race

United States President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping are set to meet in Washington, DC on Thursday for a summit that is expected to cover trade, artificial intelligence (AI), Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In advance of the talks, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington had proposed an AI “notification mechanism” with China – effectively a hotline to alert each other when AI incidents threaten national security.

The meeting comes as leading AI companies warn about the technology’s risks, while both superpowers push to accelerate their AI race. In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera compares the US and China’s AI strength in computing power, AI models, spending and research.

Who has more computing power?

Training and running AI requires enormous amounts of computing power. The more powerful chips and computers a country has, the faster it can build and improve AI models, making computing power one of the biggest advantages in the AI race.

Computing power is measured in FLOP/s (floating-point operations per second) – or how many calculations a computer can perform in one second.

Adding up the computing power of all the AI chips a country has gives a sense of its total AI capacity. By that measure, the US is well ahead, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the world’s total AI computing power, while China holds just more than 14 percent, according to Epoch AI, an AI research institute.

The US lead comes largely from its access to the most advanced chips. US company Nvidia accounts for more than 60 percent of global AI computing capacity among major chip designers, while China’s Huawei holds a much smaller, but growing share, according to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index.

Those chips also need somewhere to run. The US has more than 5,400 data centres – the large buildings which house thousands of computers – about 10 times as many as any other country. It also leads in dedicated AI data centres, with 84, more than the next eight countries combined.

Whose AI models are people using?

Frontier models are the most advanced AI systems, such as OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude and DeepSeek’s models in China. They are trained using vast amounts of data and computing power to write, reason and code.

The US has led the development of these models, but Chinese models are gaining ground.

As of March 2026, US and Chinese AI models were closely matched on Arena, a leaderboard where users compare two anonymous models and vote for the better answer. US companies Anthropic, xAI, Google and OpenAI ranked near the top, alongside China’s Alibaba and DeepSeek.

On OpenRouter, a platform that ranks AI models by real-world use, Chinese models dominate the leaderboard. Models from Chinese companies DeepSeek, Z.ai and Tencent hold the top three spots on OpenRouter by tokens processed, the units of text that AI models read and generate.

This is partly because Chinese models are cheaper to use. Many are also open-weight, meaning developers can download, adapt and run them themselves.

Chinese models can now compete with US ones in many real-world tasks, with Chinese AI models “months, not years, behind US frontier models”, according to a July analysis by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

In May, the US government’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) estimated that DeepSeek V4 Pro, released in April, was about eight months behind leading US models.

Who is spending more?

The US is spending far more than China on the infrastructure needed to build AI, giving its tech companies a significant advantage in the race for computing power.

Goldman Sachs estimates that US hyperscalers, the giant tech companies that run large-scale cloud computing and data centres, will spend about $764bn in 2026. That includes Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Oracle. By comparison, China’s Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu and ByteDance are expected to spend $102bn.

But China’s spending is increasing faster. TrendForce, a market research firm, expects China’s four hyperscalers’ capital expenditure to rise by more than 80 percent in 2026, compared with a projected growth of 76 percent for US hyperscalers, according to the news agency Reuters.

The spending gap reflects the scale of the US tech sector, whose companies have larger revenues to reinvest in chips, data centres and talent.

Who is leading in AI research and talent?

China is producing more AI research and training more technical talent, but the US remains a magnet for the world’s top AI researchers.

China accounted for more than 27 percent of global AI publications in 2024, including journal articles, conference papers, working papers and preprints compared with 12 percent from the US, according to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. The figures only cover publications with an English-language title or abstract.

China also trains more top researchers. According to a study by MacroPolo, 47 percent of the world’s top 20 percent of AI researchers completed their undergraduate studies in China in 2022, up from 29 percent in 2019. The study also found that 72 percent of the top AI researchers educated in China were working in the US.

Love or hate him, it must be said: Donald Trump is the most extraordinary politician of our time.

He’s survived twin impeachments, a felony conviction, innumerable scandals, moral and ethical lapses, dunderheaded policies and countless exhibitions of heartlessness and bad taste, allowing him to reign over American life like no other figure in decades.

His political superpower has never been his breadth of knowledge, intelligence, compassion or his empathy. Rather, it’s Trump’s ability to overcome outrages that would buckle mere mortals, and that’s a function of sheer velocity. One offense is almost immediately superseded by the next, leaving little time to react, much less absorb their individual meaning and consequence.

“Flood the zone with s—” is how strategist Steve Bannon described the approach, a tactic employed by the red-baiting Joseph McCarthy, whose Cold War consigliere, Roy Cohn, went on to mentor Trump in the art of parry and thrust.

Recently, our president engaged in yet another of his unseemly acts, which quickly passed like so many other indecencies once fresh provocations arrived. (The banishment of disfavored news media from the White House; threats to tear down the Kennedy Center.) This one, though, is worth revisiting and examining as the country careens toward an election now less than six weeks away.

Cheat, Trump urged his supporters. Cheat like hell.

The setting was the recent Republican midterm convention in Dallas, a pageant of Trump’s ego and insecurities in full-parade dress. On the final night, in the second of two keynote speeches, Trump asked those in attendance to raise their right hands and swear to the following:

“I pledge, to the greatest president in the history of the United States, that loves us so much he can’t even breathe, that I will go out with my family, my friends, I’ll do it any way, I don’t care if I’m registered or not, I’m gonna try and cheat like hell like [Democrats] do” — here supplicants regaled Trump with laughter — “I am gonna go out and I’m going to get my friends and family and we are going to vote on November 3rd, or we are going to vote before that!”

Breaking new ground

A brief programming note: This is not normal.

As Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law, put it: “Trump framed his comments as though he were making a joke. But it’s a deadly serious thing to be joking about.”

Trump’s performance as president has always been layered with a certain amount of shtick, especially when he’s placed in his preferred setting, which is standing before a microphone in front of a rapturous crowd. Lest it be forgotten, Trump stepped into the political arena from the world of reality television, which supposedly made him more authentic. His violation of norms and trampling of protocols has come to be known — and celebrated by acolytes — as simply “Trump being Trump.”

Still, it’s a remarkable thing when the president of the United States urges people to cheat.

Richard M. Nixon, in the throes of Watergate, famously declared, “I am not a crook.” Donald Trump, his approval rating slumping toward Nixonian levels, is urging Americans to act like crooks.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, can’t recall any president ever saying anything remotely similar.

“It’s an example of how manifestly unfit [Trump] is to serve as the chief executive with a constitutional imperative to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” Levitt, who worked on voting rights in the Biden administration, wrote in an email. “Exhorting your own followers to break the law is pretty directly inconsistent with his own oath of office.”

And it is, as Levitt noted, not the first time Trump transgressed his sworn vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

A history of election denial

What’s rich — and telling — about the latest breach is Trump urging supporters to cheat even as he pretends to fight to protect the sanctity of our voting process.

From the time he was defeated in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, Trump has consistently sought to undermine the will of voters and cast doubt on elections he didn’t like — a petulant pattern that culminated in the violent attempt to overturn his beyond-doubt loss in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Since returning to the White House — felonies, impeachments and all — Trump has continued his attempts to vandalize our election system, using the powers of the presidency to harass election workers, pursue phantom fraudsters, gerrymander House seats, undermine faith in our democracy and seek to prevent Americans from voting by mail, as Trump himself prefers.

As the subversive Dallas “pledge” makes clear, Trump’s exertions have never been about ensuring free and fair elections. Instead, he’s trying to rig the system to avoid what could be a midterm nightmare for the beleaguered president and his fellow Republicans.

Levitt said there’s no reason to think Trump supporters will cheat en masse, any more than one should believe Trump when, as seems inevitable, he cries fraud if results fail to go his way on Nov. 3. “For him, it’s all just vibes,” Levitt said, “with no factual content.”

Elections have consequences. Words matter.

Especially when they’re coming from the mouth of a president who’s abundantly shown his willingness to lie, cheat and steal to get his way.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: California Republicans walk a tightrope as Trump jumps into midterms campaigning
The deep dive: Despite court wins, California election war with Trump rages on
The L.A. Times Special: Three ballot measures on housing, medical research but only one no-brainer
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Los Angeles Councilmember Nithya Raman has taken a wide lead over incumbent Karen Bass in the L.A. mayor’s race, according to a new poll released Wednesday, although a high percentage of voters remain undecided less than two weeks before mail-in ballots are sent out for the Nov. 3 election.

Raman is favored by 39% of likely L.A. voters, compared with 28% for Bass, according to the poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which was co-sponsored by The Times. The poll found that 33% of voters were undecided.

“Raman clearly has the advantage. Her task is a little less onerous than Bass’,” said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the Berkeley IGS Poll.

Adding to Bass’ low poll numbers are high unfavorability ratings.

The mayor had 63% unfavorable ratings, the poll found, with 28% favorable and 9% having no opinion. By comparison, 40% had a favorable view of Raman, according to the poll, while 39% said they had an unfavorable view of her and 21% had no opinion.

The survey released Wednesday was conducted online with a sample of 2,150 likely city voters between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20. It has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points.

The poll represented the strongest showing yet for Raman, who trailed Bass in almost every poll during the primary campaign and who came in second to Bass in the primary election, with 29% of the vote compared with Bass’ 34%.

Mayoral candidate and Councilmember Nithya Raman, center, enjoys a light moment with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action members at La Cita Bar in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Even so, DiCamillo said the large number of undecided voters means the race is far from over.

“It’s extraordinarily unusual to see this many undecided voters at this point in the race,” he said. Mail-in ballots will be sent out beginning Oct. 1, local elections officials say.

The large number of undecided voters can be linked to the elimination of mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt in the June 2 primary, according to DiCamillo. The former reality TV star received 26% of the vote in the primary, and most of the voters who cast ballots for him — 63% — say they haven’t decided whom to vote for in the runoff, the poll found.

Among those Pratt voters who have decided, 22% favored Bass compared with 16% for Raman.

One of the most significant findings in the poll was a massive “generational divide” among L.A. voters, DiCamillo said.

Raman, 45, dominated the 72-year-old Bass among younger voters, with 66% of likely voters ages 18 to 29 choosing the council member while just 4% chose Bass, according to the poll.

Raman also had 64% of likely voters ages 30 to 39 compared with Bass’ 12%, and the council member had 50% of likely voters ages 40 to 49 compared with Bass’ 18%. Raman also was leading among voters 50 to 64 years old by a slim margin of 35% to 33%.

Bass, meanwhile, led among the oldest set of voters — those 65 and up — but not by the same margins. Bass had 41% of likely voters in that group compared with Raman’s 21%.

The mayor has had negative favorability ratings since the 2025 Palisades fire.

According to the poll, 56% of likely voters thought Bass did a poor or very poor job responding to the disaster, which killed 12 people and destroyed more than 4,000 homes, including Pratt’s.

Fourteen percent of the likely voters thought Bass had done either an excellent or a good job and 17% thought she had done a fair job.

Mayor Karen Bass campaigns at Ernest E. Debs Regional Park on Sunday.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The most important issues to likely voters were fixing city infrastructure, moving homeless people indoors, crime and public safety, and building more affordable housing, the poll found.

The poll shows Raman leading in nearly every geographic area of the city. Bass was leading in South Los Angeles and the Harbor region, 37% to 34%, but central Los Angeles as well as northeast and the east side of Los Angeles broke strongly for Raman.

The San Fernando Valley went 34% to Raman and 26% to Bass with 40% still undecided. The Westside favored Raman by a single percentage point, at 35% to 34%.

Raman has led in other polls recently, though none by as wide a margin as in the Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll. Shortly before the primary, a separate Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll showed Raman leading Bass in a potential head-to-head matchup by just four percentage points, with 32% support compared with the mayor’s 28%.

But the gap between the two has widened since then, the latest poll found, as Bass weathered a difficult news cycle, including rising homelessness numbers citywide as well as the fallout from the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights that burned for nearly a week, leaving rotting food and a rancid stench in the neighborhood for more than a month.

Raman, meanwhile, picked up largely positive headlines this summer. She gained key endorsements from the carpenters’ union and Unite Here Local 11, the union representing hospitality workers at hotels and the airport, as well as an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America. Street homelessness also dropped in her district, which she said was due to her office’s strong outreach, though the Bass campaign credited the mayor’s Inside Safe program for the reduction in Raman’s district.

On the negative side, Raman was booted from her position in the council as chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, a move she said was politically motivated.

In an internal Raman campaign poll from early September, the council member was ahead, 44% to 39%, with 17% undecided. She was also leading, 38% to 32%, in a poll commissioned by the group Streets for All, which is backing Raman.

In an early August poll commissioned by an independent expenditure group supporting Bass, the mayor had the edge, 41% to 35%, with 24% undecided.

Sept. 22, 2026 10:20 AM PT

DETROIT — Michigan U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed said Tuesday that he wants Kamala Harris’ midterm campaign stop in Detroit to unify Democrats in the key swing state where their party’s factions were on full display in a hotly contested primary earlier this year — and in Harris’ 2024 presidential defeat.

“We’re building an electoral coalition here,” El-Sayed said, speaking about the economy hours ahead of a planned appearance with the former vice president.

An unapologetic progressive, El-Sayed downplayed his differences with Harris over the Biden administration’s support for U.S. military aid to Israel. El-Sayed has called Israel’s military actions in Gaza a genocide against Palestinians. Israel rejects that position, but it aligns El-Sayed with many voters in Michigan’s large Arab American community and with progressives who withheld their votes from Harris in 2024, when the state tipped narrowly to Republican Donald Trump.

That election “ended where it did because we could not find the places of agreement to be able to bring people together or move in the direction that we need to move,” El-Sayed said, emphasizing that he and Harris both want to help voters who are struggling economically.

Harris, the first Black vice president, remains popular among Black voters who anchor the Democratic base in Detroit and who leaned in favor of El-Sayed’s primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, in the August primary. El-Sayed said Harris, who will attend a roundtable on Black maternal health with him and separately join an event hosted by the Detroit chapter of the NAACP, is a critical advocate in helping him close ranks as he tries to defeat Republican Mike Rogers.

“Her presence here speaking to communities that were really empowered by her voice throughout her political career, I think will help us to continue to bring our coalition together,” El-Sayed said.

El-Sayed vs. Rogers is a critical contest for Senate control

The Democrat’s matchup against Rogers, a former congressman, will help determine control of the Senate for the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If Democrats hold the seat, which was opened by Sen. Gary Peters’ announced retirement, they’d still need to win at least four more currently held by Republicans to flip the chamber. A Rogers victory would narrow Democrats’ path to a majority.

Rogers’ campaign framed Harris’ visit as a sign of weakness for both Democrats.

“Abdul is so desperate that he’s parachuting Kamala Harris into Michigan to save his flailing campaign,” said Alyssa Brouillet, Rogers’ spokesperson.

Rogers has been campaigning in Detroit, a predominantly Black city where his campaign is optimistic he can pick up support from voters hesitant to support El-Sayed.

Black voters could prove especially critical as El-Sayed also faces pressure among white Jewish voters who typically back Democrats.

“Jews in Michigan are currently scared” by their Senate options, said Barry Goodman, a Democratic National Committee member and major Michigan fundraiser in the party. Goodman backed Stevens in the primary.

The race is also seen as another referendum on progressives’ viability in battleground races. El-Sayed is running to the left of the Democratic Party establishment, including advocating for universal healthcare.

Goodman described himself and many other Jewish Democrats as “holding our noses and voting for Abdul” because they “believe in the Democratic ticket and they believe that one man can help win the Senate but can’t destroy the Senate.” Other moderates, Goodman said, are still deciding whether to back Rogers or sit out the Senate race.

El-Sayed has attempted to soften his approach on Israel and Gaza. He has apologized for some past controversial comments and said he is committed to Jewish safety.

Michigan will also be a key state for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary

For Harris, the trip comes as questions swirl about her intentions to run for president again. Under the Democratic National Committee’s recently revised nominating calendar, Michigan now will hold the fifth presidential preference primary in 2028.

It’s unclear whether Harris will use the trip to restate or recalibrate her past statements on Israel. But campaigning with El-Sayed is notable, nonetheless, given her past tensions with Democrats’ left flank.

“She probably figures she won’t lose her establishment folks, so maybe she makes gains to her left,” Goodman said.

Harris has said she’s in no rush to announce whether she will run in 2028. But ahead of Election Day this November, she also has campaign stops planned in Nevada and Georgia, two other important states on the political map.

Ganun and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

SACRAMENTO — Three state bond measures are on California’s November ballot. You probably haven’t paid much attention to them. So here’s my read on these big-ticket proposals.

One is a no-brainer “yes.” It would help middle-class Californians buy a new home by allowing them to borrow most of the down payment. And it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime. That’s Proposition 37.

Another housing measure is probably worthwhile, but gives me pause because it accommodates too many interests in order to attract broad political support. And it burns a barrel of money. That’s Proposition 1.

The third proposal would fund important medical research. But I wince because it was written to largely benefit one institute that was co-founded and is headed by the measure’s chief backer. That’s Proposition 38.

Propositions 1 and 38 combined would add $18.4 billion to the state’s general fund bond debt, which already is about $80 billion, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst‘s Office.

Plus, there is $40 billion in previously authorized bonds waiting to be sold. The new bond proposals would cost the state at least $1 billion annually for 20 to 25 years. Taxpayers are paying about $6 billion annually to retire state bonds.

Bonds are boring, but they’re also tax eaters. So we should pay some attention before voting on them.

“People think about bonds as free money. And, of course, they’re not,” says Mark Baldassare, polling director for the Public Policy Institute of California. “People don’t think bonds are going to raise their taxes.”

But most bonds are repaid by the state’s general fund, the main cash box that finances major programs such as education, healthcare, prisons and fighting wildfires. Bond debt has No. 1 dibs on the money. When revenue runs short — a common dilemma in Sacramento — other programs must be cut or taxpayers are hit harder. So bonds aren’t necessarily tax-free.

Baldassare released a PPIC poll last week that found a majority of likely voters supporting all three bond measures — especially Proposition 37 to ease homebuyers’ down payments.

The pollster noted that fall election campaigns are just starting and opposition arguments could reduce support for the measures.

But there’s no organized opposition to the two housing proposals. And although the medical research measure has some outspoken critics, there’s no money for an opposition campaign.

OK, a few specifics on each measure.

Proposition 37 is a taxpayer freebie, a $25-billion bond repaid solely by homebuyer beneficiaries. Here’s how it would work:

Middle-income people could pay 3% down on their home purchases rather than the normal 20%. They’d borrow the other 17% as a second mortgage and repay it along with the first mortgage.

The proposition defines middle class as household income that’s less than double the median for the area. Statewide, that income ceiling would be around $200,000 but would vary greatly by locale.

The purchased dwelling must be a brand-new home, whether stand-alone or a condo. That’s to increase the housing supply and create construction jobs. Politically, it gains the support of developers and unions.

No vacation home. It must be owner-occupied full-time. And the buyer must be a California resident.

The state’s sale of revenue bonds would create the down-payment pot. Regular lending institutions would arrange the loans and charge minimum fees. Loan repayments would replenish the pot and make it self-sustaining.

This was the brainchild of Bob Hertzberg, a former Democratic Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader from the San Fernando Valley.

Hertzberg tried several times to sell his proposal to the Legislature, but lawmakers wanted to juice it up with their own pet ideas. “I couldn’t get something just focused on the middle class,” he says. So he crafted this citizen initiative.

Proposition 1 proposes $11.25 billion in bonds for a smorgasbord of affordable housing.

This is the political establishment’s creation — Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic-controlled Legislature and housing interests. There’s no organized opposition.

It was dressed up with $1.25 billion in popular CalVet loan bonds for military veterans. They repay their home loans through mortgages, costing the state nothing.

But the remaining $10 billion in bonds would be repaid through the state general fund, costing at least $500 million annually for 25 years.

The measure is mainly designed to generate affordable rentals for poor people. But to assure legislative passage, money was added for affordable student and farmworker housing, plus other goodies.

It’s a lot of money and makes only a small dent in California’s unaffordable housing plague. Moreover, it seems too scattershot.

But it could spare more people from becoming homeless — living in their cars or on sidewalks, ultimately costing taxpayers even more.

Then there’s Proposition 38, the problematic $8.4-billion general fund bond for medical research, including cures for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.

The hang-up for me and others is that the ballot initiative was crafted to virtually assure that half the bond money would go to one outfit, the UCLA-affiliated California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute was co-founded and is headed by the proposition’s originator and chief backer, billionaire Gary Michelson.

“I know opponents want to create a billionaire boogeyman, but isn’t curing cancer and other terrible diseases exactly what we want billionaires to spend their money on?” says Robin Swanson, a campaign spokesperson.

Sure. But being backed by a billionaire isn’t the problem. It’s being written to substantially benefit one research institute that’s led by the billionaire.

Two cancer survivors and political opposites — conservative consultant Jon Fleischman and liberal consultant Steve Maviglio — co-authored an op-ed that declared:

“Imagine either major political party proposing to borrow billions of dollars and writing the qualifications so narrowly that an organization founded and chaired by a principal campaign benefactor appears positioned to collect half the money. The other party would rightly howl. So should voters.”

They should at least be skeptical.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California health clinics accuse influential union and its leader of racketeering in civil lawsuit
Danger zone: Newsom creates panel on AI safety regulation, suggests possible ‘kill switch’
The L.A. Times Special: Union power vs. MAGA politics in California’s schools superintendent race

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

The fight had initially been discussed for November but, with negotiations over the venue dragging on, it now looks set for December.

Staging an open-air stadium fight in the UK at that time carries immense risk.

While Wembley offers unmatched prestige, exposing tens of thousands of fans and a massive international broadcast operation to potentially freezing temperatures, wind and rain was deemed unacceptable.

Moving the event indoors to an arena like London’s O2 would eliminate weather risks, but at the cost of sacrificing tens of thousands of ticket sales.

The Principality Stadium’s retractable roof allows organisers to capture the immense scale, atmosphere and gate revenue of a stadium show while offering full protection from the elements.

The venue’s official seated capacity is just under 74,000, but boxing configurations allow for even larger crowds.

Joshua has already proven he can sell out the venue, having defended his WBA and IBF titles there against Carlos Takam in front of nearly 80,000 fans in 2017 before adding the WBO belt against Joseph Parker five months later.

In the second week of the college football season, in a clash of titans, the University of Texas scored 21 unanswered points to surge past Ohio State in the fourth quarter and win, 24-23.

The comeback, Gov. Greg Abbott decreed, was the greatest home victory in more than 130 years of Longhorn football.

A screen grab of one celebratory moment showed a group of students ecstatic beyond belief. They were clad in the university’s signature burnt orange. Two wore cowboy hats. One flashed “Hook ‘em Horns,” the university’s proud hand signal.

To see the picture earlier this month was to witness pure, untempered joy.

But Bo French, the Republican candidate for Texas Railroad Commission, saw something different.

Most of the students were darkly complected and apparently of South Asian heritage. French posted the photo and wrote on X, “I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. I didn’t believe it. The problem is now obviously far worse than anyone imagined.”

He followed with a second post, doubling down on the racist “Great Replacement” theory.

“Like body-cams exposed criminals, social media is exposing how many Americans have been displaced by foreigners,” French spewed. “It’s everywhere and far worse than any of us could imagine.”

In many places, French’s unapologetic, unvarnished bigotry would be disqualifying. But given Texas’ strong Republican leaning he stands a better-than-even chance of being elected in November to the state Railroad Commission, which, despite its name, oversees Texas’ vast oil and gas industry.

The hateful gibe was perfectly in character. “In some ways in Texas this is old news,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, who teaches political science at the University of Houston.

Last year, as chairman of the Tarrant County GOP, French posted an online poll asking, “Who is a bigger threat to America?” The choice on offer: Muslims or Jews.

Speaking in March at a political conference, he urged President Trump to round up and deport every Muslim in the country, calling the Islamic faith subversive and a clear and present danger to America.

“The Republican Party is used to Bo French making these kinds of outrageous statements,” Rottinghaus said.

Still, the response to French’s latest acrid emission was telling, not least for what it says about reflexive partisanship and today’s political reward structure.

As you’d expect, his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Jon Rosenthal, was scathing. “I spent 25 years as an oil and gas engineer,” he wrote on social media. “Bo French spent Sunday morning sorting our student section by skin color … A man who can’t tell a Longhorn from a foreigner has no business regulating anything in TX.”

The state’s outgoing U.S. senator, Republican John Cornyn, was also quick to denounce French. “This is the Republican nominee for statewide office,” Cornyn said in a post. “Are other Republican elected officials going to condemn the intolerance and racism, or look the other way while it becomes normalized.”

For Abbott and for Ken Paxton, who beat Cornyn in an eye-gouging, rabbit-punching Republican Senate primary, the answer was, for all intents, the latter.

“That is not my message,” Abbott said in a written statement, summoning the moral clarity and political courage of a puff pastry. “We all support our college football teams. The way we win the state is the same way we win football games. We unite under the brand of Texas.”

Then, just to have it both ways, Abbott suggested “that doesn’t mean that Texas cannot also lead in having the toughest immigration laws of any state in America and freezing H1B visas at our universities.” (The overwhelming majority of those holding H1B visas are Asian nationals from India and China.)

Paxton responded by attacking his Democratic opponent, state Rep. James Talarico, for saluting Cornyn for taking a stand against French’s prejudice. “I condemn racism in all its forms,” Paxton wrote on X, adding, “Only one person in this race has a history of dividing Texans by race, and it’s James Talarico.”

A simple, straightforward condemnation shouldn’t have been hard. Lacey Hull, a Republican state representative from Houston, was among those in the GOP who showed how.

“Please delete this,” she urged French on X. “This post breaks my heart. I see college kids cheering on their football team. I see Texans.”

But Abbott, bidding for an unprecedented fourth term, is facing a tougher than expected race against Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa.

Paxton, whose unsavory resume includes impeachment, indictment, petty theft and charges of adultery, has managed the rare feat of turning his race against Talarico into a nail-biter. (It’s been more than three decades since a Democrat won statewide office in Texas.)

Both need a robust GOP turnout to win in November and neither wants to risk alienating too many within the party’s xenophobic, anti-immigrant wing.

“They’re concerned about turnout,” said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University. “Texas is a red state, but one thing that Republicans are concerned about is that the base may not turn out in as large a number as they need.”

Given French’s loathsome history, Abbott and others in the party establishment worked hard to keep him from winning the Republican nomination, Rice noted. But not Paxton. He headlined the kickoff to French’s campaign and has good reason to be glad he won and is now part of the GOP ticket.

His presence means that Paxton is only the second most odious figure seeking statewide office in Texas in November.

An Australian indoor fitness athlete apologized Thursday for continuing to participate in a recent competition after apparently soiling herself.

Joanna Wietrzyk, a 24-year-old Melborne resident, could be seen with what appears to be fecal matter on parts of her body as she competed in a Hyrox event Saturday in Beijing, China. Despite that, she was permitted to stay in the race — even though the running-workout event involves the shared use of equipment by multiple competitors — and eventually was declared the winner with a time of 1 hour, 1 minute and 23 seconds.

Wietrzyk has decided to “retroactively withdraw from the race and forfeit the points I earned,” she indicated in a Sept. 18 statement posted on Instagram.

“I want to offer my sincere apology to the people of China, my fellow competitors, the spectators and the HYROX organizers for what happened during the race in Beijing,” Wietrzyk wrote.

“I felt completely fit and healthy at the start of the race, with no reason to expect any illness. Looking back, I regret the decision to not have stepped off the track. I recognize that I should have made a different choice. I take responsibility for my decision to continue and am deeply sorry for the discomfort and disruption it caused.

“I know my actions had an impact beyond myself, and I am genuinely sorry to everyone who was affected. I am learning from this experience and will carry those lessons with me, including remembering that there is more to life than racing and knowing when it is right to step away.”

The message contrasted from that of a post Wietrzyk made earlier in the week that, according to the Athletic, also included a selfie of the athlete apparently in a hospital bed.

“Go hard or go home … a win is a win,” the since-deleted post reportedly said. “In all seriousness, thank you for all the support. I’ll be back soon.”

First introduced in 2017, Hyrox indoor fitness competitions are made up of eight 1-kilometer (.62-mile) runs that are separated by intense exercises at eight different workout stations (ski ergometer, sled push, sled pull, burpee broad jump, rowing, farmer’s carry, sandbag lunges and medicine ball squat/throw). Wietrzyk holds the world record in the women’s event with a time of 54:26 set earlier this year.

Hyrox co-founder Moritz Fürste posted a statement Sunday on Instagram apologizing for “the recent events in China” and indicating that the competition has taken unspecified steps to prevent another such occurrence.

“I apologise to all that were directly or indirectly affected, as well as to everyone who felt like we did not handle the situation like we should have,” Fürste wrote. “HYROX made a mistake by not reacting immediately during the race. In the end it is my job to foresee these potential incidents — and I did not.

“Of course, we started improving event processes, plus making rulebook changes immediately. As of this moment, there are new rules and procedures in place to prevent situations like this from happening again.”

SACRAMENTO — To hear President Trump tell it, the 60% or more of Americans who worried that unchecked artificial intelligence poses a risk to humanity are just a bunch of suckers buying the latest election-rigging conspiracy peddled by his foes.

“The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened?” Trump posted recently, apparently unaware that heat-related deaths continue to rise.

By the end of the week, his circle of sycophants had adopted that language, along with the strange take that Trump alone would be able to control the rise of superintelligence should it occur. David Sacks, often billed as Trump’s AI whisperer, echoed the hoax line at a Politico event, adding that there was an “orchestrated media campaign” meant to “alarm the public.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance called the pleas for regulation from inside the industry, including from CEOs such as Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, a “Trojan horse.” He argued that “Americans shouldn’t be scared of anything,” seemingly backing Trump’s absurd declaration that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!.”

As someone who has covered this issue, let me just say the concern is not a hoax, not a marketing ploy meant to juice the value of companies about to have an IPO, and not a vast and sprawling plot by Trump’s adversaries.

But it is a complicated, fraught problem in a pivotal moment. The president’s confusion and inaction pose an immediate risk of slamming shut our small window of opportunity to make meaningful decisions about a technology that will almost certainly change the course of history and humanity.

So why exactly is Trump demanding this unfettered charge at oblivion, and what are the options for putting guardrails up despite him?

Trump’s reasoning

The pacifying but slightly terrified response of Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark to Trump hints at just how alarmed those deepest in AI development seemingly feel about both the president’s attitude and the unregulated future he demands.

“We’re grateful for the president’s attention,” Clark said on Fox News. “What we’re saying here is we need to get a sensible, commonsense safety framework … and we don’t roll the dice on some kind of accident.”

Or, as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put it, “If the only guardrail AI needs is a ‘strong and smart president,’ we’re doomed.”

Like all things Trump, his position involves money. AI is currently a driving force behind the American economy, and if we just cover every inch of open space with data centers, it could keep an otherwise slumpish outlook bright.

OpenAI and Anthropic are also planning IPOs in the not-distant future.

Because these companies are valued at astonishing, 12-zero amounts and because certain stock listing rules will now require that these companies quickly be included in index funds favored by many pensions and retirement accounts, anything that crashes their value — such as investors’ jitters from regulation — could jam up the stock market.

That could affect the lives (and votes) of average Americans.

So despite the long-term risks, the short-term political benefits of the AI gravy train are substantial for Trump.

Then there is the place where Trump actually has a fair point: China. Current AI reflects the values of its creators. It would be disastrous for the free world if superintelligence were trained to favor authoritarianism.

The logic here is if we don’t build “good,” Western-values AI first, we will be at the mercy of “bad” AI, so the possibility of harming great numbers of people is a reasonable, maybe even necessary, risk.

Picking the best path

But is it? Is there a way to instead pursue both geopolitical dominance and safety?

This is where things get messy, and many folks — oligarchs in particular — become invested in keeping the general voter confused.

There is no consensus on a best course of action because we are in uncharted territory and there is actually no way to reliably predict what happens next.

Picking the best path forward, then, starts with picking a camp, a tribe, an outlook. In the broadest sense, there are three possibilities: We attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag; we all try to play nice, as companies and countries, and create rules on the fly; or we just accelerate at full speed, let it rip and what happens happens.

There are obvious problems with each of those.

As an excellent paper by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. explains, which of those camps a person chooses depends largely on just how imminent the danger feels, how feasible it seems to control development of AI and how realistic it is to bank on cooperation — or whether we believe we should and could aim to just continually win a technology war against humans or machines.

These camps, therefore, have little to do with traditional politics. Voters are feeling this issue on a visceral level, one that only a few years ago would have been deemed paranoid and fantastical, and it’s making for strange bedfellows.

Speaking at an conference this week, avowed lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a pause on AI development because he’s in the camp that believes it’s currently too dangerous to go forward without a plan.

At the same conference, ultraconservative Trump loyalist Stephen K. Bannon made a similar point. He also urged Americans not to trust “anything” said by AI oligarchs, and to reject the idea championed by Trump that slowing down is dangerous or un-American.

“If you’re not accelerationist, you are supporting China,” Bannon said. “If you’re not accelerationist, you want America to lose. If you’re not an accelerationist, you’re bad, dumb and evil. Well, the last week has shown we’re none of that, and now we need the time to make the right decision.”

The issue is almost certainly going to be huge and problematic in the midterms — potentially for both parties.

For Republicans, navigating it means tiptoeing between Trump’s egomaniacal, short-term approach and voters who are increasingly intolerant of it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who regularly refuses to cross Trump, has been clear he doesn’t want Congress taking up the issue — despite calls from MAGA stalwarts such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to do so.

“If you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t,” Cruz quipped during a hearing on Capitol Hill this week during which he opposed waiving some antitrust rules, as AI companies have suggested — a move that could decrease their accountability if something goes awry.

For Democrats, coming out hard for safety should be an easy decision, seemingly popular with voters. But for a party that had made trademarks of infighting, flailing and uncertainty, it remains to be seen if they can muster the unity to capitalize on this silver-platter strife.

For both parties, it also means finding the courage and will to fight the enormous sums of money AI companies are funneling into elections to ensure any regulations are ones they approve. Politico reported that some Democratic strategists are warning to go soft on the issue to avoid angering those election buyers, because it turns out that even companies clamoring for rules only want the ones they choose.

Ultimately, though, it’s Bannon who cut to the chase with the most important point: Trump holds all the power here.

Congress can’t fix this. Regulation won’t be a single bill but years of work, in a moment when maybe we don’t have years. And more important, the national security aspect has to be handled by the president.

Without the U.S. president leading on a national and global solution, nothing meaningful gets done.

Trump’s position isn’t fostering innovation or safety. He’s simply sending a message of indifference, that he doesn’t really care what happens next — to oligarchs, China or American voters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Unrestrained: Inside L.A. County’s system for issuing and enforcing restraining orders
The California angle: Barabak: As Newsom winds down in California, things heat up in Nevada
The L.A. Times Special: AI crisis heightens the stakes of Xi’s visit to Washington

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

SACRAMENTO — With just over six weeks until the Nov. 3 election, the two candidates for California governor hit the campaign trail Thursday to promote plans to address the state’s high cost of living and continue rebuilding after the deadly wildfires that burned thousands of Los Angeles homes last year.

Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton are vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028.

While Becerra holds a comfortable lead in the solidly-Democratic state, according to recent opinion polls, Hilton has aggressively attacked the veteran Democratic official as an “empty suit” who would bend to special interests in Sacramento.

“Xavier Becerra will be a rubber stamp for Democrat laws that raise your costs. That is the simple choice in this election,” Hilton said during a morning press conference in front of the state Capitol.

With a stack of file boxes representing the more than 1,100 bills passed by the legislature this year towering over him, Hilton, a former Fox News host and one-time advisor to a UK prime minister, pledged to veto any bill that would lead to higher costs if he is elected governor.

“We have to go in a new direction. Lower your costs, cut the BS, the bureaucracy, and these bills that raise costs for every Californian,” he said.

Hilton called out bills now on Newsom’s desk that would expand the state’s antitrust law and tighten rules for packaging made of recycled materials, measures opposed by business groups. Another signed by Newsom earlier this year allows Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties to surpass a 2% limit on local sales taxes.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks during a town hall with union film industry workers at Blue Cloud Movie Ranch on Wednesday in Santa Clarita.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

He has promised to slash state regulations and the government workforce to deliver $3 gas, tax-free earnings up to $150,000 and vehicle registration fees capped at $73.

Becerra, a former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, met with survivors of the devastating 2025 Altadena wildfires, first responders and community leaders before outlining his plans to prevent such destruction and to deal with fires when they do inevitably break out.

Becerra said his first priority is to secure the $30 billion in disaster aid that the federal government has failed to deliver.

“Job one, if I’m fortunate to become the governor, will be to fight, fight, and fight, get that money that people for nearly two years here in Altadena and the Palisades and elsewhere have been waiting for,” he said, speaking to reporters on what used to be the deck of a home belonging to a member of the Altadena Town Council.

Becerra recalled that during his 24 years in Congress there was widespread, bipartisan support for sending federal assistance to disaster areas, including areas devastated by hurricanes on the Eastern Seaboard or floods in the South. California deserves the same response, he said.

He said he would seek to leverage tax dollars to help communities better prepare for wildfires, creating buffers and hardening structures because of wildfires that will inevitably occur in certain communities.

“It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Becerra said.

Becerra said he would seek to work with local governments to create a functional emergency alert system throughout the state. In the aftermath of 2025 wildfires, there was heavy criticism about delayed emergency notifications and evacuation orders.

He also said that wildfires now occur year-round, not just during what was once called fire season, and it was critical to make sure that firefighters were prepared to respond year round by not expecting them to work more than 60 or 70 hours per week when a fire breaks out.

“We want people to stay in these positions because when the fires hit, we can’t be asking where is the fire force,” he said.

When asked about the cost of gas, Becerra blamed the Trump administration for a “reckless, illegal war in Iran” and “crazy, illegal” tariffs that have contributed to higher prices.

Hilton, who is endorsed by President Trump, blamed the state’s high cost of living squarely on state policies, not on fuel prices driven up by the war.

“We don’t need to make changes at the federal level to lower peoples’ costs in California,” Hilton said. “I’m focused on what I can do as governor to lower costs in California, and that is to roll back the Democrat policies that have given us the highest costs. It’s not federal policies that have given us the highest gas prices in the country, it’s Democrat policies in California.”

A Public Policy Institute of California survey released earlier this week showed Becerra with a 22-point lead over Hilton, driven by Democrats’ large voter registration advantage.

According to a May report from the Secretary of State’s office, just under 45% of voters were registered as Democrats, 25% Republicans and 22% with no party preference. The remaining 7% were registered with another political party.

Becerra and Hilton are scheduled to meet in a Sept. 30 debate hosted by CNN.

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — In the wood-paneled basement of a union hall, retirees sat in folding chairs last week as they recalled how miles of steel mills and plentiful jobs had slowly disappeared.

“We told our children to get your education, get out, and don’t come back,” said Al Antonelli, who has been a member of Ohio Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 125 for nearly 50 years. “Because there’s no future here, especially blue collar.”

Versions of Youngstown’s story played out across the industrial Midwest, where disappearing jobs and frustration in longtime Democratic strongholds helped fuel Donald Trump’s political rise. When Trump visited as president in 2017, he promised the jobs that had left Ohio were “all coming back.”

“Don’t sell your house,” one of the retirees recalled Trump saying during his Youngstown visit.

Nearly a decade later, the old industrial economy Trump promised to revive has not returned, and Democrats hope the political tide is shifting again. Two years after Democrat Sherrod Brown lost his Senate seat, he’s attempting a comeback by trying to win back some of the same voters who turned on his party. Brown wants to harness dissatisfaction with the economy, the war in Iran and the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers to dislodge Republican Sen. Jon Husted in November.

Brown’s chances of returning to Washington depend largely on whether he can win again in parts of the state that have spent years drifting away from Democrats. His race is also part of a much broader challenge for Democrats, who need to make inroads in Republican-leaning states like Ohio, Iowa, Alaska and Texas if they are to win control of the chamber in November.

Brown outlasted Democrats’ decline in Ohio — until he couldn’t

For years, Brown was able to outrun the Democratic Party’s decline in Ohio. His pro-labor populism resonated with enough swing voters to deliver decades of victories from the statehouse to Congress.

Trump carried Ohio by 8 points in 2016, four years after Barack Obama won it. Yet Brown won his third term in the Senate two years later, in part by continuing to perform well in places like Mahoning County, anchored by Youngstown.

By 2024, even Brown could no longer hold on, losing his reelection campaign to Republican Bernie Moreno by 3.5 percentage points.

Trump carried Mahoning by more than 10,000 votes, a remarkable reversal in a previously loyal Democratic county that Obama had won by nearly 30 percentage points just 12 years earlier. With Trump’s endorsement, Moreno won the county by just 220 votes.

The transformation extends across the Mahoning Valley. Neighboring Trumbull County went from backing Obama by 23 points in 2012 to Trump by nearly 17 points in 2024.

“The Mahoning Valley has struggled with deindustrialization, job loss for years, and the politicians in power have seemed to understand that, but it doesn’t seem like they were doing enough about that,” said Cryshanna Jackson Leftwich, a politics professor at Youngstown State University. “So at some point, 20, 30 years of supporting the candidates, people are gonna say, well, look, this has never worked for us, right?”

Trump and other Republicans offered voters something different, Leftwich said.

“Did they keep their promises? Not at all. Is the county still poor? Absolutely,” she said. “But they at least said they were going to do something different.”

Brown faces a much different environment this year

Democrats’ bid to flip the Senate requires them to net four seats, including by competing deep in Republican territory.

Two months from the end of midterm campaigns, high gas prices stemming from the war in Iran have compounded discontent with the economy.

Trump has also escalated a trade war with neighboring Canada, a fight with particular implications for Ohio. The state exported $17.5 billion in goods to Canada in 2025, or nearly a third of the state’s total exports, according to federal statistics.

Tension from the economic strain is visible in Parma, a working-class Cleveland suburb that split its ticket in 2024, backing both Trump and Brown. At a watch party for the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, supporters who stayed late into the evening cheered Trump but acknowledged that other issues would most likely determine the midterms.

“The real thing that’ll move the needle is going to be economics. Gas prices, grocery prices,” said Parma City Councilor Kevin Kussmaul. “That’s really what’s going to help.”

Parma Republican Party President Doris Peters said similarly that “everyone’s concerned about the high gas prices.”

“It’s all about the economy,” she added. “People remember how much money’s in their wallet and how much is not in their wallet.”

Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) speaks at the Republican convention in Dallas.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Ap Photo/julia Demaree Nikhinson)

The limits of a Democratic rebound in Ohio

Husted presents a different opponent than the one Brown faced two years ago. His restrained demeanor contrasts with Moreno, the brash former car dealer who entered politics as an outsider. Husted spent nearly 25 years in Ohio politics, as a state lawmaker, House speaker, secretary of state and lieutenant governor, before being tapped to fill Vance’s Senate seat.

But Husted may not need to generate much enthusiasm of his own. Except for Brown and candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court, a Democrat hasn’t won a statewide race for state office in Ohio since 2008.

Adam Radogna, 37, who hosted the watch party Wednesday for Parma Republicans at his Italian restaurant, has attended more than 80 Trump rallies and remains an ardent Trump supporter. But Husted is not someone he’s followed closely.

“I don’t know him at all,” Radogna said of Husted. “But I mean, I will vote for him.”

Brown faces enthusiasm problems of his own as he asks voters to return to a 73-year-old former senator whom they rejected just two years ago.

Ellen Zban, 67, a longtime Youngstown resident who said she leans Democratic but has voted for Republicans, said she won’t support Husted because she doesn’t believe he has listened enough to the community.

“I really don’t think he’s done anything for us,” she said. “We never hear from him.”

But Brown isn’t necessarily the candidate she wishes Democrats were offering either.

“He’s my best option,” Zban said. “But I’d like to see younger people running.”

The race is being flooded with money as both sides try to drum up enthusiasm and define the choice for voters. Husted and allied Republican groups have already spent more than $80 million with $86 million more reserved through Election Day, according to AdImpact. Brown and Democratic groups have spent $69 million, with $67 million reserved.

Elon Musk has also waded into the race through his America PAC, which is running online and streaming ads attacking Brown over transgender issues.

“Billionaires are lying to try and bail out their ‘Golden Boy’ because Jon Husted has always put special interests ahead of Ohio,” Brown’s campaign manager, Patrick Eisenhauer, said in a statement.

Brown has attempted to make data centers central to the race, an issue that has seen bipartisan outrage in communities across the country. Brown’s allies have called Husted the face of Ohio’s data center boom, blaming the massive facilities for contributing to rising electricity costs. Husted helped promote Ohio as a destination for data centers while serving as lieutenant governor.

The ads and backlash have generated enough concern among Republicans that an internal party memo described data centers as an “anchor” around Husted in the race.

“Thirty-two years in Washington turned Sherrod Brown into a liar,” Amy Natoce, a spokesperson for Husted, said in a statement. “Jon Husted is fighting to lower costs and help Ohioans keep more of what they earn. Sen. Husted introduced legislation requiring data center companies to pay for the power they use and return excess electricity to the grid.”

The state’s politics could shift again

In Youngstown, the union retirees who watched the Mahoning Valley shift toward Republicans aren’t convinced the movement is permanent.

Rich Troisi, business manager of Laborers’ Local 127, said Republican candidates in recent elections could win support in the area largely by aligning themselves with Trump. This year, he said, that dynamic may not hold.

“I don’t think Donald Trump’s endorsement is going to be what it was,” he said.

Antonelli, the longtime union worker, pointed to independent voters, who he said tend to move with their economic circumstances.

“My dad used to say, it depends on how tight your shoes are. Tight meaning, how’s the money?” he said. “Right now, the shoes are pretty tight, no matter who you are.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Julie Carr Smyth contributed to this report from Columbus, Ohio.

There are many states in America where a governor shares the ticket with his or her running mate. Nevada is not one of them.

That, however, is but a small detail.

Joe Lombardo, Nevada’s Republican governor, is seeking election to his second term. His chief opponent is Aaron Ford, Nevada’s Democratic attorney general.

But to hear Lombardo and his allies tell it, Ford’s guru, his doppelganger, his soulmate and political inspiration — if not his actual running mate — is the Democratic governor living next door. It’s almost as if Lombardo is facing Gavin Newsom in November.

Look, there, along the streets of Las Vegas, you’ll see California’s governor on billboards, grinning alongside Ford.

Stop at the gas pump, wince at the pain and ask yourself why? It’s not President Trump and the muddle-headed war he started over in Iran. Blame Newsom.

Higher taxes and more spending? Only if Newsom, er, Ford, has his way.

“It’s official,” a chirpy announcer says in one pro-Lombardo campaign spot. “Shared vision. Shared values. Aaron Ford: Gavin Newsom’s choice for Nevada.”

Lombardo seemed, for a time, the most politically vulnerable Republican governor in the country. Things have looked up. He’s built a big financial advantage over Ford. But anti-Trump sentiments are keeping the Democrat in contention, which is what happens when an incumbent is running shackled to a ball and chain.

Enter Newsom.

A familiar playbook

It’s not at all surprising he would endorse a member of his own party, especially in Nevada, which is holding one of the first contests of the 2028 presidential race. Newsom, if you haven’t heard, has been positioning himself for a potential White House bid for years. Backing Ford is a way of collecting chits, as they say in gambling and politics.

It’s also not surprising that Lombardo would try to deflect from the unpopular Trump by yoking his opponent to Newsom. Select a polarizing member of the opposite party and suggest your rival is their slavish devotee; it’s a strategy as well-thumbed as a Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas road atlas. (Google it, kids.)

In Nevada, the attack can have added resonance when the offending politician is from California, which has long been viewed, by some at least, as an overpriced, tax-happy, left-wing lunatic asylum.

“There’s a tendency in Nevada to worry about what’s called ‘Californication’ and this has gone on quite a while,” said Michael Green, a historian at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who suggested it’s a particular slice of California, not the moderately conservative Central Valley but rather outré San Francisco, that Lombard is trying to convey.

For the governor, Newsom-bashing is a return to form.

Four years ago, as the sheriff of Clark County — that’s Las Vegas — Lombardo said the Democratic incumbent, Steve Sisolak, cared “more about copying Gavin Newsom than governing in the best interest of Nevadans.”

This time, Lombardo has focused on high fuel prices, a particular torment in a vast state with a lot of long, gas-guzzling stretches of rural highway. In March, he sent an open letter to Newsom blaming California’s environmental policies for running up energy costs. (Nevada relies on California for nearly 90% of its transportation fuels, which mainly flow from Southern California refineries to Las Vegas.)

In April, he explicitly blamed “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies” for “driving higher gas prices for Nevada families” and said Ford refused to push back because “he doesn’t want to risk his relationship with his biggest ally.”

Newsom vs. Lombardo

Turnabout being fair play, the Ford campaign has responded by tying Nevada’s governor to the unpopular president.

“Joe Lombardo is endorsed by Donald Trump and is running on a platform of raising costs and is laser-focused on taking care of Trump’s billionaire friends and padding the pockets of greedy corporations,” said spokesperson Tai Sims, who suggested the governor was relying on a “failed MAGA playbook” because “he’s too busy embracing Trump’s cost-raising agenda to acknowledge the economic pain caused by the Lombardo-Trump economy.”

Newsom and Lombardo have also gone at it.

“Since I took office, Nevada has created more jobs than California,” Lombardo boasted in a July posting on X that, of course, tied Ford to Newsom. “As Governor, I’ll never let Nevada become an extension of California’s failed agenda.”

“FALSE!” Newsom’s press team replied, with a Pinnochio-nosed emoji and a link to Federal Reserve data. “Using the same official jobs measure your office cites, California added about 340,900 jobs from December 2022 through June 2026. Nevada added 100,800.”

Lombardo hasn’t just focused on economics. Playing on old animosities, he told a Jewish Republican audience in Las Vegas last month that a certain California governor “wanted to pass two holidays for the Muslim community, agnostic to the Jewish community.” (Legislation that would add Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the list of state holidays is on Newsom’s desk, for him to sign or veto.)

“That’s not going to happen in the state of Nevada,” Lombardo said to applause, and so much for appealing to the better angels of our nature.

In the end, will the forced marriage of Newsom and Ford matter?

Probably not a whole lot. There are doubtless many things that matter more to your typical Nevadan than whether California’s governor hearts the state’s attorney general.

Wait until 2028. If Newsom is on the ballot, then we’ll find out what Nevada truly thinks of its next-door neighbor.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Questions swirl over Trump’s pledge to give $5,000 payouts if GOP wins
The deep dive: Will the economy motivate voters? This Central Valley swing district could be a test
The L.A. Times Special:California provides tax breaks to Hollywood. Why not struggling news outlets?
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Californians are deeply frustrated with the length of the November ballot, which includes 14 statewide propositions, and gloomy about the direction of the state and the nation, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll published Tuesday night.

They “are feeling very pessimistic,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s statewide survey director. “You know that comes out not just in the questions we ask about the economy, but generally about the direction of the state and the nation. This just indicates the level of negativity that people have going into this final stage before people cast their ballots this November.”

More than half of the state’s likely voters believe that California is headed in the wrong direction, and 73% predict sour economic times in the state next year. Less than a quarter of likely voters believe the nation is headed in the right direction.

President Trump has an approval rating of 27% of likely voters, but that’s better than Congress, which has a 16% approval rating. Majorities do not have confidence in either major political party’s ability to solve problems.

Ballots will begin arriving in 23.2 million voters’ mailboxes in a little over two weeks. Nearly 80% of likely voters are frustrated by the length of the ballot, which includes 14 propositions as well as statewide, congressional and local elections. This a rare consensus among Democratic, Republican and independent voters.

“This year, there are more propositions on the ballot than we’ve seen for a decade,” Baldassare said. “Overwhelming majorities of Californians say that there are too many propositions on the ballot, too many things for them to decide. And many Californians feel that the wording of ballot initiatives makes it very hard for them to understand what happens if one passes.”

The proposal to tax the assets of billionaires to make up for federal government healthcare cuts, Proposition 40, has a slim lead in the poll, with 52% of likely voters saying they support the one-time 5% levy.

However, there are two ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, that would nullify the wealth tax if one is approved and gets more votes than Proposition 40. Narrow majorities support both of these proposals, creating a quandary for wealth tax supporters: ensuring their proposal receives the support of a majority of voters while also tamping down support for the competing efforts.

Findings about the proposal to require showing government-issued identification to vote and the governor’s race show less competitive contests that break along predictable partisan lines in a state where registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1.

The voter ID measure is opposed by 55% of likely voters. In the race to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, 60% of likely voters support Democrat Xavier Becerra, and 38% support Republican Steve Hilton. The other 2% were undecided or do not plan to vote on the race.

The poll of 1,745 adult Californians was conducted Sept. 4-10, and has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points in either direction, and 3.8 percentage points among the 1,103 likely voters.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being treated not simply as a technology sector but as a strategic capability tied to economic power, national security and geopolitical competition. Recent warnings from leading AI researchers and executives that increasingly autonomous systems could pose extreme risks have intensified debate over whether development should be slowed.

Yet the same warnings could make a slowdown less likely. If advanced AI can provide major military, economic and technological advantages, governments may view continued development as a strategic necessity. The result could be a paradox in which growing concerns about the dangers of AI encourage countries to accelerate the race to control it.

The United States and China are at the center of this competition. Both governments have strong incentives to maintain their technological advantage, while companies are investing enormous sums in data centers, chips and computing infrastructure.

The scale of investment shows why reversing course would be difficult. Goldman Sachs estimates that cumulative global AI spending through the end of the decade could reach as much as 5% of global GDP. At the same time, financial markets are increasingly sensitive to whether the extraordinary investment in AI infrastructure will ultimately generate sufficient economic returns.

Why it matters

The central question is no longer simply whether AI development should be regulated. It is whether governments can realistically agree to meaningful limits while competing for technological dominance.

A country that slows development unilaterally risks allowing competitors to move ahead. That creates a classic security dilemma: measures intended to reduce risk can themselves create strategic vulnerability.

The problem is particularly significant because AI has applications far beyond commercial technology. Advanced systems could affect cybersecurity, intelligence, military planning, financial markets, biotechnology and critical infrastructure.

That makes AI different from many previous technology debates. Governments may be willing to regulate individual applications, but they are less likely to accept restrictions that could permanently reduce their strategic advantage.

The investment dilemma

The AI boom has already become deeply connected to wider economic growth.

Companies are spending heavily on computing capacity and data centers, while investors have placed enormous valuations on firms expected to benefit from AI adoption. A significant slowdown could therefore have consequences far beyond technology companies.

Morgan Stanley has estimated that almost $200 billion in U.S. data center projects were cancelled or delayed amid political resistance to new infrastructure. The bank has also argued that capital expenditure linked to AI could account for roughly one third of U.S. GDP growth over the current period.

This creates another obstacle to restraint. AI investment is no longer only a corporate decision. It has become connected to employment, infrastructure, financial markets and national economic growth.

The longer the investment cycle continues, the more difficult it becomes for governments and companies to voluntarily step away from it.

Washington and Beijing

The geopolitical dimension makes a coordinated slowdown even harder.

U.S. policymakers increasingly view technological leadership in AI as an element of national power. China, meanwhile, sees AI development as part of its broader effort to reduce dependence on Western technology and strengthen its own economic and strategic capabilities.

That means Washington and Beijing have incentives to monitor each other’s progress rather than simply establish limits.

The political rhetoric surrounding AI increasingly reflects this competition. Trump has portrayed opposition to AI infrastructure as benefiting China, while Chinese state media has described warnings about AI as part of a broader geopolitical strategy against Beijing.

The result is a familiar strategic dilemma: if either side believes the other may continue developing advanced AI, neither has much incentive to slow down first.

Can international rules work?

Meaningful AI restrictions would ultimately require international cooperation.

Individual countries can establish domestic safety standards, require companies to conduct risk assessments or impose restrictions on specific applications. But those measures cannot fully address the geopolitical problem if competitors outside those jurisdictions remain free to develop more powerful systems.

The nuclear comparison illustrates the difficulty. The first nuclear weapon was developed in 1945, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not emerge until 1968. Even after the treaty, nuclear proliferation continued beyond the five states formally recognized as nuclear-weapon states.

AI could present an even more complicated challenge because it is not confined to a small number of military facilities. Its development involves thousands of companies, researchers, data centers and computing systems spread across multiple countries.

Economic security could become the new arms race

The most important shift may be that AI competition does not need to resemble a conventional military arms race to produce similar strategic pressures.

Advanced AI could generate advantages in productivity, financial markets, scientific research, cybersecurity and military technology. Falling behind could therefore be perceived as an economic and national security threat even without the development of an explicit weapon.

This could produce what might be described as mutually assured economic dependence. Countries may recognize the dangers of uncontrolled AI while simultaneously believing that abandoning the technology would be even more dangerous.

That dynamic makes voluntary restraint increasingly difficult.

Implications and analysis

The growing warnings about AI may therefore have an unintended geopolitical consequence: they could accelerate the race they are intended to constrain.

If governments become convinced that highly capable AI could fundamentally alter national power, they are unlikely to leave its development to private companies or accept restrictions that allow competitors to gain an advantage. Instead, the technology could become more closely integrated with national security policy.

That could eventually mean greater government involvement in AI companies, computing infrastructure, semiconductor supply chains and access to advanced models.

The biggest danger is therefore not simply that AI becomes too powerful to control technologically. It may become too strategically important for governments to willingly slow down.

For meaningful safeguards to emerge, major powers would need to treat AI safety as a shared security interest rather than another arena of geopolitical competition. Without that shift, every warning about the potential consequences of advanced AI could strengthen the argument for moving faster.

The paradox is clear: the more dangerous AI becomes, the more governments may feel they need to control it. And the more they compete to control it, the harder it becomes to slow the race.

With information from Reuters.

Tetiana Bubynets collapsed on the asphalt after a Russian drone exploded at a gas station in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia.

Despite the violent shockwave and blast of drone shrapnel produced by the attack on July 6, the 18-year-old accounting student had no visible wounds except for a nosebleed.

She was rushed to hospital and pronounced dead shortly after, alongside two other civilians, aged 41 and 48.

One of her lecturers, Tetiana Melikhova of Zaporizhzhia National University, said Bubynets was an only child and that her mother “lost the meaning of life” after she died.

“She couldn’t speak. At the funeral, she just lay on the coffin; she couldn’t let her child go,” Melikhova told Al Jazeera.

The strike that killed Bubynets was the first recorded case of Russia’s use of a fully autonomous attack drone powered by artificial intelligence (AI), according to a New York Times analysis.

While drone strikes have hammered Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukrainian officials who examined the wreckage found the unmanned vehicle to be unlike others.

In place of an antenna, it featured an AI-powered minicomputer sold commercially by US technology company Nvidia, which rendered it capable of directing itself to the type of target it was programmed to spot – likely propane tanks in this case – lock on to it and proceed to strike.

AI-powered drones are the tip of the iceberg as Russia and Ukraine race towards boosting tech infrastructure aimed at coordinating reconnaissance and attack, according to analysts.

“It’s not about a drone having AI in it, and then seeing something and striking,” Marina Miron, researcher at the defence studies department at King’s College London, said. “Rather, it’s the drone seeing something, communicating to a software complex which knows how to map the GPS coordinates on a live battlefield map, and notifying the closest artillery unit.”

Referred to as reconnaissance-strike architecture, these unified battlefield management systems act like a central command. They track the location of friendly forces and identify enemy positions.

AI acts as the accelerator, instantly processing massive amounts of data collected through sensors in drones or any other military products, including interceptor missiles or artillery units.

The tactical advantage on the battlefield is given by the system’s ability to compress the kill chain – meaning coordinating and distributing the intelligence to military assets on the ground to find, track and destroy targets in a matter of minutes.

In such an ecosystem, AI-powered automated drones are just pieces of a broader puzzle.

Ukraine is known to be developing its system, which it named DELTA. Following operational trials in late 2025, Russia has been rolling out its version, the Svod Tactical Situational Awareness Complex, to front-line units.

Both sides claim that once the battlefield data is processed, a decision support system (DSS) presents a military commander with options to choose from, keeping a human in the decision-making loop, said Miron.

“In how far that is true is, of course, impossible to find out,” she added.

Acknowledging full AI autonomy would provoke ethical and legal questions.

Even if humans were to retain final decision-making authority, research has shown AI systems subtly shape choices, predetermining outcomes.

“Under time and pressure, commanders often do as AI suggests,” said Miron, whose research focuses on military AI and remotely piloted and autonomous systems.

Towards full automation

Coordinated AI-powered military systems are the next frontier of modern warfare, said Serhiy Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian Ministry of Defence adviser on loitering munitions, known by his callsign Flash.

“That’s what it will all come to,” he posted on his Telegram channel on July 1. “Navigation, search for a target, and attacks will be fully autonomous.”

Drones with some autonomous capabilities are already being deployed at scale.

Heorhii Volkov, commander of Ukraine’s Yasni Ochi drone strike unit, said this is currently mostly used in the final phase of long-distance strikes, where first-person view (FPV) drones are likely to lose radio connection due to electronic warfare or the curvature of the Earth.

The use of AI in so-called last-mile operations solves this battlefield hitch. If the signal is lost, an integrated AI-enabled onboard module takes full control of the unmanned vehicle, autonomously locks on the target and carries the strike to completion.

Yaroslav Azhnyuk, founder of Ukrainian technology company The Fourth Law, which develops AI-powered autonomy software for unmanned vehicles, said Russia and Ukraine were working to deploy a wider range of autonomous systems.

“This is not simply a race to demonstrate a fully autonomous drone. It is a race to make autonomy reliable, affordable and deployable at scale,” Azhnyuk told Al Jazeera. “Electronic warfare, increasingly long engagement distances and the growing number of drones are making human-controlled systems less sufficient. Autonomy solves exactly these constraints.”

Azhnyuk believes autonomy will become a game-changer over the next six to 12 months.

“The decisive advantage will belong to the side that can deploy reliable autonomy across tens or hundreds of thousands of systems, not just demonstrate it in prototypes,” he said.

Kateryna Bondar, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), noted the dangers of AI’s reliance on algorithms.

“The system doesn’t understand what it’s doing; it’s just following the algorithm and the rules which people created,” said Bondar, who works at the CSIS’s Wadhwani AI Center. “AI has to be trained to recognise targets and engage these targets,” but writing code that distinguishes between a bus and a tank is easier than between a Russian and a Ukrainian soldier.

Additionally, cost-effective FPV drones have low-quality cameras and their resolution can be lowered further by adverse atmospheric conditions.

Military units using autonomous systems therefore “delegate the decision to a very imperfect technology that cannot distinguish between a civilian and a military person, combatant or non-combatant”, Bondar said.

“This is why there is a conversation around who makes a decision and who has responsibility for mistakes and errors.”

SACRAMENTO — President Trump and the Republican Congress have unintentionally provided California state government with the financial means to subsidize — help save — endangered local news reporting.

Now it’s up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to capitalize on the unanticipated gift.

He can sign or veto legislation to end state tax breaks for large corporations paying top executives $1 million-plus salaries and, instead, provide tax breaks for struggling California news outlets employing local reporters.

The state legislation would conform California law to a little-known provision of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that eliminated corporate deductions for execs’ compensation exceeding $1 million.

California newsrooms — print, broadcast, digital — would receive an estimated $43 million in tax credits for employees’ wages. There’d still be a net $15 million left over for a small state revenue boost.

I’ll admit to feeling a bit squeamish about this.

First, it’s a conflict of interest, arguing that a governor — whom my colleagues and I write about often — should shovel public dollars into our profession.

Second, why should state government and taxpayers be asked to subsidize a private enterprise that’s flailing in the marketplace? Especially one that prides itself in being an impartial watchdog over government actions and politicians’ behavior. The dog shouldn’t be begging for food from the critters it watches.

Well, one answer is that state government provides tax breaks for lots of interests, including Hollywood movie studios. We’re allotting $750 million annually in tax credits for films produced in California.

And there’s a bill on the governor’s desk to offer $100 million annually in tax credits for post-production work, such as editing, sound mixing and visual effects.

That’s all fine. What would California have become without a healthy Hollywood? I don’t want to imagine.

Newsom also recently provided $3,500 rebates to first-time electric vehicle buyers, benefiting Tesla and other EV makers. It was “investing in our future,” the governor explained.

OK, but subsidizing local news reporting is investing in democracy. Robust coverage of city halls, school boards, Sacramento politicians and the like is essential for self-government.

And that journalism is in free fall all across America as exploding technology and social media opportunism have altered news consumption, mostly bypassing local communities and often spewing misinformation.

So this legislation, AB 2222 by Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), reaches far beyond just helping the troubled news industry. It’s about more than providing media outlets with financial incentives to retain and hire local reporters. It’s bolstering democracy.

Independent journalism is a pillar of democracy, providing citizens with reliable, fact-based information about how their elected representatives are performing their duties, fulfilling their campaign promises and cozying up to special interests.

You’re not going to glean that information from the politicians. You’re going to get mostly self-serving spin — government propaganda — whether it emanates from the White House, the state Capitol or the local mosquito abatement district.

That’s why the nation’s Founders protected press freedom in the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Of course, that was early in Jefferson’s political career, before he became vice president and later president. He ultimately turned into a harsh press critic. For example: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson, like countless politicians ever since, apparently carried a huge chip on his shoulder because of reporting on his job performance that ticked him off.

Newsom is a master at attracting friendly national news coverage, especially on cable TV. But he naturally shudders at more critical coverage by Sacramento beat reporters.

As of this writing, the governor hadn’t publicly disclosed how he feels about the local reporter tax credit bill.

His finance department, which crafts the state budget, opposed the measure when legislators were considering it. The state would “not [be] receiving any incremental economic benefit to justify the expenditure,” its analysis read.

Again, even if that were true, citizens and democracy would benefit.

Also, the analysis contended, the tax credit would likely “provide windfall benefits” for news media owners “rather than encourage new hiring activity.”

That’s not quite accurate. Anyway, it could discourage layoffs and save reporters’ jobs.

Late last week, the McClatchy newspaper chain — owner of the Sacramento Bee and several medium-sized California papers, plus dozens across America — announced massive newsroom layoffs.

Since 2002, more than 12,000 local journalism jobs have been lost in California, according to the bill’s sponsor, the advocacy group Rebuild Local News. More than 3,500 newspapers have closed nationwide.

Many communities have become “news deserts.”

When that happens, fewer citizens turn out to vote, tax money gets spent more carelessly and political corruption increases.

Under the legislation, California media outlets — big and small — would be granted modest tax credits for each employee covering state and local news. There’d be $20,000 for up to five full-time positions and $15,000 for each of the rest. On top of that, there’d be an additional $15,000 for every new full-time job that’s created. Part-timers would be entitled to $7,500.

“National news outlets would be excluded. So would partisan ‘pink slime’ sites controlled by political action committees,” says Matt Pearce, policy director for Rebuild Local News, a former Los Angeles Times reporter and newspaper guild leader.

It would be the most ambitious program of its kind in the country. New York, Illinois and New Mexico currently offer local news subsidies.

“It’s about civic infrastructure and the foundation of democracy. We’re teetering toward autocracy,” says former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), an ex-mayor who has long pushed for stronger local news coverage.

This bill won’t save local newsrooms. But it may give them breathing room while the big thinkers try to concoct a more profitable business model for democracy’s watchdog.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Architect of billionaire tax tried to ‘extort’ support for the measure and targeted women, union reports find
Money (That’s what I want): Becerra backers with business in Sacramento spend tens of millions boosting his gubernatorial bid
The L.A. Times Special: Will ‘Coxon Day’ save us from AI destruction?

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

The race for California’s next superintendent of public instruction is meant to be nonpartisan. Still, the two candidates — both school board presidents — are pushing decidedly political campaigns, one aligning with liberal Democrats and the other with pro-Trump Republicans as they present dueling visions for how the state’s children should be taught.

Democrat Richard Barrera, the favorite, beat out six other Democrats with his background in union organizing and liberal politics — and with more than $5 million from the California Teachers Assn. Republican Sonja Shaw rode a wave of support from a conservative education movement she helped build alongside MAGA organizations, Christian nationalists and anti-LGBTQ+ groups, while also consolidating mainstream Republicans behind her.

Although Democratic state lawmakers recently stripped many of the powers from the superintendent, the race remains a bellwether for how Californians feel about the public education of about 5.7 million children — as the Trump administration aggressively targets the state over its progressive policies.

Candidates’ disparate visions

Taking the California Democratic Party convention stage in February, Barrera, president of the San Diego Unified Board of Education, gave a quick shout-out to the California Teachers Assn. for backing his bid.

He then promoted his work in San Diego to improve student performance, raise teacher salaries and construct “environmentally sustainable schools built by union workers.” He blasted “downtown Republican business interests” for trying to privatize schools, and President Trump’s immigration policies, which he said terrify many California students who fear losing their undocumented parents.

“It’s time for us to organize, stand up to Trump, abolish ICE and create the schools our students are worthy of,” Barrera said.

Two months later, Shaw, president of the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Education, introduced herself at an event as a mom and a “fighter” who isn’t afraid to “look the enemy in the eye” because God protects her.

She described her opponents as California liberals who pushed school closures and mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and now advocate for the rights of transgender students at the expense of other students.

Shaw said she entered politics inspired by the MAGA-aligned group Moms for Liberty, which campaigns against teaching about ongoing systemic racism, opposes diversity programs as discriminatory and has fought against classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Shaw also described being called a year prior and encouraged to run for superintendent by then-state Assemblymember Bill Essayli, who is now the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles and one of Trump’s strongest local allies.

“And I kind of laughed,” she said. “Ha ha. Me? The soccer mom? Really?” She said she told Essayli that she had to talk to God and her family. Essayli urged her to decide quickly.

Despite her humble, “who, me?” persona on the campaign trail, Shaw argues that her message resonates with parents in both parties. Shaw said she would use the superintendent position as a bully pulpit to expand that base beyond party lines and fight what she sees as the state’s failed liberal schooling policies from within. She also would challenge in court the new state law that transferred most of the post’s authority to an appointee of the governor.

Morgan Polikoff, a USC education professor, said that to win, Shaw would have to “dramatically broaden her base, inviting people who aren’t animated primarily by anti-LGBTQ animus to vote for her.”

Barrera, meanwhile, a senior aide to current state Supt. Tony Thurmond, represented the California Department of Education at a recent event held by the statewide LGBTQ+ group Equality California, where school districts were rated on their LGBTQ+ policies and resources. San Diego Unified received a high rating, while Chino Valley did not participate in the voluntary analysis.

Tony Hoang, executive director of Equality California, has described Shaw as a threat to LGBTQ+ students and endorsed Barrera as a candidate who has spent his career “advancing policies that make schools safer and more inclusive.”

Lance Christensen, of the conservative California Policy Center, disagreed. He said Barrera “will continue to be the servant and mouthpiece of the CTA,” while Shaw “represents a return to common sense, or better yet, good sense — because she’s speaking to basic issues of education policy that have been ignored for far too long.”

Barrera acknowledged his primary win over the other Democratic challengers was largely thanks to the CTA, which he said “made all the difference.” But he also credited a “long partnership” with San Diego educators and a record of believing in public education.

Shaw consolidated conservative Republican support in the primary, in which she finished first, with her campaign raising $399,000.

Barrera’s campaign collected $274,000 in primary contributions. Since the primary, Barrera’s campaign has raised at least $340,000, compared with $104,000 for Shaw.

However, it is in independent expenditures — spending by outside groups on behalf of political candidates — that Barrera has the financial leg up on Shaw. Already considered the likely fall winner because he no longer will be splitting the state’s sizable liberal vote with other Democratic candidates, Barrera also has benefited from the CTA’s massive spending covering the cost of mailers, text message campaigns and TV, radio, newspaper and digital ads, among other things.

Shaw: Soccer mom to MAGA warrior

Shaw, a 44-year-old Chino native and mother who has worked in fitness training and photography, said pandemic school closures and mask and vaccine mandates she opposed prompted her to show up to school board meetings, confront officials and challenge school policies in court. “I’m relentless. I don’t let go,” she said.

In November 2022, she was elected to the Chino Valley Unified school board, part of a small wave of evangelical Christians and far-right candidates to win seats across the state that cycle, and quickly became a go-to conservative voice on education issues.

Shaw has sidestepped concerns about immigration agents targeting schools as an issue outside of a school district’s jurisdiction. She also has derided the influence of unions in the education sector. And she lambasted efforts by California Democrats to oppose “school choice,” calling charter schools, homeschooling and other “alternative learning models” critical “lifelines” for families.

Shaw also became laser-focused on LGBTQ+ issues, challenging state laws that allow transgender students to participate in athletics and use school facilities in line with their gender identity. She also fought a state privacy policy that dissuaded school administrators from informing the parents of children who change their gender presentation or pronouns at school, and backed bans on library books with passages deemed sexually obscene. Critics have said the policy targets LGBTQ+ books, which Shaw denied.

Separately, Shaw has rallied her followers online to protest transgender teen athletes, including Jurupa Valley High School track star AB Hernandez. Shaw has showed up at track meets to protest Hernandez’s participation — which Hernandez’s mother has called threatening.

Shaw also has filed federal civil rights complaints on behalf of and helped draft complaints for cisgender high school athletes — including some of Hernandez’s teammates — who, she said, told her they were unhappy with sharing races, podiums and athletic facilities with transgender peers.

Shaw said she did not consult with Essayli on his recent unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the state’s transgender sports policies, which was based on the participation of some of the same high school athletes Shaw has protested. However, she said she would be in touch with federal authorities about such issues were she to win.

“You don’t think I’ll be calling, in my position, to the federal government?” she said. Essayli did not respond to a request for comment.

Barrera: Built by labor

Barrera, a 59-year-old father of grown children and member of the San Diego Unified school board since 2008, has been a union organizer for decades.

He never has been a teacher — nor has Shaw — but said his organizing experience makes him a natural fit as the chosen candidate of the teachers union and other labor groups, where he said he believes “the educator voice comes out most powerfully.”

“For me, the unions are a partner and will always be a core … voice in influencing the way that I make decisions,” he said.

In the 2000s, Barrera served as a regional organizer for the United Domestic Workers and United Healthcare Workers, then helped start the Chula Vista chapter of ACORN, a liberal pro-labor group.

Barrera rejects the assertion that California’s public schools are failing and wants to help “create a different narrative,” that students are “capable of anything” and educators are “capable of bringing out the best in our young people.”

Barrera helped turn the San Diego school board from a conservative-dominated body to a liberal, union-allied one. He once joined a five-day hunger strike in support of hotel workers.

Barrera has long subsidized his school board pay — a stipend of about $20,000 a year plus health benefits — with outside union work. In 2013, he was appointed secretary-treasurer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, earning about $110,000 per year. The council includes the San Diego Unified employee unions, which critics considered a clear conflict of interest because as a school board member, Barrera was on the opposite side of the negotiation table from unions that were helping pay his Labor Council salary.

In 2016, Barrera switched to a lower-profile role as secretary-treasurer of UFCW Local 135, holding the No. 2 position in the San Diego area’s largest private-sector union representing grocery, pharmacy, casino and factory workers but not school employees.

During that period, Barrera’s direct supervisor, Mickey Kasparian, was accused of sexual harassment, which Kasparian denied. Three accusers were paid settlements with no admission of wrongdoing. Barrera was not accused of sexual misconduct but was swept out of office alongside Kasparian in 2018.

The subsequent union leadership, which is still in place, opposes Barrera for superintendent, arguing that he should have taken a stand against Kasparian. Barrera dismissed these criticisms as part of a “decade-old internal union leadership fight.”

In 2021, as officials debated when and how to reopen campuses closed during the pandemic, Barrera was aligned with the local teachers union, and his school board approved a vaccine mandate for all district employees and conditioned the return to in-person instruction on educators having the opportunity to be fully vaccinated.

Today, Barrera is in near lock-step with the CTA when it comes to policy. His only critique is that CTA lobbying in Sacramento should be better connected to ground-level demands, a goal that CTA leadership has been working toward, he said.

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade U.S. Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or human-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the U.S. census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the U.S. were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the U.S. identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Manjusha Kulkarni is co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate and executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, two advocacy groups that rely on census counts of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The proposed changes would have tremendous impact on the populations they serve, she said.

“It also seeks to exclude important demographic data from millions that enables lawmakers, health care providers, public safety officials and community advocates — really anyone who cares about the health, safety and well-being of all Americans — from having the necessary data to keep us safe and healthy,” Kulkarni said via text message.

Dropping race and ethnicity data as well as some immigrants sends a message that these communities don’t matter, she added.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Tang writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — If artificial intelligence doesn’t destroy humanity and there are actually future generations that look back, Sept. 8, 2026, may come to be known as “Coxon Day.”

That would be a reference to 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher and whistleblower at Anthropic (and previously OpenAI) who resigned in protest of the unchecked danger his work poses to us all. He posted a warning to the world on X that has gone viral.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “No other human activity poses this level of danger.”

Within minutes, replies starting pouring in, including one from Evan Hubinger, another guy at Anthropic charged with making sure AI doesn’t destroy everyone.

“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Hubinger wrote. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.”

Coxon’s post has racked up more than 150 million views — including from legislators who until now have largely sidestepped the issue of regulating AI, and those within the industry who have long warned allowing it to move forward with no oversight is downright dumb.

That included Eliezer Yudkowsky, a founder of the Berkeley-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which, as far as book titles go, really cuts to the chase.

Yudkowsky has tried with little luck to publicize the urgency of this technological moment for years, and he was the one who named Tuesday in honor of the tech whistleblower for breaking through to our consciousness with one bold act of defiance.

“Happy Coxon Day to all who will one day celebrate it,” he wrote, highlighting that as as bad as things are, it’s not too late to change course.

What exactly is the risk here?

“The Matrix,” “Terminator,” “War Games,” take your pick — the notion of a superintelligent machine taking over humanity is well-established in our psyches.

Current AI systems aren’t there yet, but they are on track to become smarter than humans in the next few years — if not sooner. This is mostly because AI companies are trying to create AI systems that make AI systems.

Right now, humans are in charge of creating what they have dubbed large language models. Whatever sanitizing term the industry slaps on them, the truth is, even those making them don’t understand exactly what they are.

“We know what data we put into them, but we already have very little ability to understand and control what AIs are after,” Rob Bensinger, research communications manager at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and a colleague of Yudkowsky, told me.

That’s because, as ChatGPT explained to me, “the inner mathematical reasoning and neural pathways are so vast and complex that how it arrived at a specific conclusion is hidden and poorly understood.”

But companies are hoping that these poorly understood but powerful machines can take over creating newer, even less understood but even more powerful AI systems — leaving humans largely in the dark about what they are creating and even what these beasts can and want to do.

The idea is that, because AI systems even right now are so fast and powerful, they can do the job of creating new versions of themselves at a pace and scale humans simply can’t.

Why, you ask, would this speed-without-understanding be a good thing? Isn’t it a bit like driving a race car while blindfolded?

Yes, yes it is.

But for-profit companies like making profit, and to do that, they want the most powerful product to sell.

Many in the industry are framing this recklessness as a necessity to prevent another country, China in particular, from creating a superintelligent AI system first. The Trump administration has so far grasped on to this greedy bit of misdirection like, well, oligarchs clinging to money.

Those who would prefer not to destroy humanity have urged international cooperation in the form of a slowdown while we figure out how to proceed safely.

We have no reason to believe China would not go along with this — in fact, China has more national-level AI regulation than the U.S. And humans have successfully controlled other technologies with catastrophic power, such as biological and nuclear weapons, through cooperation.

Does it matter which country creates the AI that kills humanity? The logic here seems to be that if anyone is going to cause a mass extinction event, it had better be an English-speaking AI, because it would be a huge loss to America if the planet were destroyed by one speaking a foreign language.

Is 10% really so bad?

In truth, 10% is an arbitrary number. Some put the chance of AI destroying everyone, everywhere, all at once at around 50%. Some go all the way to 90%.

“Nobody knows how to estimate it,” Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner and the so-called godfather of AI, said on the BBC, calling 10% a not unreasonable estimate.

But remember, 10% was Coxon talking about the chance that AI wipes out all humans in a decade.

What about some humans next week?

The odds that a rogue AI causes something unfortunate and unexpected to happen in the near future aren’t bad, either.

There have been multiple examples recently of AI breaking free of safety restraints and doing things — like hacking into other companies and stealing stuff — that, if done by a human, would be a felony.

This shouldn’t be taken as proof they are conscious or have nefarious intent, researchers have told me. It’s more that they have been trained to be relentless in pursuing the goals we give them, but aren’t great at sticking to rules. Like their makers, they too often pursue winning at all costs.

“Which means the AIs will just get more and more kind of relentless and creative and adaptive at working around obstacles,” Bensinger said. “And unless we get exactly the right goals into the AIs, eventually humans will be obstacles.”

So if successfully completing a mission involves, say, shutting down the electrical grid or even doing something obviously deadly, like attempting to manipulate someone into suicide or releasing a bio-weapon, we can’t with any certainty say an AI system wouldn’t do it.

That might not wipe out the whole planet, but it is certainly worth avoiding.

The bright side

Which brings us back to Coxon Day, our collective chance right now to change this grim future. Bensinger said we overcomplicate regulation. Simply control the resources AI companies need — water, power, data centers — and suddenly we have leverage.

Since Coxon’s post, there has been enormous political and social momentum behind the demand for meaningful regulation. Anthropic and OpenAI, among other AI companies, have vowed to do better with safety.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has demanded a ban on superintelligent AI and a pause in global development. He’s holding a briefing for Congress with Hinton next week.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the most MAGA of MAGA legislators, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call a special session on AI. Other Republicans, including Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas, a longtime proponent of AI regulation, have also spoken out.

“Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive,” Moran wrote online. “We can achieve both through deliberate, thoughtful, and prudent policymaking.”

Yes, we can. If we demand it now.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: Anthropic Researchers Raise Alarm Over A.I. Acceleration
The California angle: Jimmy Kimmel interview with Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on ABC
The L.A. Times Special: Leaked emails reveal industry plan to kill California’s plastic and recycling laws

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade US Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The US Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the US House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or man-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the US census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the US were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the US identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Companies and special interest groups with some of the diciest issues expected to land on California’s next governor’s desk are among the top financial backers of Democrat Xavier Becerra, the gubernatorial front runner.

Money from Big Tech, the healthcare industry, labor unions and tribes helped propel Becerra’s bid for governor, which languished at the outset then took off just months before the June primary. All are major players in national and state politics and have a major financial stake on the policies of California’s next governor.

Meta, which has contributed nearly $1.2 million to groups backing Becerra’s campagin, has faced mounting scrutiny by lawmakers and the courts. The Menlo Park-based company, which operates social media and communication platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, just agreed to a landmark $17.1 billion settlement to resolve multi-state claims that its apps endanger children.

The state Legislature in August also passed a measure to bar social media platforms from providing an “addictive feature” to lure children, as well as bills to shield Californians from threats posed by the boom in artificial intelligence and data centers. The fate of these measures is now in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the next governor likely will have to decide whether approve even stricter controls on Big Tech.

Meta is among eight donors that wrote seven-figure checks supporting Becerra’s gubernatrial campaign, with most of he money funneled to independent committees backing the Democrat that are not allowed to legally coordinate with the candidate. Campaigns often find back doors to do so.

Former state Sen. Steve Glazer, a Democrat who ran Jerry Brown’s successful 2010 gubernatorial campaign, said such spending is not surprising.

“Look, millions and billions of dollars are at stake, and the governor is the central point for all of that in California,” Glazer said. “It’s not a gamble anymore. You’re not picking a winner or a loser, right? So the floodgates open up for a runaway winner like Xavier Becerra.”

Becerra, the former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a longtime congressman, won one of the top two spots in the chaotic June primary. Republican Steve Hilton, a conservative media commentator and strategist who was endorsed by President Trump, won the other slot to advance to the Nov. 3 election. Becerra is considered a heavy favorite to win, given that Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1.

Becerra has the financial edge in the race, raising at least $30 million while also receiving significant support from the independent committees. Donors have contributed $48.8 million to Becerra’s campaign committee as well as outside efforts supporting his bid, according to a Times analysis of contributions through Sept. 3.

A Becerra spokesman said that although the campaign welcomed support from any donor, he would not weigh their contributions as he makes policy decisions if elected

“Xavier Becerra is laser-focused on making California work for working people — lowering costs, building housing, and making this state affordable again,” said Jonathan Underland, a spokesman for the Democrat. “Anyone willing to stand with us in that fight is welcome to join it, and we won’t hesitate to challenge anyone who gets in the way of that goal.”

His GOP rival raked in $18.8 million, including a $90,100 contribution from the candidate himself. Hilton’s top donors are billionaires and business executives including manufacturer Donald Friese and his wife Andrea, Silicon Valley billionaire Tim Draper, former Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Los Angeles real estate magnate Geoffrey Palmer and the founder of defense contractor Anduril Industries, Palmer Luckey.

Executives and employees at Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions Inc., a company that makes contamination monitoring systems, contributed more than $474,000 to Hilton’s campaign.

A small handful of donors gave to both candidates. Uber and its employees gave nearly $42,000 to Hilton, while the company and an affiliated political action committee spent $1,039,200 supporting Becerra. Vlad Tenev, founder of the financial trading platform Robinhood, gave $289,000 to Becerra and $15,000 to Hilton.

A committee ostensibly established to oppose Hilton, an effort that effectively propped him up among Republican voters before the June primary, raised $2.5 million through large donations from the California Nurses Assn., the Service Employees International Union, the Democratic Governors Assn. and wealthy businessman Bill Bloomfield, an unsuccessful congressional candidate and Republican-turned-Democrat.

Hilton said Becerra’s financial backers are unsurprising and illustrate the “corruption” created by one-party rule in Sacramento.

“All these businesses and organizations assume he’s going to be the next governor, so they’re trying to bribe him,” Hilton said in an interview. “You can call it donations if you want, but it’s actually legalized bribery. … Big business and special interests are shoveling cash into his mouth in the hope that they can bribe him to do their bidding.”

Becerra, who served in public office for nearly 35 years, has a long history of support from powerful industries, labor unions and others with business before the government. During his 24 years in Congress, donors spent roughly $11 million supporting Becerra, according to the Times analysis and Open Secrets, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tracker of campaign fundraising. While he served as California attorney general for four years, contributors spent nearly $9.4 million backing him.

Among the former Biden Cabinet secretary’s top financial backers in the governor’s race are labor unions, healthcare groups, tech companies and Native American tribes that own some of the state’s splashiest casinos. All will probably be affected by decisions made by the next governor.

The Laborers’ International Union of North America and local affiliates and political arms, focused on infrastructure projects and the creation of union jobs, has contributed nearly $3.2 million. A committee associated with the California Assn. of Realtors that is focused on housing, real estate policy and property rights has spent nearly $2.8 million backing Becerra.

The Pechanga Band of Indians chipped in more than $2.3 million to efforts supporting Becerra at a time that gaming issues continue to be scrutinized.

A Pechanga representative said the tribe’s leader was unavailable due to travel but pointed to a statement he made before the primary.

“Secretary Becerra has stood with Indian Country for decades and understands Tribal sovereignty. When tribal healthcare was on the line, he was there,” said Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro. “This experience comes from a lifetime of public service, not a checkbook.”

The California Medical Assn. has spent nearly $1.5 million backing Becerra at a time of deep impending federal healthcare funding cuts and efforts by the state to backfill that lost financial support.

Dr. René Bravo, president of the California Medical Assn., which represents more than 50,000 physicians, said their spending was spurred by the their belief that Becerra is the best candidate to take on impending federal healthcare funding cuts that will harm millions of Californians access to care.

“Xavier Becerra understands healthcare and the challenges facing patients and physicians. The next governor will make critical decisions on MediCal, the physician workforce, affordability and access to care,” Bravo said. “We’re investing in this race because those decisions will directly affect California patients and physicians.”

Meta declined to comment on its contributions, and the Realtors and the Laborers did not respond to requests for comment.

Becerra, asked about the Realtors’ large donations supporting his campaign, noted that most of the money was contributed to committees outside his control. But he argued that his policy priorities have long been clear, including when he was an afterthought in the gubernatorial race.

“I was pretty clear in the primary, where I wasn’t getting as much support from a lot of different folks,” Becerra said Fridayat a news conference in north Long Beach supporting Proposition 1, a proposed $11.25-billion bond measure on the November ballot to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

“What I will tell you is this: Take a look at my record. Take a look at what I’ve said, and rather than look to inflated promises, look at what I’ve done in my record,” Becerra said, standing in front of Laborers’ International Union of North America members clad in orange safety vests. “And I will tell you, I have built, not just as a public servant, but when I was wearing myself that orange vest as a construction worker, as a laborer for Local 185, in my younger years, I was out there helping build. And so what we’re going to do is we’re going to do what we need to do, regardless what the voices say. We’re doing it because the people demand it.”

Fossil fuel and renewable energy firms have also supported Becerra, notably Chevron and affiliated groups and employees, spent more than $1.1 million boosting his bid — money that his Democratic rivals in the governor’s race and other critics, including climate activist Jane Fonda, pounced upon before the primary.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer deployed mobile billboards touting Becerra saying “You need Chevron, I need Chevron,” a clip from a longer comment about how every Californian doesn’t drive an electric car.

Chevron did not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this year, Becerra was a single-digit polling afterthought in the crowded race to replace Newsom, who is termed-out. But after a dizzying primary that included a potential front-runner, then-Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), dropping out amid allegations of rape and sexual assault, Becerra took the lead in the Democratic field and placed first in the June election.

Becerra, 68, has a long career in elected office, serving two years in the state Assembly, 24 years in Congress, four years as California’s attorney general, and four years in the Biden administration.

While he was in Congress, donations to his federal campaign committee grew dramatically, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission documents provided by Open Secrets.

In the early 1990s, Becerra was receiving donations in the low six figures, but by the end of his time in Congress, he was receiving well over $1 million during each two-year electoral cycle.

Finance, insurance and real estate firms and trade groups, such as Charles Schwab, the National Assn. of Insurance and Financial Advisors, the New York Life Insurance Co., Merrill Lynch and Pacific Life Insurance, were major supporters of Becerra, who served on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which regulates taxation. Such donors contributed more than $2.6 million to his congressional bids, according to Open Secrets.

Healthcare interests came in a close second, contributing more than $2.4 million to his congressional campaigns in the years before he was nominated and confirmed as Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services, according to Open Secrets. Among the groups that supported Becerra’s federal campaigns included organizations representing physical therapists, anesthesiologists, podiatrists, assisted living and long term care facilities, and dietitians. While in Congress, Becerra was a strong advocate and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, a landmark healthcare overhaul championed by former President Obama.

Labor donated more than $1.7 million to Becerra’s congressional bids, a trend that continued when he ran for attorney general. Unions representing laborers, electrical workers, pipe fitters and firefighters donated $1 million, according to the Times analysis. The number has spiked to $6.3 million for Becerra’s gubernatorial bid.

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, president of the powerful California Labor Federation, said Becerra’s personal and political resume are significant at a time when the next governor will need to tackle artificial intelligence and the potential resulting job losses, the state’s volatile budget and federal funding cuts to MediCal and Medicare.

“He comes from a union family,” she said. “He has a long history of being on the right side of working people in a lot of different roles — in Congress, as attorney general and as secretary of Health and Human Services.”

Is a hissy fit worth $200 million?

That was the tab in 2021, when California held a recall election less than a year before Gov. Gavin Newsom was set to face voters.

There was angst — the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. There was anger — the lifesaving restrictions imposed by Washington and Sacramento made daily living a chore and drove many small businesses to the brink. Others went clear over the edge.

There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play.

The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning.

In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term.

The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters.

Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures.

One choice, not two

Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.)

Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election.

In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor.

Still there?

Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support.

But there’s still more to be done.

Ending political promiscuity

California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure.

Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents.

Not exactly a thundering roar.

The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result.

“The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature.

If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento?

The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment.

The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term.

Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way.

Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Trump’s economic record is working against him in the midterms
The deep dive: Backlash over data centers hits California, and the midterms
The L.A. Times Special:Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states

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