, and deter private investment in alternative supply chains” — in effect, recreating the very state-directed monopoly the policy exists to counter. That is the strongest objection, and it does not fully land: a government willing to take equity risk, rather than hand out grants, at least has an incentive to see the investment succeed and can in principle profit from the upside, which is the argument the Treasury and National Energy Dominance Council make for why this is smarter policy than Cold War-style stockpiling alone. But the objection identifies a real cost even if it doesn’t defeat the policy: an above-market, government-guaranteed price for one company makes every unsubsidized competitor in the same commodity harder to finance, which narrows rather than widens the eventual supplier base — the opposite of the diversification the strategy claims to deliver.

There is a second problem the price-floor logic obscures: capital committed is not the same as metal produced. The Center for Strategic and International Studies frames this as the difference between “distance” — how much progress has been announced — and “displacement” — how far supply chains have actually moved from their starting point. Japan’s experience with Lynas Rare Earths is the sobering comparison: fifteen years and $250 million of patient, low-drama investment before Lynas achieved the first commercial dysprosium production outside China, in 2025. Washington’s approach substitutes speed and scale for that patience, which may be the correct trade given the urgency, but it means the MP deal’s real test has not yet arrived — it arrives when the Fort Worth facility is supposed to reach full commercial output, not when Wall Street decides to match the Pentagon’s bet.

None of this is happening in a China-versus-America vacuum, either. The Democratic Republic of Congo has extended its cobalt export suspension specifically to tighten leverage over Chinese refiners, and Indonesia has repeatedly resisted pressure to loosen nickel export quotas, forcing processing onshore on its own terms. Producer states, not only the two superpowers, are now treating minerals as instruments of strategic leverage rather than commodities to be sold at whatever price clears the market. That reframes the whole contest: this is not simply Washington racing to catch Beijing, but a broader shift in which every government that sits on a mineral deposit is deciding whether to sell it or wield it.

Which is where Europe’s exposure becomes concrete. RESourceEU gives Brussels coordination and buying power, but no board seats and no offtake priority — and Chatham House’s own assessment is blunt that the UK and EU “cannot match the scale of what the US is attempting” and risk being “left behind” without equity of their own. That matters because Washington’s price floors do not stay domestic: a guaranteed $110/kg for MP’s output resets the benchmark every other buyer, including European manufacturers, has to price against, while offtake agreements tied to U.S. defense production can put European buyers behind the queue when supply tightens. The diversification Europe wants — away from dependence on Beijing — is real, but the replacement supply chain now runs increasingly through companies Washington part-owns and whose output is pre-committed to American industry first. Substituting one chokepoint for another is not the same as building a market.

What Happens Next

Base case (our estimate: roughly 55 percent probability). Washington’s equity-and-price-floor model extends to more minerals — copper and metallurgical coal are already on the list — and more companies, Project Vault’s stockpile builds through 2026–27, and the October 2025 China truce holds past its lapse date. Europe continues a purchasing-only strategy, remaining a price-taker on a benchmark increasingly set in Washington rather than Shanghai. This depends on Congress and private markets continuing to treat government equity as a credible signal rather than a fiscal liability, and on China preferring managed leverage over an open rupture.

Downside case. China allows the truce to lapse on schedule around October 2026 and resumes full licensing enforcement — already quietly restarting, according to recent customs-audit reports — before Vault-funded and MP-style projects reach meaningful output. Aerospace and defense manufacturers, already forced to ration yttrium and dysprosium at a fraction of pre-2025 volumes, face renewed production pauses in the exact window (2026–2028) when domestic capacity is still years from scale, exposing the gap between announced investment and actual tonnage.

Upside case. Government stakes prove to be a bridge rather than a permanent structure: MP, Vulcan Elements and Lithium Americas hit production targets on schedule, price floors become unnecessary as Japan’s Lynas eventually showed is possible after fifteen years of patient investment, and the eight-nation allied-supply framework matures into a genuinely plural, competitively priced market that Europe can buy into on equal terms rather than through Washington’s balance sheet.

The Pentagon’s bet on MP Materials shows that the fastest way to out-compete a state-directed rival was to become one — and by the only metric available so far, capital raised, that gamble is working. But capital raised is not resilience, and every mineral now being withheld or weaponized elsewhere, from Congolese cobalt to Indonesian nickel, shows the world’s supply chains are being redrawn along political lines everywhere, not simply rerouted away from Beijing.

Watch whether China lets its rare-earth export truce lapse on schedule around October 2026, and whether MP Materials’ Fort Worth magnet plant is producing at commercial scale when it does. If the truce holds and the plant delivers, Washington’s ownership model will keep expanding. If either fails, the U.S. will have discovered it bought a shareholding in a company, not a supply chain immune to the country it was built to out-manoeuvre.

SiriusXM is leaning into its sporty side.

The satellite radio company is launching a new subscription plan built specifically for sports fans, called the Sports Pass. For $5 a month, listeners will be able to follow live game broadcasts for every home and away game for nearly every major sporting event.

Launching Sept. 1, SiriusXM will offer one of sports media’s most comprehensive packages, including everything from the latest Formula One race to international soccer.

“SiriusXM Sports Pass brings that vision to life for sports fans by putting every game and event we carry, hometown voices, national personalities and the daily sports conversation into one simple, affordable subscription,” said Jennifer Witz, SiriusXM’s chief executive, in a statement. “No matter who you cheer for or where you listen, it brings you closer to the teams and voices that matter most to you.”

The subscription includes coverage of the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL; every NASCAR, IndyCar and Formula One race; the PGA Tour; WWE events among others. In addition to the live broadcasts, the Sports Pass will also include expert analysis, podcasts and 24 local sports stations, including ESPN LA 710.

The introduction of the subscription package emphasizes sports as an essential part of SiriusXM’s business. The company said in a statement that sports is one of its biggest engagement drivers and that more subscribers than ever are tuning in to sports. Other subscriptions include its All Music tier for $11.99 a month or its All Access tier for $25.99 monthly, which includes music, sports and news.

By having these sports available through a single subscription, SiriusXM is “creating a one-stop shop for any sports fan who’s listening to the radio,” said sports media analyst Lee Berke. This kind of convenience often increases the time listeners are willing to spend on a platform, he added.

“If all sports and all major coverage is available throughout one service, then there’s no reason to go anywhere else,” Berke said. “If you want to maintain subscribership 24/7, 365, you have to have all these things. You don’t want to just appeal to one type of sports fan.”

Outside of sports, SiriusXM is well known for its curated music channels, like Pitbull’s Globalization and The Kelly Clarkson Connection, and talk shows hosted by on-air personalities Howard Stern and Andy Cohen. The radio company, headquartered in New York, reaches roughly 255 million listeners and has 33 million subscribers, making it one of North America’s leading audio companies. SiriusXM also owns the streaming service Pandora, which it acquired for $3.5 billion in 2019.

“Every new channel, artist performance, live event, and creator collaboration advances our vision for the future of audio,” Witz said.

Yet 12 weeks later, Rogers was back in the pool doing rehab. And by summer 2024 she was in Paris winning Paralympic gold. But perhaps the most remarkable thing of all is that she is quicker now than she was pre-accident.

“I never in a million years thought that I could be faster,” Rogers, who is unable to straighten her right arm, tells BBC Sport. “Yes, it looks a bit different and there is definitely an impairment there. But I’ve worked harder, I’m fitter, I’m stronger.

“My message is just ‘don’t let anyone tell you what you can and can’t do’. We’re all different. We’ve all got our own stuff. But I think anything is totally doable if you put your mind to it.”

Not many Para-athletes have done what Rogers has.

It was last year that she resolved to put her “big girl pants on” and act upon a notion she’d had for a while to test where she was in the 200m fly. And the first time she did swim it, she realised she was only just a fraction shy of her pre-accident best.

With that, her mind was made up. She spoke to the selectors and it was agreed that, as long as three other athletes did not post faster times, she could compete at the Commonwealths. They didn’t, and Rogers was in.

“I found out a couple of weeks ago and I’ve been so, so excited ever since,” said the Edinburgh University student before the heats.

“There’s no pressure. I think it’s such a privilege to have the opportunity to stand up there and and to show other people with impairments that, no matter what you are told, and no matter what gets thrown at you, like there’s a way through it.

“We quite often get told we can’t. And this is my way of proving that we can.”

SACRAMENTO — Last week, news broke that an artificial intelligence thingamajig broke free from the constraints of its maker, OpenAI, and committed what could be considered a string of white-collar felonies if it were human.

Because the AI thingamajig is in fact not human, the incident raised a big kerfuffle but is largely being treated as a giant oopsie we can learn from, without needing the pesky intervention of new rules or laws to stop it from happening again.

Such is the state of AI regulation in America right now.

California Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) would like to change that. Last week, he introduced the bipartisan Frontier Act with Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.). While the bill might not make either safety advocates or big tech companies entirely happy, it offers up the most comprehensive and strongest regulations of this dangerous industry that we’ve yet seen at the federal level.

Roman Yampolskiy, an AI expert and professor at University of Louisville, called the Frontier Act a “positive step because it acknowledges that frontier AI presents risks requiring dedicated oversight.”

Now, the challenge becomes passing it, and passing it in a meaningful, not-watered-down form — no easy task in a dysfunctional Congress driven by money and Donald Trump, and paralyzed by its own sycophancy to both.

If anyone has a shot, though, it’s Obernolte, who is that rarest of birds, a legislator who understands science, and his colleagues.

Obernolte represents Inland Empire areas around San Bernardino, but grew up in Fresno back in the era when the movie “War Games” was just hitting theaters.

Those of a certain age will remember how far-fetched it seemed when Matthew Broderick’s high school genius character accidentally breaks into a military AI system to play chess, but “Joshua,” the computer, takes it too far and tries to blow up the world. Now, of course, that just sounds like a regular Tuesday.

By the time he was in high school himself, Obernolte was giving that Broderick character a run for his money. An apparent computer savant, Obernolte was competing in artificial intelligence contests as a teenager, back when most of us were still playing Pong on Atari. Then he headed off to Caltech and then UCLA for advanced AI degrees. He said AI was his “first calling,” sparked when his father bought him an Apple II computer when he was 8.

He ended up dropping out of UCLA after getting his master’s because his side hustle making video games, including “NFL ’95,” turned out to be more lucrative than being a starving student. He ended up founding his own video game company, FarSight Studios, and building up a personal net worth close to $100 million.

Not bad for a kid from Fresno. In Congress, he has stuck close to the MAGA power base and was one of seven California legislators to vote against certifying the 2020 election results, a vote he took in his first days in office. He has been endorsed by Trump multiple times, and now sits on a bunch of committees and subcommittees of relevance.

For the past few years, he has pushed hard, if unsuccessfully, to create a framework for regulating AI, combining his deep understanding of the technology with his equal understanding of MAGA distaste for intervening in business.

Now, though, we’re in a moment, thanks to more than one big oopsie by technology companies. Just a few months ago, Anthropic and the Pentagon had their own tense encounter after Anthropic questioned how its AI was being used by the military. Huffy Pete Hegseth is still huffing over that one.

The public is increasingly skeptical of allowing the AI industry to govern itself, which is pushing legislators to rethink their hands-off approach, even as AI money pours like Niagara Falls into elections. Even Trump seems more inclined to consider it, signing an executive order recently that largely called for voluntary restraints on AI companies.

The introduction of the Frontier Act “shows how far the Overton window has shifted just in the past few months,” wrote Charlie Bullock, a senior research fellow with the nonpartisan Institute for Law & AI. “Not too long ago, a bipartisan bill this good and serious would have been a pipe dream. But things change quickly.”

Obernolte said the bill has been “a long time in the making,” but he hopes to package it with other legislation and is “cautiously optimistic” he can get something passed and signed by the end of the year.

As written now, the bill would allow the federal government to set minimum safety requirements and set up a framework for licensed, independent auditors to monitor compliance. That third party verification has been a key push by safety experts.

The bill would also give the government emergency powers to pause an AI model if it has a “present or impending catastrophic risk.”

It also borrows from state laws including California’s Proposition 53 that require some (not enough) transparency on the part of AI companies when things do go wrong.

To the consternation of some, the bill still contains curbs on what states can regulate on their own — basically carving out AI regulation as federal turf. This has been a huge sticking point in the fight over AI regulation because AI companies hate state laws and want them squashed. Their argument is that a patchwork of rules across states is too complicated.

“You don’t want to have 50 different state requirements for every single product that gets sold on a market, and that is particularly true of AI,” Obernolte told me.

To some extent that’s reasonable — but the problem so far has been that states such as California and New York have been the only level of government willing to try at regulation. California in particular has created some of the most comprehensive AI regulations to date and has about 30 pending bills on this issue this legislative season. The Frontier Act threads the needle on this by creating lanes where states can still pass their own laws — such as around consumer safety that would protect children or stop pornography.

But preventing catastrophic risk would largely be dependent on the federal oversight, which is great when the federal government is up to the task. Currently, we can’t even keep measles in check. So that’s a bit worrisome.

And Obernolte’s bill isn’t the only one vying for attention. Another Californian, Rep. Ted Lieu, introduced a bipartisan measure of his own with Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas). Dubbed the AI Kill Switch Act, it would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to shut down problematic models.

Yampolskiy, the Louisville professor, said that bill had promise as well, because it’s important for companies to have a way to “rapidly disable or contain systems that exhibit dangerous or unexpected behavior.”

But, he warns, that’s just one part of the “complete solution” we need. Regulation is going to require more than one law.

For Obernolte’s part, he’s shown a willingness to work on a practical solution, not just a political one. That alone is worthy of notice. The Frontier Act is a genuine attempt to govern a nascent industry that is too powerful and unpredictable to be left to its own devices.

“I’m hoping that this is we’ve landed somewhere that everyone can understand and be happy with,” Obernolte said. “AI is not something that needs to be a partisan issue, and I don’t think it should be.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How Jimothy the raccoon became the internet’s latest animal obsession
The California angle: Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him
The L.A. Times Special: Mayor’s press team uses disappearing WhatsApp messages, avoiding scrutiny
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

PARIS — Tadej Pogacar confirmed his status as one of cycling’s all-time greats after winning a record-equaling fifth Tour de France title in emphatic style.

Daring mountain attacks from deep, multiple stage wins and an ice-cool temperament all helped the 27-year-old Slovenian seal his victory on Sunday. He joined Belgian Eddy Merckx, Spaniard Miguel Indurain and Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil and Bernard Hinault as the only riders to win five Tours.

“I’m speechless. It’s an incredible day, there was an incredible atmosphere,” Pogacar said. “I’ve ridden seven Tours already and I’ve always finished on the podium. You might think this is a fairy tale, it’s incredible for me too.”

After competing strongly in Sunday’s 21st and exciting final stage in Paris, Pogacar finished 6 minutes, 26 seconds ahead of Belgian rider Remco Evenepoel in the overall standings.

Two-time Tour champion Jonas Vingegaard was Pogacar’s main rival heading into the race but the Dane crashed out on the 15th stage.

“Shame that Jonas and others crashed out of this Tour,” Pogacar said. “I hope we can all fight again next year.”

Pogacar’s UAE Team Emirates XRG teammate Isaac Del Toro, a 22-year-old Mexican making his Tour debut, was third at 9:42 back from Pogacar, who smiled and held up his hand to signify his wins. His teammates then joined him as they stood proudly on the Champs-Élysées.

“I don’t know how I do it,” Pogacar said. “I now have to find a new goal to chase. Which goal? Let’s just not jump ahead of ourselves, and enjoy this moment.”

Pogacar won the Giro d’Italia in 2024 but has not won the Spanish Vuelta, which starts on Aug. 22.

“Will I be at La Vuelta in a few weeks?” he said. “Let’s see.”

Peerless Pogacar

Pogacar won five stages at this year’s race to take his impressive tally to 26 overall.

He tried to win on Sunday, too, but victory ultimately went to Dutchman Mathieu van der Poel, who just held off the chasing pack on the home straight for his second stage win at this year’s race and fourth overall.

Sunday’s 55-mile stage looped around Paris and was mostly processional, although less so than in previous years, which were usually entirely flat stages for sprinters and not for the rest of the peloton.

The stage was shortened and its starting point in Thoiry, west of the capital, was changed to Paris so as to reduce pressure on emergency services combating wildfires in the southwest. Some security forces initially mobilized for Paris were redeployed to help response efforts.

For the second straight year the stage featured the hugely popular uphill climb through the Montmartre district, a sharp 0.62-mile dash which riders tackled three times before finishing on the Champs-Élysées.

It proved even too much for Pogacar, who could not match Van der Poel’s raw power in the closing stages.

Shortly before 6 p.m. local time, Pogacar shook hands at the start line with Evenepoel and Ecuadorian veteran Richard Carapaz, wearing the polka-dot jersey for the best climber.

“I battled hard to win this jersey, it was a great fight,” the 33-year-old Carapaz said. “It’s the best feeling to win it.”

Exciting finale

Van der Poel and Dane Mads Pedersen, the green jersey winner as best sprinter, were among the expected contenders for the stage win.

Crowds roared as the riders began the first climb up Rue Lepic in Montmartre, with the famed Sacré-Coeur basilica looming over them.

Pogacar moved ahead after the second ascension of Montmartre, with Van der Poel, Evenepoel and Pedersen alongside him.

Van der Poel attacked on the third and final climb with Pogacar responding well, and the one-day classics rivals surged ahead.

But they were caught with 700 meters left and, after Pogacar faded, the 31-year-old Van der Poel still had work to do.

He got his bike just over the line ahead of Belgian Jasper Philipsen, his Alpecin-Premier Tech teammate, and Pedersen. Pogacar eased up and finished 30th.

“I thought the sprinters would catch us up so I launched [my attack] from very far away,” Van der Poel said. “I gave everything I had left in my legs and it was just enough.”

Cycling pedigree

Van der Poel is widely considered one of the best cyclists in the world. He has multiple victories in one-day classics and Cyclo-cross world championship titles, and is also a former world road race champion.

His father Adri van der Poel won two stages on the Tour in the late 1980s.

His maternal grandfather was French cyclist Raymond Poulidor, who raced in the 1960s and ’70s, finishing second on the Tour three times and third five times. Nicknamed “Poupou” and “The Eternal Runner-up,” he was adored by French fans.

Women’s Tour

The nine-stage women’s Tour starts in the Swiss city of Lausanne on Aug. 1 and finishes in Nice on Aug 9.

Frenchwoman Pauline Ferrand-Prévôt won on debut last year.

Pugmire writes for the Associated Press.

The Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix were initially scheduled for April but were called off in March as a result of the war launched by the US/Israel against Iran.

F1 is keen to host at least 21 races, because any less than that would activate contractual clauses that could see the sport have to pay rights fees back to broadcasters and may also mean the same for teams with sponsorship budgets.

The arrangement between Bahrain and Malaysia was heavily influenced by Bahrain’s Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa.

The Bahrain race has been Prince Salman’s pet project since it made its debut in 2024. Bahrain’s sovereign investment fund is also the owner of the McLaren F1 team.

F1 president and chief executive officer Stefano Domenicali said: “We are delighted to confirm that Malaysia will host the Bahrain Grand Prix in 2026. Once again, the sport has demonstrated its ability to adapt, find solutions, and deliver, creating an exciting moment for everyone who follows Formula 1.

“I would like to express our sincere thanks to His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain, His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa and His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia, as well as their respective governments for making this extraordinary outcome possible through their vision, commitment, and decisive action.”

Sepang, which last hosted a race in 2017 and made its debut on the F1 calendar in 1999, is a popular track with fans and Domenicali added: “Malaysia is an incredible country, and Sepang holds a special place in Formula 1 history. It will provide a spectacular setting for racing and an unforgettable experience for fans at the circuit and watching around the world.”

BANGOR, Maine — Former state lawmaker and logger Troy Jackson secured the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Maine on Saturday and will face longtime GOP Sen. Susan Collins in November in a race that could decide which party controls the Senate.

Jackson replaces Graham Platner, who won the Democratic primary in June but withdrew from the race this month following an allegation of sexual assault that Platner has denied. Maine Democrats met Saturday to choose a new nominee to face Collins.

Support coalesced around Jackson, a former Maine Senate president and fifth-generation logger from rural northern Maine who campaigned alongside Platner during a failed bid for governor and was a favorite among progressives to replace him.

“When the people in power refuse to listen, you have to organize, you have to stand in solidarity, together. And you have to make them listen,” Jackson said during a speech at a last-minute nominating convention held Saturday.

The Maine Democratic Party has been scrambling to choose a new nominee after Platner, who sailed to victory in the Democratic primary in June, was accused by a former girlfriend of sexually assaulting her in 2021. Platner denies the allegation, but quit the race after key supporters called on him to withdraw.

Democrats have seen Maine as the party’s best opportunity to flip a Senate seat this year because it is a competitive Senate race in a state that Donald Trump lost in 2024. But defeating Collins won’t be easy. The five-term incumbent holds a fundraising advantage, while the new Democratic nominee will have less than four months to sell himself to voters.

Maine law gave the state party authority to choose a replacement and required a new nominee to be named by Monday — 99 days before the Nov. 3 election.

Maine Democrats’ never-before-used process of voting on a new nominee involved hundreds of Democratic delegates gathering in Bangor, about 130 miles north of Portland. The delegates were elected at county party meetings last weekend. The nominating convention began Saturday morning and wrapped by noon.

Jackson’s victory was largely expected after his campaign touted that more than 480 delegates selected to go to the convention had promised to vote for him, a progressive who supports Medicare for all and dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He ended up winning 566 of 571 delegates who cast votes.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat in Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004 and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by the Vermont independent.

Other top candidates dropped out

Once Platner dropped out July 10, Jackson and a flood of other former gubernatorial candidates and others jumped in to try to take Platner’s place. But by July 19, most had abandoned their bids, with Jackson emerging as the clear favorite.

Jackson received early support from progressives who had backed Platner before he dropped out. Our Revolution initially backed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate. When Platner left the race, the group rallied behind Jackson.

Jackson previously ran Maine operations for Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. This election cycle, Sanders endorsed Jackson for governor and Platner for Senate, though he withdrew his support for Platner after the sexual assault allegation. He said he didn’t plan to weigh in on which Democrat should replace Platner.

Just one other candidate remained in the race for the Senate nomination — women’s health company Chief Executive Saundra Pelletier. She faced long odds against Jackson, who has been a fixture in Maine politics for more than a decade.

Jackson has supported progressive positions such as Medicare for all. He also has called for the abolition of ICE, whose presence in Maine has been hotly debated since an agent fatally shot Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a 25-year-old Colombian national, near his home in Biddeford, Maine.

Maine key to Democrats’ Senate path

Democrats have a narrow path to take back the Senate in November, and it’s unlikely they can do it without a win in Maine. In addition, they need victories in most other competitive races — including in North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio and Texas — and they need to hang on to the seats they already have. That includes open Senate seats in Michigan and Minnesota, where Democratic incumbents are retiring.

Maine’s Democratic primary was one of the early contests where progressives took on establishment-backed Democrats. While Platner faced several controversies during his campaign, he easily outlasted Gov. Janet Mills, who was backed by Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer of New York but dropped out before the June 9 primary.

Platner had backing from Sanders as well as Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. That support disintegrated after the sexual assault allegation surfaced this month.

Midterm messages

Jackson will need to convince the state’s large independent voting bloc that it’s time to replace Collins. Republicans have called Jackson too extreme for Maine voters, and Collins said this week that she knows Jackson well and that his positions are “clearly” in line with socialism.

She noted that Jackson ran democratic socialist Sanders’ first presidential campaign in Maine, adding, “He’s a Bernie Bro.”

Jackson also needs to scramble to make up a fundraising gulf against Collins, who has been raising money for months.

Federal filings show she has raised more than $16 million so far. Jackson’s campaign this week said he raised more than $1 million since jumping into the Senate race.

Jackson said Saturday he believed his team is up to the task.

“We’re not from the left, we’re not from the right. We’re from the bottom, and we are rising,” he said during a speech.

Whittle and Kruesi write for the Associated Press. AP journalist Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

Six days after winning his first race in nearly a year, the multiple Grade 1-stakes-winning colt Journalism has been retired.

Coolmore America and Journalism’s ownership group on Friday announced the 4-year-old son of Curlin sustained an injury at the start of Saturday’s San Diego Handicap at Del Mar. The nature of the injury was not revealed.

Journalism broke slowly in the race when he moved forward just before the gate opened, then hit the side of the stall. He spotted the field several lengths but rallied to capture the 1 1/16-mile race for his first victory in five starts since winning the Haskell Stakes last July at Monmouth Park.

In addition to the Haskell, Journalism earned Grade 1 wins in the Preakness Stakes and Santa Anita Derby and was second in the Kentucky Derby, Belmont Stakes and Pacific Classic. The San Diego was his third Grade 2 win, along with the Los Alamitos Futurity and San Felipe Stakes.

He retires with seven wins, three seconds and three thirds from 14 starts, with earnings of $4,770,755.

Michael McCarthy trained Journalism for an ownership group headed by Eclipse Thoroughbred Partners, which paid $825,000 for him as a yearling. The colt already was scheduled to begin stallion duty next year at Coolmore’s Ashford Farm in Versailles, Ky.

“What Journalism did at Del Mar was the mark of a true champion,” McCarthy said in the news release. “To suffer an injury in the gate, give away that much ground, and still win purely on heart and class tells you everything you need to know about him. He owes us absolutely nothing. While it’s tough to see his racing career end this way, protecting him is our top priority, and he goes to stud at the top of his game.”

A NEW attraction is opening in the capital in less than two months and it will feel like you are stepping into a very famous video game.

Arcade Arena London will open in September with immersive gaming experiences including Mario Kart-style racing.

Known as Chaos Karts, visitors will be able to race through futuristic landscapes where they will have to steer around obstacles as well as collect weapons.

It’s more than just racing around a track in a go-kart – the walls and floors will feature an immersive world and teams compete to get the highest score.

In addition to Chaos Karts, there will be two other immersive experiences.

Alien Invasion will be exclusive to the London venue (with the other venue in Manchester).

Read more on travel inspo

FILLER FOUL

Unknown side effects of anti-wrinkle jabs & filler… from bad sex to blindness

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

In this game, you will join the Cosmic Cadets and head on a mission to save Earth while keeping an eye out for alien druids.

And there will also be Pac Man Live Experience, where visitors play as Pac Man themselves in a giant glowing maze.

As you venture around the maze, you’ll have to collect power pellets and try and escape the ghosts.

Between the different games, players will also be able to grab a bite to eat and a drink in the bar area.

Tickets for each experience cost from £30 per person, or you can do all three experiences from £65 per person.

If you don’t want to wait until September, you could head to their venue in Manchester where Pac Man Live Experience and Chaos Karts cost £27 each, per person – thanks to the Great British Summer Savings scheme.

Or you can get family tickets, where you must purchase at least one adult and one child – costing £21.50 and £18 respectively.

There are certain truths that are self-evident to all but the willfully blind or stubbornly obtuse.

Heat is hot.

Rain is wet.

Donald Trump is the most brazenly corrupt president in the history of the United States.

The money-grubbing chief executive has raked in at least $2.2 billion during his first year back in office. He’s funneled millions of taxpayer dollars and foreign payments to his businesses. The grift, er, gift of a tricked-out Air Force One from the Qatari government — which Trump plans to keep in retirement — is only the most high-flying example of his avarice.

There’s so much more.

The notorious tax dodger filed suit against himself, allowing his complicit Department of “Justice” to engineer a flimflam settlement amounting to a get-out-of-jail free card that shields Trump and his sticky-fingered family from Internal Revenue Service oversight. He’s used his pardon power to draw contributions.

It’s so blatant and so consistent with Trump’s dodgy corporate background — a career checkered with six bankruptcies — that it’s easy to shrug off his presidential swindling as just more of the same. That’s been Trump’s political superpower: normalizing the outrageous and anesthetizing many Americans to all but the most extreme affronts. Even those have limited shock value these days.

On Thursday, California’s junior U.S. senator, Democrat Adam Schiff, will take to the floor of the chamber to assay the president’s many conflicts of interest, warn against complacency of the seen-it-all variety and offer his prescription for a cleansing once Trump slinks out of the gold-slathered Oval Office.

“The scope of the corruption we’ve seen in this administration is beyond anything we have imagined in prior years or prior administrations, “ Schiff said in a preview of his speech. “It’s really novel and breathtaking.”

Schiff is, of course, one of the president’s long-standing nemeses. As a House member, he led Trump’s first impeachment trial. His frequent criticism of the president, on the cable TV circuit and beyond, earned Schiff a slug of juvenile nicknames and other Trumpian put-downs, as well as a federal investigation — which now appears dormant — into supposed mortgage fraud.

Kitchen-table talk

Trump defenders will be quick to dismiss Schiff’s floor speech as just more overripe agitation.

Birds fly. Fish swim. Schiff attacks Trump.

But the purpose of his remarks, Schiff said, goes beyond simply enumerating the abundant examples of presidential profiteering. (It was a struggle, he said, keeping the list to a top 10.) His intent, he said, is “to bring home … the real cost to ordinary people” of Trump’s egregious self-dealing. Explaining why — in a practical, feel-it-in-your-wallet sense — people should care.

“If a president approves a merger not because it’s good for consumers, not because it’s good for the economy, but because participants in the merger paid him millions, what’s the cost to them?” Schiff said, referring to the proposed marriage of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery and the money CBS shelled out for a flimsy lawsuit against “60 Minutes.” The settlement was widely seen as a way to smooth Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media, which is now bidding to swallow Warner Bros.

“The cost is they’re paying more for their streaming services,” Schiff said. “They’re getting laid off if they work in the industry. “

In 2024, Democrats lost the White House at least in part because they spent so much time talking about noble but abstract concepts like defending democracy and the rule of law, rather than highlighting ways they’d work to bring down the price of bacon and eggs.

Times change. Now it’s the cost of beef and gas that’s plundering paychecks.

Looking to November and beyond

Schiff insists it’s not an either/or choice. To prevail in November’s midterm elections, which means winning at least one chamber of Congress, Schiff said Democrats should discuss both affordability and Trump’s venality. He sees the two as being irrevocably entwined.

“The positive message is we are singularly focused on your cost of living,” Schiff said from his office on Capitol Hill. “We want to build more housing and bring down the cost of housing. We want to attack anti-competitive mergers of grocery stores and food companies to bring down the cost of food. We have a whole agenda that is designed to make your life more affordable.

“Why isn’t the administration doing this?” he said. “And the answer is, they’re corrupt. They’re focused on their own economic well-being. They’re doing great for themselves. They could care less about you.”

Schiff plans to introduce a number of proposed remedies. They include legislation to ban corporate executives from serving in the executive branch if they’ve been convicted of corruption or financial crimes, and a requirement that government employees recuse themselves from matters affecting the financial interests of any employer they’d worked for within the previous four years.

Although the measures stand no chance of passing in the current Congress, Schiff said “it’s important to show the American people, ‘Hey, this is what we intend to do if you give us the majority.’”

He acknowledged that the depth of presidential dishonesty, its constancy and deep weave in the fabric of this administration, can have a deadening effect: “When the guy working the teleprompter at the White House, betting on how many times the president will use a certain word in his speech, is a blip in the corruption…”

But Schiff said it’s important not to turn away or shrink from the malodor rising from Trump’s swampy Washington.

“You just have to take the time to break it down for people,” Schiff said. “I think putting things in context, trying to snap people out of the norm-shattering numbness of this administration, is a daily challenge. But it’s one that we have to undertake.”

There’s no certainly no harm in stating the truth. It’s worth trying, over and over.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump, long a critic of ‘forever wars,’ may be stumbling into one with Iran
The deep dive: Unhappy with Kaiser’s medical dispute process, some patients push for state reform
The L.A. Times Special: Chabria: Newsom pushes California to crack down on sex trafficking — fast

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Before the war, roughly 15 million barrels of Gulf oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz every day, as roughly a fifth of the world’s traded oil moved through the maritime chokepoint in peacetime.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

With the channel still largely closed and prices elevated, at least seven major pipeline projects are now under construction, in planning or under discussion to push supplies out through the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Oman instead, according to Gulf officials, energy companies and market analysts.

With the Iran war reignited this month, Brent crude is trading again at around $93 a barrel at the time of writing, well above the roughly $72 it fetched after June’s short-lived truce, and the US benchmark WTI has also risen to roughly $90 a barrel.

Depending so heavily on the Strait of Hormuz “is no longer a prudent long-term strategy,” said Victoria Grabenwöger, a senior researcher at the data firm Kpler.

Two escape valves already exist, and both are close to their limits.

Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, built in the 1980s when Tehran threatened shipping during the Iran-Iraq war, carries crude from the Abqaiq complex to Yanbu on the Red Sea, where tankers head south towards the Arabian Sea or north to the Suez Canal.

Meanwhile, the UAE has been channelling more oil to Fujairah, its port on the Gulf of Oman about 145 kilometres south of the Strait of Hormuz.

Together the two links had a spare capacity of some 3.5 to 5.5 million barrels a day before the war, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and both now run close to full representing around 6.5 million barrels a day.

Abu Dhabi’s state oil company is also racing to finish a project it began before the war.

Its $3 billion (€2.6bn), 300-kilometre pipeline to Fujairah, laid alongside an existing line, is designed to lift deliveries by over 1.2 million barrels a day and is roughly half built, according to Kpler, which expects the official early-2027 completion target to slip to mid-2027 because the port itself must be expanded.

Even that timetable, the firm argues, only became conceivable because of the blockade.

Red Sea relief, Red Sea risk

The Red Sea route has vulnerabilities of its own, and this week served as a reminder.

Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels, who declared a blockade on Saudi-linked shipping in retaliation for the kingdom’s blockade of Yemen and an attack on Sanaa’s airport, said on Thursday they had attacked two Saudi tankers, the Encelia and the Layla, setting both on fire.

Saudi state media reported a blaze at the bow of the Encelia with no casualties, while the UK Maritime Trade Operations centre reported a tanker struck by “an unknown projectile” southwest of Al Shuqaiq.

The Iran-backed group has disrupted the Bab el-Mandeb Strait before, a maritime chokepoint carrying about 12% of world trade, and a Houthi drone strike forced the East-West pipeline itself to shut back in 2019.

Iraq’s $60 billion bet on Washington

Nowhere is the scramble more urgent than in Iraq, which draws about 90% of state revenues from oil exports and has had to cut output because of its dependence on the Strait of Hormuz.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi returned from Washington last week with 48 agreements signed with American firms, spanning energy, healthcare and technology and worth more than $60 billion, according to Reuters, including tie-ups involving ExxonMobil, Shell, Halliburton, KBR and GE Vernova.

The centrepiece is a deal with Syria to rebuild the long-dormant pipeline running from the Kirkuk fields to the Mediterranean port of Baniyas, a project Iraqi state media says Chevron will execute and which the US State Department, welcoming the plan, called “a critical energy corridor” with an initial capacity of 2 million barrels a day.

Baghdad is also weighing a line from Basra to Jordan’s Aqaba.

Washington’s ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, predicted the agreements would render the Strait of Hormuz “an afterthought”.

July 22 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party leadership race has descended into an increasingly bitter dispute over allegations that members of a controversial religious group may be attempting to influence the party’s Aug. 17 national convention.

The dispute began after former Prime Minister Kim Min-seok, a candidate for party leader, raised the possibility that the Shincheonji Church of Jesus was intervening in the election.

Shincheonji is a South Korean religious movement whose alleged political activities have become the subject of a national investigation. The church has denied allegations that it directed members to join political parties or interfere in elections.

Kim’s claims have revived questions about why proposed legislation authorizing a special counsel investigation into Shincheonji was abandoned while rival candidate Jung Chung-rae was serving as Democratic Party leader.

The controversy has escalated beyond the original allegations. Jung has denied wrongdoing and threatened legal action, while his allies have demanded that Kim produce evidence, apologize or withdraw from the race.

Party members have warned that the dispute could deepen factional divisions and make it difficult to reunify the party after the convention.

The conflict is increasingly being viewed as a proxy battle between supporters of President Lee Jae Myung and those aligned with Jung.

Kim is generally associated with the party faction loyal to Lee. Jung, a former party leader, has developed his own base among rank-and-file members, and several senior party figures have publicly rallied behind him.

“The essence of this convention is to defeat an alliance of anti-Lee forces, divisive elements and Shincheonji,” Kim said Tuesday. “We must also examine, one by one, why the Shincheonji special counsel investigation did not proceed.”

Kim did not identify Jung by name. His remarks, however, were widely interpreted as criticism of Jung because proposed special counsel investigations into Shincheonji and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification were abandoned during Jung’s tenure as party leader.

Rep. Lee Geon-tae, an ally of President Lee, reinforced Kim’s allegation in a social media post.

“It appears difficult to dismiss Shincheonji’s alleged intervention in the party convention as mere speculation,” Lee said. “We need to determine why the special counsel legislation was halted.”

Jung denied the allegations and said he would take legal action against the dissemination of false information.

Rep. Moon Jeong-bok, a Supreme Council member aligned with Jung, challenged Kim during a party leadership meeting Wednesday.

“What evidence supports the claim of a secret alliance with Shincheonji, and why is this allegation being used to place the party in danger?” Moon said. “He said he has evidence, so he must disclose it and accept responsibility.”

Reps. Choi Min-hee, Lee Sung-yoon and Han Min-soo, who are running for seats on the party’s Supreme Council and are considered Jung allies, issued a similar demand at a news conference.

They said Kim should apologize and withdraw his candidacy if he could not substantiate the allegation.

“He is portraying the Democratic Party as though it were violating the constitutional separation of religion and politics to gain an advantage in the election,” they said.

Some party officials said Kim’s accusation could backfire because Jung’s supporters may interpret it as an attempt to associate all of them with Shincheonji.

“It could be understood as linking every party member who supports Jung to Shincheonji,” a Democratic Party official said. “That could provoke voters and create even greater barriers between groups of supporters.”

Party members said the larger concern was that the fight could undermine unity long after the leadership election ends.

The repeated allegations, threats of lawsuits and demands for candidates to withdraw have pushed debate over party policies and future priorities into the background, they said.

“A certain level of conflict was expected before the convention, but the candidates are now crossing lines that should not be crossed,” another Democratic Party official said.

“The candidates and party leadership must prevent further division so these wounds do not remain after the primary is over.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260723010008191