RACE

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter, under fire for recently emerged videos showing her scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide, expressed remorse for her behavior on Tuesday in her first public remarks since the incidents were publicized.

Porter, a former Orange County congresswoman and a top candidate in California’s 2026 governor’s race, said that she “could have handled things better.”

“I think I’m known as someone who’s able to handle tough questions, who’s willing to answer questions,” Porter told Nikki Laurenzo, host of Inside California Politics and anchor on Fox40 in Sacramento. “I want people to know that I really value the incredible work that my staff can do. I think people who know me know I can be tough. But I need to do a better job expressing appreciation for the amazing work my team does.”

Last week, a video emerged of Porter telling a separate television reporter that she doesn’t need the support of the millions of Californians who voted for President Trump, and brusquely threatening to end the interview because the reporter asked follow-up questions. The following day, a second video emerged of Porter telling a young staffer “Get out of my f—ing shot!” while videoconferencing with a member of then-President Biden’s cabinet in 2021.

Porter on Tuesday said that she had apologized to the staffer. She repeatedly sidestepped Laurenzo’s questions about whether other videos could emerge.

“What I can tell you … is that I am taking responsibility for the situation,” Porter said.

Porter’s behavior in the videos underscored long-standing questions about her temperament and high staff turnover while she served in Congress.

The most recent polls showed that Porter held a narrow lead in the competitive race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is serving his second and final term as governor. After the videos emerged last week, several of Porter’s rivals criticized her behavior, including former state Controller Betty Yee, who said she should drop out of the race.

On Tuesday, Yee argued that Porter’s temperament could imperil Democrats’ efforts to pass Proposition 50, the Nov. 4 ballot measure to redraw congressional districts in California to boost their party’s numbers in the House.

Yee, a former vice chair of the state Democratic party, warned that a Republican could potentially win the governor’s race and Democrats could lose the U.S. House of Representatives because of Porter’s “demeanor.”

“I don’t relish picking a fight, and it’s not even a fight,” Yee said during a virtual press conference. “I’m doing what’s best for this party.”

Porter is also expected to address the issue Tuesday night during a virtual forum with the California Working Families Party.

Prior to her statements on Tuesday, Porter had released one statement about the 2021 video, saying, “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”

The UC Irvine law professor has not responded to multiple interview requests from the Times.

Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Smith reported from Sacramento.

During a 19-year playing career that yielded 123 bookings and 12 red cards, Muscat was once branded the “most hated man in football”.

Post-retirement, he revealed, external former Rangers manager Alex McLeish did not trust him to play in an Old Firm derby during his brief spell at Ibrox.

It is to the Australian’s credit that he has since gone on to somewhat shake off his hot-head image in an impressive 13 years in management.

His glowing CV attracted Rangers two years ago, but he reportedly missed out on the job when the club opted for Philippe Clement instead.

At that time, former Rangers team-mate Neil McCann told BBC Scotland that the Ibrox side would be getting someone with “presence” who “understands the league, the intensity, the rivalry and how to get the job done”.

Muscat was then first-team boss at Yokohama F Marinos, where he won 2022 J-League after taking over from Ange Postecoglou following his exit for Celtic.

He also succeeded Postecoglou at Melbourne Victory after a period working under the current Nottingham Forest head coach.

It was in Melbourne where Muscat’s managerial career began, winning the A-League Championship twice in five-and-a-half years before his move to Japan.

Runners-up spots in the J-League in 2021 and 2023 bookended his 2022 triumph in Yokohama.

Muscat became a title winner in a third different country last year in China, and he is on the verge of another with just four games remaining as his side sit top with a two-point lead.

Across his managerial tenures in Australia, Japan and China, his win rate stands at 54%, with his teams scoring an average of 1.9 goals per game while conceding 1.2.

His Shanghai Port side scored 96 times in a 30-game league-winning campaign last year.

Those numbers suggest this is a coach who can win while implementing a front-foot approach. How that translates to Scottish football is unclear, though.

PHILADELPHIA — President Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected its latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said that the campaign’s error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together,” and he denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents, including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s sister, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

Friday’s ruling comes four days after Pennsylvania officials certified their vote count for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000, when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday’s ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote in his Nov. 21 ruling. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s Legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the electoral college formalizes Biden’s win, which appears certain.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since election day.

Yet on Friday, he continued his baseless attacks on Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations, calling them sources of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the electoral college meets Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the electoral college and popular vote by wide margins.

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Former Rep. Katie Porter’s gubernatorial prospects are uncertain in the aftermath of the emergence of two videos that underscore long-swirling rumors that the Irvine Democrat is thin-skinned and a short-tempered boss.

How Porter responds in coming days could determine her viability in next year’s race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to both Democratic and Republican political strategists.

“Everyone’s had a bad day. Everyone’s done something that they wouldn’t want broadcast, right? You don’t want your worst boss moment, your worst employment moment, your worst personal moment, captured on camera,” said Christine Pelosi, a prominent Democratic activist from the Bay Area and a daughter of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“I definitely think that it’s a question of what comes next,” said Pelosi, who had endorsed former Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis before she dropped out of the race.

Porter, the 2026 gubernatorial candidate who has a narrow edge in the polls, came under scrutiny this week when a recording emerged of her brusquely threatening to end a television interview after growing increasingly irritated by the reporter’s questions.

After CBS reporter Julie Watts asked Porter what she would say to the nearly 6.1 million Californians who voted for President Trump in 2024, the UC Irvine law professor responded that she didn’t need their support if she competed against a Republican in the November 2026 runoff election.

After Watts asked follow-up questions, Porter accused Watts of being “unnecessarily argumentative,” held up her hands towards the reporter’s face and later said, “I don’t want this all on camera.”

The following day, a 2021 video emerged of Porter berating a staffer who corrected her about electric vehicle information she was discussing with a member of the Biden administration. “Get out of my f— shot!” Porter said to the young woman after she came into view in the background of the video conference. Porter’s comments in the video were first reported by Politico.

Porter did not respond to multiple interview requests. She put out a statement about the 2021 video, saying: “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”

Several Porter supporters voiced support for her after the videos went viral on social media and became the focus of national news coverage as well as programs such as “The View.”

“In this critical moment in our country, we don’t need to be polite, go along to get along, establishment politicians that keep getting run over by the opposition,” wrote Peter Finn and Chris Griswold, co-chairs of Teamsters California, which has endorsed Porter and represents 250,000 workers in the state. “We need strong leaders like Katie Porter that are willing to call it like it is and stand up and fight for everyday Californians.”

EMILYs List, which supports Democratic women who back abortion rights, and Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the congressional seat Porter left to unsuccessfully run for U.S. Senate last year, are among those who also released statements supporting the embattled Democratic candidate.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the influential California Labor Federation, alluded to growing rumors in the state’s Capitol before the videos emerged that powerful Democratic and corporate interests dislike Porter and have been trying to coax another Democrat into the race.

“The only thing that is clear after the past few days is that Katie Porter’s willingness to take on powerful interests has the status quo very afraid and very motivated,” Gonzalez said in a statement.

There has been a concerted effort to urge Sen. Alex Padilla into the race. The San Fernando Valley Democrat has said he won’t make a decision until after voters decide Proposition 50, the redistricting proposal he and other state Democratic leaders are championing, on the November ballot.

A pivotal indicator of Porter’s plans is whether she takes part in two events that she is scheduled to participate in next week — a virtual forum Tuesday evening with the California Working Families Party and a live UC Student and Policy Center Q&A on Friday in Sacramento.

Democratic gubernatorial rivals in California’s 2026 race for governor seized on the videos. Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to drop out of the race, and wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attacked her in ads about the uproar.

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer said she saw the same traits Porter displayed in the videos — anger, a lack of respect, privilege — previously, notably in the 2024 Senate contest, which is why she decided to back then-Rep. Adam Schiff, who ultimately won the race. Boxer has endorsed Villaraigosa for governor.

“I had a bad taste in my mouth from that experience,” Boxer said, growing upset while describing her reaction to the video of Porter cursing at her staffer. “This video tells us everything we need to know about former Congresswoman Porter. She is unfit to serve. Period.”

Disagreements arose between Boxer and her staff during her more than four decades in elected office, she said.

But even when “we weren’t happy with each other, there was always respect, because I knew they deserved it, and I knew without them, I was nothing,” Boxer said, adding that men‘s and women’s behavior as elected officials must be viewed through the same lens. “We are equal; we are not better. She’s proof of that.”

Beth Miller, a veteran Sacramento-based GOP strategist who has worked with female politicians since the 1980s, said women are held to a different standard by voters, though it has eased in recent years.

“In some ways, this plays into that bias, but in other ways, it unfortunately sets women back because it underscores a concern that people have,” Miller said. “And that’s really disappointing and discouraging to a lot of female politicians who don’t ascribe to that type of behavior.”

Miller also pointed to the dichotomy of Porter’s terse reaction in the television interview to Porter championing herself in Congress as a fearless and aggressive inquisitor of CEOs and government leaders.

“You exhibit one kind of behavior on the one hand and another when it affects you,” Miller said. “And you know, governor of California is not a walk in the park, and so I don’t think she did herself any favors at all. And I think it really is a window into who she is.”

Australia remain hopeful that captain Pat Cummins will be fit for the first Ashes Test against England in November but coach Andrew McDonald says it is getting “tight”.

The 32-year-old pace bowler has not played since suffering a back injury against the West Indies in July. Australian media reported on Wednesday that he will miss the first Test in Perth on 21 November and is doubtful for the whole series.

On Friday McDonald said there was “a lot more positivity” surrounding the skipper’s chances of playing in the opening Test but he would need at least “four, four-and-a-half weeks” of bowling practice to condition his body for the rigours of Ashes cricket. The first Test is six weeks away.

“The reality is, we’re starting to get tight in terms of the times,” McDonald said.

“We’re still optimistic, hopeful, but this time next week, I think we’ll be in a position to get a better gauge on where he’s at.”

McDonald said he would weigh up whether Cummins could be included in the side even if he was a “little bit underdone”.

Cummins has taken 309 Test wickets at an average of 22.10 runs per dismissal.

He is even more formidable in Australia, taking 177 wickets at 19.92, while he has also taken 91 wickets against England in 19 matches.

England vice-captain Harry Brook said it would be a “bonus” if Cummins was to miss out but warned that they could not take any replacement lightly.

“Pat Cummins is a phenomenal bowler and has been for so many years now,” said Brook on BBC Radio 5 Live.

“He’s got incredible skill at high pace and if he’s not there it’s a bonus for us.

“But they have got lots of amazing bowlers so I’m sure they’ll draft someone in who is very skillful. We can’t take anyone lightly.”

WASHINGTON — A peace plan for Gaza touted by President Trump as a historic breakthrough is facing its first test this week after Israel and Hamas agreed in principle to an initial list of terms that could end the war.

The 20-point American plan reflects an administration losing patience with Israel, while also leveraging its relationships with Arab partners to finally pressure Hamas into a deal that would release the Israeli hostages still in its custody two years since the Oct. 7 attack.

On Wednesday evening, Trump said both parties had agreed to the first phase of his plan, securing the hostage release in exchange for a limited Israeli troop withdrawal.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump wrote on social media. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”

The president’s push comes amid an unexpected and growing divide within the Republican base over support for Israel — once seen as a bedrock of the alliance — and as Trump presents himself as a global peacemaker, ahead of the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

The president is expected to travel to the region over the weekend to secure the deal.

“All Parties will be treated fairly!” Trump wrote. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

Who controls Hamas?

People attend a pro-Palestinian vigil and protest on Tuesday outside Columbia University.

(Adam Gray / Getty Images)

One former senior Biden administration official who worked on the Gaza crisis told The Times that Trump’s 20-point plan “is credible,” if not fully baked, and that Trump’s position of influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may give the proposal “a real chance of success.”

Devastated after two years of war, Hamas had seen its continued holding of the hostages as its only remaining leverage to ensure later stages of a peace agreement are implemented by the Israelis. Trump’s plan demands an immediate release of all of the hostages, both dead and alive, in an initial phase, preceding reconstruction of the Strip that removes Hamas from power.

An opening emerged for progress in the talks after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

“A lot of this stems from the Israeli attack on Hamas in Doha,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations. “The Qataris panicked, and went to Trump to ask for defense and assurance that Israel would never do that again. And I think he had a price: to deliver Hamas.”

“Can they deliver Hamas? They can deliver the guys in Doha,” Abrams continued. “They can threaten them with expulsion. They can tell them that they’re living in fancy hotels, but they can be Palestinian refugees tomorrow morning. But the relationship between those people and the leadership on the ground is very unclear.”

U.S. officials believe it is the Egyptians, more so than the Qataris, with intelligence, sourcing and leverage on the ground in the Gaza Strip that can bring Hamas’ chain of command in compliance with a settlement. But whether Egyptian leadership is willing to exert its leverage is unclear. An unusual Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, in violation of the Camp David Accords that have secured Israel’s peace with Egypt since 1979, is causing widespread concern in diplomatic circles over Cairo’s intentions.

Talks over Trump’s plan have moved from Doha to Cairo.

“If talks in Cairo focus solely on the first phase of the peace plan — the release of hostages and prisoners, the first Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the flood of humanitarian goods — there is a good chance of success,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute. “But if the talks range into subsequent phases of the plan, including Hamas disarmament and deployment of third-country troops to Gaza, it will likely get bogged down as has been the case before.”

Pressure on Israel

Trump’s diplomatic push has also exposed growing concern within his administration over the damage Israel’s continued military campaign is inflicting on its global reputation — and on its support within the United States.

Over the weekend, speaking with an Israeli news outlet, Trump said that Netanyahu had “gone too far in Gaza, and Israel has lost a lot of support in the world.” It came amid reports that Trump had scolded Netanyahu over his initial reaction to Hamas’ willingness to negotiate over the plan.

“Whether you believe it was justified or not, right or not, you cannot ignore the impact that this has had on Israel’s global standing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

Much of the world supports Trump’s plan, which would see a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee oversee governance in the strip, and an international coalition funding the reconstruction of its economy and infrastructure. Palestinians would not be forced to leave the territory.

The proposal comes amid signs that Israel is rapidly losing support within the United States, with new polls showing 59% of Americans disapprove of its actions. A Pew poll showed that 55% of Republicans said they view Israel favorably — but that a growing generational divide, across party lines, risks eroding support for Israel over time.

“I think it’s gone on too long,” Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and former Fox News host, said last week on the Fifth Column Podcast. “I know what Hamas does, trust me. And I’ve been covering it. But that doesn’t mean that the devastation and destruction can go on forever.”

Other prominent figures on the right, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and commentators Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, have become more vocal criticizing Israel in recent months.

“Israel’s now taken out Hezbollah, it’s decimated Hamas, it had a war with Iran that we almost got dragged into,” Kelly added. “It’s time to wrap it up in this American’s view. I am entitled to that opinion. And I will not be shamed out of it by being called an antisemite.”

Netanyahu and his closest allies, including Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, have long believed that Israel is best served relying more on deep ties to the American right than on Jewish Americans overall or on balanced bipartisanship. Increased opposition to the war among MAGA Republicans may force Netanyahu’s team to expedite its end.

Whether discontent on the right is driving Trump to push for a peace deal is unclear. But his personal involvement could prove key to success, regardless of his motives, Satloff said.

“The key new factor that is giving a chance to phase one is President Trump’s intense personal interest in freeing the hostages and the desire of key Arab players not to disappoint him,” Satloff said. “But we shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of even this critical factor — the entire house of cards can still collapse.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘I don’t want this all on camera,’ gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter says in testy interview
The deep dive: Your guide to Proposition 50: California redistricting
The L.A. Times Special: Those hyper-realistic videos you’re seeing could be fake news — because they’re actually AI ads

More to come,
Michael Wilner

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

CALVIN Klein is practically retail royalty when it comes to boxers, and a multipack has been slashed by 46% in the Amazon Prime Day sale.

A three-pack of classic black boxers would usually costs £42, but shoppers can pick up the set for £22.87 for a limited time.

Calvin Klein 3-Pack Boxers, £22.87 (was £42)

Calvin Klein boxers are the most popular men’s underwear for an reason, and the deal works out as just £7.60 per pair.

Stock is selling seriously fast, but other colourways have also been slashed.

Fashion fans can also get a three-pack with a red, white and blue pairs for £22.91.

The boxers would make the perfect Christmas gift for men, or as a treat to yourself.

Amazon’s Big Deal Days sale is running until tomorrow, but as one of the bestsellers so far, it’s likely that all sizes will be gone before the deal expires.

For more of the best discounts, read our roundup of the best Prime Day deals, which we’re constantly updating with more deals.

Amazon Prime Day: the 10 best deals

The Amazon Prime Big Deal Days sale kicks off today and runs until midnight tomorrow (Wednesday 8th October) – here’s our pick of the best deals.

*If you click on a link in this boxout we will earn affiliate revenue

1. Amazon Fire TV Stick HD, £19.99 (was £39.99) – buy here
2. Poounur Fitness Smartwatch, £23.99 (was £129.99) – buy here
3. Ninja 7.6L Foodi Dual Zone Digital Air Fryer, £119 (was £218.99) – buy here
4. BaByliss Air Style 1000 £29.99 (was £75) – buy here
5. LKOUY Portable Charger, £12.99 (was £59.99) – buy here
6. Silentnight
7. Remington Shine Therapy 45mm Hair Straightener, £29.99 (was £79.99) – buy here
8. Apple iPhone 16e, £494 (was £549) – buy here
9. Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet, £69.99 (was £149.99) – buy here
10. Felix 40-pack Jelly Wet Cat Food, £9.48 (was £14.77) – buy here

When the sale lands, you’ll find more top bargains here:

Just remember, you’ll need to sign up to Amazon Prime to take advantage of these bargains.

The classic designer boxers have received brilliant ratings from shoppers, with over 5,700 five-star reviews on the Amazon website.

One wrote: “I recently purchased these Calvin Klein underwear for my partner, and he’s extremely pleased with the quality, comfort, and fit. 

From the moment they arrived, I could tell they were made from high-quality materials, and they definitely live up to the reputation Calvin Klein has for premium undergarments. 

The fit is absolutely spot-on, and my partner says they are some of the most comfortable underwear he has ever worn.”

Another added: “The fit is so precise it feels like Calvin Klein himself took my measurements.

Five stars is an insult, these deserve their own constellation.”

Amazon has been cutting prices across all sections, and shoppers can save on everything from Dyson Airwrap alternatives to Samsung tablets reduced from £260 to £146.

Former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine received the endorsement of a prominent Democratic women’s group on Monday that backs candidates who support abortion rights. The organization could provide significant funding and grass-roots support to boost Porter’s 2026 gubernatorial campaign.

“Katie Porter has spent her career holding the powerful accountable, fighting to lower costs and taking on Wall Street and Trump administration officials to deliver results for California’s working families,” said Jessica Mackler, president of EMILY’s List. “At a time when President Trump and his allies are attacking Californians’ health care and making their lives more expensive, Katie is the proven leader California needs.”

The organization’s name stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast, a reference to the importance of early fundraising for female candidates. It was founded four decades ago to promote Democratic women who support legal abortion. The group has raised nearly $950 million to help elect such candidates across the country, including backing Porter’s successful congressional campaign to flip a GOP district in Orange County.

“There’s nothing that Donald Trump hates more than facing down a strong, powerful woman,” Porter said. “For decades, EMILY’s List has backed winner after winner, helping elect pro-choice Democratic women to public office. They were instrumental in helping me flip a Republican stronghold blue in 2018, and together I’m confident we will make history again.”

It’s unclear, however, how much the organization will spend on Porter’s bid to be California’s first female governor. There are multiple critical congressional races next year that will determine control of the House that the group will likely throw its weight behind.

The 2026 gubernatorial race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is wide open after former Vice President Kamala Harris decided not to run and as Sen. Alex Padilla and businessman Rick Caruso mull whether to make a run.

At the moment, Porter, a UC Irvine law professor who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate last year, has a small edge in the polls among the multitude of Democrats running for the seat. The primary is in June.

EMILY’s List, which often avoids making a nod when there are multiple female candidates in a race, made its decision after former state Senate leader Toni Atkins announced in late September that she was dropping out of the race. Former state Controller Betty Yee remains a gubernatorial candidate.

SACRAMENTO — Regardless of all the campaign jabber, Proposition 50 is not about saving democracy, stopping power grabs or veering off the moral high road. It’s about which political party controls Congress.

Or whether Republicans and Democrats share the power.

It’s also about exerting some control over unhinged President Trump. That would happen if voters across America next year flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat, ending one-party rule of the federal government. Proposition 50 could help do that.

Does an obedient Republican Congress continue to allow Trump to walk all over it? Or does a new Democrat-led House exercise its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances over the executive branch?

This is what’s potentially at stake in California’s special election on Nov. 4. And it’s mostly what has motivated political donors to kick in an astronomical $128 million so far for the fight.

But let’s back up.

For many decades, state legislators drew their own districts — gerrymandering them to blatantly help themselves and their party win elections. And with some creative hands from California’s House delegation, Sacramento’s lawmakers also gerrymandered congressional districts.

It was unethical but perfectly legal. The final straw came in 2001 when legislators of both parties conspired to draw districts that protected every incumbent, whether Democrat or Republican.

California voters finally had enough and in 2008 banned gerrymandering. They assigned legislative redistricting to an independent bipartisan citizens’ commission. In 2010, voters also gave the panel responsibility for drawing House seats.

It has worked great. Politicians no longer get to choose their own voters. And the districts have become much more competitive.

District maps have always been drawn at the beginning of each decade after the decennial census — until now.

This time, Trump got worried that Republicans could lose the House in next year’s elections — a fate that has often befallen a president’s party during a midterm.

So Trump pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott into orchestrating a mid-decade legislative gerrymandering of his state’s House districts, with the aim of gaining five more Republican seats. The president has also been browbeating other red states to rig their congressional lines.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly retaliated. He asked an eager Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw up new House maps designed to gain five new Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ action.

Democrats already outnumber Republicans in the California House delegation, 43 to 9. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of the 38 House seats. Nationally, Democrats need to gain just three seats to retake House control.

Unlike in Texas, Newsom needs the voters’ permission to resume gerrymandering. That’s what Proposition 50 does, along with granting voter approval of proposed new weird-looking congressional maps drawn by Democratic lawmakers.

How weird? To make a new 2nd District Democrat-friendly, it was stretched hundreds of miles from the rural northeastern Oregon border southwestward into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

Under the ballot measure, the independent commission would resume redistricting in 2031 after the next census. Proposition 50’s opponents contend Democrats can’t be trusted to keep the gerrymandering temporary.

And they’re hypocritically screaming about a “Newsom power grab” — without also pointing the finger at Trump and Abbott, who started this fight.

At its core, this is a brawl over raw political power. Forget any idealism.

Longtime Republican operative Jon Fleischman mixed his party’s principal talking point with reality in a recent blog:

“Prop. 50 is a naked power grab by Gavin Newsom,” he wrote.

“If it passes, five of nine safe GOP House seats in California will flip to safe Democrat, potentially flipping the House next year.”

In trying to rally Democratic voters — who outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California — Newsom frames Proposition 50 as essential for democracy.

“It’s all at stake,” the governor asserts, sounding a bit hyperbolic. “This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves … and stand guard for the republic and our democracy.”

Come on, our republic will survive regardless of what happens to Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal — even if Trump does strain democracy.

Proposition 50 also is opposed on idealistic grounds — particularly by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Both were strong backers of creating the independent redistricting commission. Munger has contributed $33 million to the anti-50 effort.

“Gerrymanders are a cancer and mid-decade gerrymanders are metastasis,” Munger wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month.

If Democratic politicians gerrymander California, he asserted, “then they lose the moral high ground.”

Well, if this is the moral high ground we’re living in under the Trump regime, I’d like to move to another level.

My definition of a moral high ground doesn’t include a Congress that won’t push back against a bully president who cuts back millions in research aid to universities because he doesn’t like what they teach, who sics his own masked police force of unidentified agents on California residents, who sabotages our anti-pollution programs.

Isra Ahmad, a member of the independent commission, noted in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece that “California has embraced [redistricting] equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage.”

And she asked: “Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty?”

The answer: We should all play by the same rules — even if it unfortunately requires temporary gerrymandering. After Trump leaves, we can return to the high road.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California voters were mailed inaccurate guides ahead of November special election
The interpersonal read: He’s a real pain for Gavin Newsom. And a rising Democratic star
The L.A. Times Special: In the biggest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, some claim they were paid to sue

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

There’s a reason for the fearsome redistricting fight raging across America. It’s about Democrats trying to rein in Donald Trump and his rogue-elephant regime.

Or, if you’re the country’s aspiring strongman, it’s about avoiding accountability and sanction.

That’s why Trump and fellow Republicans are trying to rig the midterm election, by gerrymandering congressional lines in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping its tenuous hold on the House past 2026.

California Democrats are seeking payback by redrawing the state’s congressional lines in hopes of swiping five or more GOP-held seats. Voters will have their say on the matter Nov. 4, when they decide Proposition 50.

Of course, there are two branches of Congress. Why, then, is there so much focus on the House? Simply put, it’s because of the steep odds Democrats face trying to win control of the Senate, which are somewhere between slim and none — with slim last seen cinching his saddle before cantering out of town.

Let’s take a moment for a quick refresher.

Every two years, all 435 House seats are on the ballot. Senate terms are staggered and run six years, so roughly a third of the chamber’s 100 seats are up for a vote in each federal election. In 2026, there will be 35 Senate contests.

Most won’t be remotely competitive.

In fact, more than two dozen of those races are effectively over before they begin, given the advantage one party holds over the other. Mississippi, for instance, will send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate the day that Delaware elects a Republican; both will occur right after Trump and Adam Schiff get inked with matching “I Love L.A.” tattoos.

That leaves nine Senate races that are at least somewhat competitive. Of those, three are considered toss-ups: open-seat contests in Michigan and North Carolina and the race in Georgia, where Democrat Jon Ossoff is seeking a second term.

Democrats need to gain four seats to take control of the Senate, meaning even if they win all three of those even-steven races — which is far from certain — they still need to successfully defend seats in Minnesota and New Hampshire and pick up at least one other GOP-held seat.

That’s where the going gets tough.

Kamala Harris won Maine, which suggests Republican Susan Collins could be vulnerable. But the five-term senator has repeatedly managed to hang on, even in good Democratic years.

The three other races are tougher still.

Ohio used to be a major Midwestern battleground, but it’s grown solidly Republican. Democrats landed their prized recruit, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who narrowly lost his 2024 reelection bid and may be the only Democrat with a realistic shot at the seat. Still, he’s facing an uphill fight in the special election against Republican Jon Husted, an ex-lieutenant governor who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance.

In Iowa, where Republican Joni Ernst is retiring, GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson starts out the favorite in another state that’s grown increasingly red. (Hinson, a USC grad and former KABC-TV intern, has taken to trash-talking the Golden State — “I don’t want to see the country look like California” — because that’s what Republicans do these days.)

Which leaves Texas, land of shattered Democratic dreams.

It’s been more than three decades since the party has won a statewide election. Ever since, Democrats have insisted this is the year they’d end their losing streak.

They’ve tried various approaches. A “dream team” that consisted of a slate of Black, white and Latino nominees. A ticket topped by political celebrity Wendy Davis, of filibuster fame. An out-of-nowhere phenom by the name of Beto O’Rourke. All failed.

This time, Democrats are hoping for an assist from the GOP.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn is seeking his fifth term and faces the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, in a primary that’s already grown fierce and ugly.

Paxton is MAGA down to the soles of his feet, which would normally give him a big advantage in a GOP primary. But his history — allegations of bribery and corruption, an impeachment trial, a messy divorce — have left him in bad odor with many Republicans.

The GOP’s Senate campaign committee and Majority Leader John Thune have aggressively thrown their weight behind Cornyn, though Trump has so far remained neutral.

Democrats would love to run against Paxton, given polls suggesting a competitive race if he’s the nominee. First, though, they’ll have to sort out their own primary.

Supporters cheer as state Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) kicks off his campaign for U.S. Senate at Centennial Plaza in Round Rock on Sept. 9.

(Mikala Compton/The Austin American-Statesman / Getty Images)

Colin Allred, the former NFL linebacker who lost in November to Ted Cruz, is running again and faces James Talarico, a state representative and seminarian from the Austin area, who’s became an online sensation with his godly persona and viral take-down of conservative pieties. O’Rourke also hasn’t ruled out another try for Senate.

Garry Mauro, a Democrat and former Texas land commissioner, is clear-eyed in assessing his party’s prospects.

“If you run on the right issues and don’t leave yourself a crazy radical … then I think you have a real chance of building a winning race,” he said. But “to say this isn’t a leaning-R state would be Pollyannish, and I’m not Pollyannish.”

Which means counting on the Lone Star to deliver a Democratic-run U.S. Senate is a bit like trusting a drunken gambler to preserve and protect your rent money.

That’s why Democrats are betting the House in hopes of corralling Trump.

Gresini’s Fermin Aldeguer won his first career MotoGP after newly crowned world champion Marc Marquez and polesitter Marco Bezzecchi collided on opening lap.

Rookie Fermin Aldeguer earned the first victory of his fledgling MotoGP career at the Indonesia Grand Prix, while newly crowned champion Marc Marquez crashed out and was injured after a crunching collision with Marco Bezzecchi.

Gresini Racing rider Aldeguer surged past KTM’s Pedro Acosta to take the lead on the 10th lap, eventually finishing well clear of the competition on Sunday.

The win will have helped Aldeguer erase the pain of his second-placed finish in Saturday’s sprint, where he led for most of the 13-lap race before finishing second behind Bezzecchi.

Acosta finished second, with Aldeguer’s teammate Alex Marquez completing the podium.

Aldeguer is the first rookie to win a MotoGP race since Jorge Martin achieved the feat at the Austrian Grand Prix in 2021. His victory at the Indonesian Grand Prix makes the 20-year-old the second youngest MotoGP winner in history.

Marc Marquez crashes, suffers collarbone injury

Pole-sitter Bezzecchi had an awful start to the race, finding himself in sixth place after the first two turns, and the Aprilia rider was a touch too forceful in his desperation to climb back up into the lead.

As he charged back into the fray, Bezzecchi nudged the rear of Marquez’s Ducati and the pair hurtled into the gravel at high speed, with Marquez appearing to be in significant discomfort after the fall.

The Spaniard, who won his seventh MotoGP championship at last week’s Japanese Grand Prix, was hunched over on the side of the track for a couple of minutes before staggering to his feet and lurching away while clutching his shoulder.

The crash continued a dreadful streak of luck for Marquez at the Mandalika International Circuit, where he has never been able to finish a Grand Prix in four attempts.

There did not appear to be any bad blood between Bezzecchi and Marquez, however, as they shared a quick handshake before Marquez was taken to the medical centre.

Post race, it was revealed that Marquez had suffered a collarbone injury as a result of a collision with Bezzecchi, the team said.

“As a result of today’s crash at Indonesian GP, Marc Marquez has suffered an injury to his right collarbone,” Ducati said in a statement on social media.

“The Spanish rider will travel tonight to Madrid (Spain) for further medical tests and to decide on the treatment to follow.”

The injury was on the shoulder of the arm Marquez fractured in the 2020 July season-opening Spanish Grand Prix in Jerez, which ruled him out for an extended period and required several surgeries.

Ducati’s afternoon then went from bad to worse a few laps later when two-time champion Francesco Bagnaia’s bike slipped out from underneath him and dumped him onto the asphalt.

The Italian, who has endured a torrid campaign this year, cut a frustrated figure as he looked up to the sky and gestured angrily with folded hands.

Earlier on Sunday, KTM Ajo’s Jose Antonio Rueda won the Moto3 race in Indonesia to clinch the 2025 title.

Getty Images

Policy differences

Bloomberg via Getty Images

SAN DIEGO — Six Democrats running for governor next year focused on housing affordability, the cost of living and healthcare cuts as the most daunting issues facing Californians at a labor forum on Saturday in San Diego.

Largely in lockstep about these matters, the candidates highlighted their political resumes and life stories to try to create contrasts and curry favor with attendees.

Former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, in his first gubernatorial forum since entering the race in late September, leaned into his experience as the first millennial elected to the state legislature.

“I feel like my experience and my passion uniquely positioned me in this race to ride a lane that nobody else can ride, being a millennial and being young and having a different perspective,” said Calderon, 39.

Concerns about his four children’s future as well as the state’s reliance on Washington, D.C., drove his decision to run for governor after choosing not to seek reelection to the legislature in 2020.

“I want [my children] to have opportunity. I want them to have a future. I want life to be better. I want it to be easier,” Calderon, whose family has deep roots in politics. State leaders must focus “on D.C.-proofing California. We cannot continue to depend on D.C. and expect that they’re going to give a s—t about us and what our needs are, because they don’t.”

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who also served as the state’s attorney general after a 24-year stint in Congress, argued that it is critical to elect a governor who has experience.

“Would you let someone who’s never flown a plane tell you, ‘I can fly that plane back to land’ if they’ve never done it before?” Becerra asked. “Do you give the keys to the governor’s office to someone who hasn’t done this before?”

He contrasted himself with other candidates in the race by invoking a barking chihuahua behind a chain-link fence.

“Where’s the bite?” he said, after citing his history, such as suing President Trump 122 times, and leading the sprawling federal health bureaucracy during the pandemic. “You don’t just grow teeth overnight.”

Calderon and Becerra were among six Democratic candidates who spoke at length to about 150 California leaders of multiple chapters of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The union has more than 200,000 members in California and is being battered by the federal government shutdown, the state’s budget deficit and impending healthcare strikes. AFSCME is a powerful force in California politics, providing troops to knock on voters’ doors and man phone banks.

The forum came as the gubernatorial field to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is in flux.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris announced earlier this summer that she has opted against running for the seat. Former Senate Leader Toni Atkins suspended her gubernatorial campaign in late September.

Rumors continue to swirl about whether billionaire businessman Rick Caruso or Sen. Alex Padilla will join the field.

“I am weighing it. But my focus is first and foremost on encouraging people to vote for Proposition 50,” the congressional redistricting matter on the November ballot, Padilla told the New York Times in an interview published Saturday. “The other decision? That race is not until next year. So that decision will come.”

Wealthy Democratic businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck and Republican Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco declined an invitation to participate in the forum, citing prior commitments.

The union will consider an endorsement at a future conference, said Matthew Maldonado, executive director for District Council 36, which represents 25,000 workers in Southern California.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa leaned into his longtime roots in labor before he ran for office. But he also alluded to tensions with unions after being elected mayor in 2006.

Labeled a “scab” when he crossed picket lines the following year during a major city workers’ strike, Villaraigosa also clashed with unions over furloughs and layoffs during the recession. His relationship with labor hit a low in 2010 when Villaraigosa called the city’s teachers union, where he once worked, “the largest obstacle to creating quality schools.”

“I want you to know something about me. I’m not going to say yes to every darn thing that everybody comes up to me with, including sometimes the unions,” Villaraigosa said. “When I was mayor, they’ll tell you sometimes I had to say no. Why? I wasn’t going to go bankrupt, and I knew I had to protect pensions and the rest of it.”

He pledged to work with labor if elected governor.

Labor leaders asked most of the questions at the forum, with all of the candidates being asked about the same topics, such as if they supported and would campaign for a proposed state constitutional amendment to help UC workers with down-payment loans for houses.

“Hell yes,” said former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, who teaches at UC Irvine’s law school and benefited from a program created by state university leaders to allow faculty to buy houses priced below the market rate in costly Orange County because the high cost of housing in the region was an obstacle in recruiting professors.

“I get to benefit from UC Irvine’s investment in their professionals and professors and professional staff housing, but they are not doing it for everyone,” she said, noting workers such as clerks, janitors, and patient-care staff don’t have access to similar benefits.

State Supt. of Instruction Tony Thurmond, who entered the gathering dancing to Dr. Dre and Tupac’s “California Love,” agreed to support the housing loans as well as to walk picket lines with tens of thousands of Kaiser health employees expected to go on strike later this month.

“I will be there,” Thurmond responded, adding that he had just spoken on the phone with Kaiser’s CEO, and urged him to meet labor demands about staffing, pay, retirement and benefits, especially in the aftermath of their work during the pandemic. “Just get it done, damn it, and give them what they’re asking for.”

Former state Controller Betty Yee agreed to both requests as well, arguing that the healthcare employers are focused on profit at the expense of patient care.

“Yes, absolutely,” she said when asked about joining the Kaiser picket line. “Shame on them. You cannot be expected to take care of others if you cannot take care of yourselves.”

AFSCME local leaders listening to former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra speak at a gubernatorial forum Saturday in San Diego.

(Seema Mehta / Los Angeles Times)

Happy Thursday. Your usual host, D.C. Bureau Chief Michael Wilner, is on assignment. So you’re once again stuck with me, California columnist Anita Chabria.

Welcome to another week of the onslaught and overload that is Trump 2.0. What should we talk about?

President Trump’s threat to use the military in more American cities? Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth’s He-Man rant to top military brass?

Or what about the government shutdown?

In a week with enough drama to make the Mormon wives on Hulu seem tame in comparison, it’s hard to know whether all of it matters or none of it. Because, of course, we desperately want none of it to matter, since it’s all just too much.

But too much is never enough for Trump. So let’s break it down, starting with the big man himself.

A protester holds a sign outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on Sept. 28, 2025, in Portland, Ore.

(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

“I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” the Commander-in-Beef said during his Kim Jong Il-style televised address to military leaders.

“San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” Trump said. “This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it’s out of control.”

Yes, Los Angeles, you, with your whimsical opera whodunits and Hollywood ghost tours, are a threat to American stability. Knock it off or the National Guard will knock it off for you.

Those statements from Trump came minutes after Hegseth said to his military officers, “You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.”

Senior military leaders look on as President Trump speaks at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, 2025, in Quantico, Va.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Which sounds exactly like the kind of guy we should sent in to do crowd control at the Olympics. But before you dismiss the entire performance as strongman cosplay, consider how indifferent most Americans are to threats that the military will soon roll into Portland, Ore., or even our acceptance of troops in Chicago.

After L.A. and Washington, D.C., Trump has done exactly what he set out to do: Reduce our alarm at the use of the military on our streets so that it seems normal, almost benign. In fact, many now agree that this is the way to go. A recent study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention found that “nearly one third of respondents (32%) agree at least somewhat that the current federal government ‘should use the military to help enforce its policies.’”

Yikes.

It is, in fact, not OK. Protesting citizens are not the “enemy within.” Democrats are not the enemy. Jimmy Kimmel is not the enemy. Heck, even tech-bro libertarians aren’t the enemy, no matter how arrogant they are.

But the last few days have seen the president, through executive orders and speeches, label all dissent and dissenters as enemies — even using state agencies to do it. After the government shutdown, the Department of Housing and Urban Development displayed a banner on its homepage that blamed the “Radical Left.”

So the president has defined the “enemy within” as those who oppose him, and now informed the military personnel that they “have to handle it.”

Armed members of the National Guard patrol on Aug. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

What about the ‘beardos’?

That Hegseth, so clever. In between celebrating death and violence, he found time to attack female service members, “weak” men, those who would dare investigate wrongdoing in the military and of course, the most dreaded of insurgents: the “beardos.”

An apparent mash-up of “beard” and “weirdo,” which would please most eighth-grade boys, Hegseth used the term to describe what he said was an “unprofessional” look of some soldiers that is henceforth forbidden.

Of all the crazy and concerning in his 45-minute rant, why do I care about this moment?

Those beardos are mostly Black and brown men. Black men are prone to a shaving bump condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae and are sometimes granted permanent shaving waivers because of it. Hegseth wants to kick out of the military men with this painful condition who don’t shave.

It’s likely also aimed at Sikh service members, who grow beards as part of their religious observance. Until now they’ve been granted exemptions too. While this is a small number of servicemen, it’s significant that Hegseth’s “unprofessional” policy targets minorities.

Hegseth made it clear what he thinks of inclusion in any form, dubbing it an “insane fallacy” that “our diversity is our strength.”

Instead, he argued that it is widely accepted that “unity is strength.”

The troubling idea there is the confusion between unity and uniformity. Can’t a Black, bearded soldier have unity with a white, clean-shaven one? Can’t a female soldier share unity and purpose, a American identity, with a male fighter? Of course.

But Hegseth, who fired top Black and female military leaders this year, was never really talking about unity, was he? At least not the pluralism that has defined American unity until now.

The bipartisan flop

Let’s bounce to JD Vance, a “beardo” whose humorlessness has become his defining trait.

“There’s a lot of emergency healthcare at hospitals that are provided by illegal aliens,” he said on Fox News, in his ongoing press tour to blame the government shutdown on Democrats. The line here, a false one, is that Democrats are demanding the federal government pay healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants.

“We turned off that funding because of course we want American citizens to benefit from those hospital services,” Vance said.

Maybe if immigrants weren’t eating so many cats and dogs, they wouldn’t need so much healthcare. But I digress.

What Vance is maybe alluding to, disingenuously, is federal law that says anyone who enters an emergency room must be provided lifesaving services. So if an undocumented immigrant is in a serious car accident and is taken to a hospital, it is required to at least stabilize the person.

The same law was used, much to MAGA consternation, to protect some abortion services in dire cases — a protection Trump largely undid.

This raises the question, should we just let seriously injured brown people die in the waiting room because they can’t produce a passport?

But it’s also true that some states — through state funds — do insure undocumented immigrants, especially children and pregnant women. California is one of the few states that offer undocumented residents of all ages and genders access to its Medi-Cal coverage, though Newsom was forced by budget concerns to scale back that access in coming years. But states that do offer this coverage are, through a quirk in federal law, reimbursed at a higher rate for emergency services, also likely what has Vance in a tizzy.

The rationale behind offering this insurance has been proved out multiple times — preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. Give a guy a prescription for heart medication and he may not have a heart attack that lands him in the emergency room.

Federal programs, though, aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people. That ban includes folks who want to buy their own affordable insurance through the marketplaces created by Obamacare.

The real issue around insurance and the shutdown is how much the cost of this marketplace insurance is about to skyrocket for average Americans. About 24 million Americans get their health insurance through these plans, with most receiving a tax credit or subsidy to help with the costs. The Republican plan would take away those credits, leaving consumers — many in the middle class — with premiums that would at least double in the coming year.

It is somewhat shocking that Democrats are doing such a terrible job getting the word out about this — instead going on the defensive to the claims about undocumented insurance. Average people — Republican or Democrat — cannot afford a doubling of their insurance costs. This is a bipartisan issue. All Americans want affordable healthcare.

We should not sacrifice affordable insurance in favor of billionaire-friendly policies and because Democrats are fumbling an easy message.

So, unfortunately, in a week of chaos, yes, it all matters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Here’s how the U.S. government shutdown will impact California
The what happened: Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks
The L.A. Times special: Jane Fonda, derided as ‘Hanoi Jane’ and a traitor during the Vietnam War, is a modern-day force in Democratic politics

P.S. I’m starting a propaganda watch, because it’s becoming off the hook. This is from the Department of Homeland Security. “Defend your culture.” You mean, like, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

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

SAN JOSE — Matt Mahan didn’t set out to be a scold and pain in Gavin Newsom’s backside.

He doesn’t mean to sound like a wrathful Republican when he criticizes one-party rule in Sacramento. Or a disgruntled independent when he assails a Democratic establishment that’s become, as he sees it, “a club of insiders who take care of each other” and mostly go along to get along.

Maybe because that’s “my diagnosis of it,” said the 42-year-old San José mayor, “I have tried very consciously to not fall into that trap of just wanting to be liked.”

He is, Mahan insists, a Democrat to his core, his roots sunk deep in the loamy soil of working-class Watsonville, where, over the mountains and light years from Silicon Valley, he grew up the son of a mail carrier and a high school teacher.

That makes his candor all the more bracing, and refreshing, at a time when Democrats are struggling nationally to regain their footing and find a meaningful way forward.

“We have become so caught up in our own rhetoric of helping the little guy that we’ve stopped actually checking to make sure that we are doing that,” Mahan said over lunch at a cantina downtown.

Results, he said, are what matter. Not good intentions.

And certainly not the performative pugilism that some, including the hyper-online Newsom, pass off as leadership. “A sugar high,” Mahan called it.

“I think a lot of Democrats are frustrated and feel powerless, and so that rhetoric has this cathartic effect,” he said. “But I don’t know that it actually, over time, moves us toward success, and I mean not just success in society, but even political success, because ultimately, if you’re not offering solutions, I think you can have a hard time getting to a majority position.”

Mahan comes by his outsider status naturally.

In high school, he rode the bus four hours a day — from Watsonville to San José and back again — to attend a college prep academy on a work-study scholarship. (“My golden ticket,” he called it.) He worked on the grounds crew to help pay his way, and continued on to Harvard, where his dorm mates included Mark Zuckerberg. (The two hung out in college and still talk occasionally.)

After a year in Bolivia, helping family farmers, and a stint teaching middle school, Mahan co-founded a social media company that focused on civic engagement and raising money for nonprofits. He was elected to the San José City Council in 2020. Even before his first term was completed, Mahan launched an upstart bid for mayor.

The front-runner was a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, a former San José vice mayor and longtime civic leader. Waging a nothing-to-lose campaign — “we had no endorsements, we had much less money” — Mahan knocked on thousands of doors. He asked voters what they had on their minds.

It turned out to be rudimentary stuff. Potholes. Public safety. A sense they were paying a whole lot of taxes and getting very little in return.

The experience impressed two things upon Mahan: a need for accountability and the importance of voters’ lived experience, as opposed to vague promises, abstract notions and politically fashionable statements.

“I think ultimately political success and policy success comes from offering better ideas and demonstrating impact,” Mahan said, sounding very much like the technocrat he calls himself.

Mahan won the mayor’s race — narrowly, in a major upset — and was reelected two years later in a November 2024 landslide. (The year Mahan was elected, San José voted to shift its mayoral contest to correspond with presidential balloting, which cut his first term in half.)

Soon enough, Mahan found himself at odds with some major Democratic constituencies, including powerful labor unions, which pushed back over wages and a return-to-office policy, and homeless advocates who bristled at Mahan’s focus on short-term housing and threat to arrest homeless people who refused multiple offers of shelter.

“Homelessness can’t be a choice,” Mahan said at a spring news conference announcing the move.

His heresies don’t end there.

Mahan broke with many Democrats by vigorously supporting Proposition 36, the 2024 anti-crime measure that stiffened penalties for repeated theft and crimes involving fentanyl. Despite opposition from Newsom and most of the state’s Democratic leadership, it passed with nearly 70% support; Mahan has since criticized Newsom and the Democratic-run Legislature for stinting on funds needed for implementation.

But his most conspicuous breach involves the governor’s Trumpy transformation into a social media troll.

While the mockery and memes may feel good as snickering payback and certainly stoke the Democratic base — boosting Newsom’s presidential hopes — Mahan suggested they are ultimately counterproductive.

“If we don’t have a politics of solutions and making people’s lives better, I just don’t know where we end up,” he said, as his enchiladas sat cooling before him. “It’s politics practiced in bad faith, where we just … tell people things that test well because they sound nice, and then we just blame the other side for being evil, incompetent, corrupt. … It’s just a race to the bottom.”

He took particular issue with Newsom’s taunting reaction after Bed Bath & Beyond recently announced it won’t open or operate new stores in California.

It wasn’t “a reasoned argument,” Mahan wrote in a scathing opinion piece in the San Francisco Standard. The tart headline: “How about less time breaking the internet and more time fixing California?”

“‘Breaking the internet’ doesn’t solve real-world problems — quite the opposite,” Mahan wrote. “More often than not, it’s just political theater that serves to excuse inaction and ineffective policies.”

He elaborated over lunch.

“You have an employer who’s pointing out real issues that everybody else who’s watching thinks are real issues. Talking about business climate, cost of doing business, public safety issues, retail theft, untreated addiction and mental illness,” Mahan said.

“When we start turning on constituents because we don’t agree with their ideology, or attacking Trump is more important than actually solving problems or listening to the criticism … I think we’re heading down a dangerous road.”

Inevitably, there’s the question: To what end all this poking of thumbs in his fellow Democrats’ eyes?

Mahan has drawn wide notice, in particular from the more pragmatic wing of the party. His back-to-basics approach has yielded some measurable success. A recent study called San José the safest major city in the country and, while the overall homeless population grew slightly, there’s been progress moving people off the streets into city shelters.

He considered plunging into the race for governor, but the timing wasn’t right. Mahan has two small children and a wife who’s flourishing in her career as an educator. Besides, Mahan said, he’s quite content being mayor of California’s third-most populous city.

“I have a wonderful marriage,” Mahan said. “I have two wonderful kids. I loved working in the private sector. I’ve got a lot of great friends. I’m doing this because I genuinely want to make our city better, and I love the job. But it’s not who I am, and I can separate myself from the job.”

That grounding and perspective, so different from those politicians oozing ambition from every pore, may be Mahan’s best commendation for higher office.

If and when.

QUANTICO, Va. — President Trump revealed that he wants to use American cities as training grounds for the armed forces and joined Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday in declaring an end to “woke” culture before an unusual gathering of hundreds of top U.S. military officials who were abruptly summoned to Virginia from around the world.

Hegseth announced new directives for troops that include “gender-neutral” or “male-level” standards for physical fitness, while Trump bragged about U.S. nuclear capabilities and warned that “America is under invasion from within.”

“After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help we’re defending the borders of our country,” Trump said.

Hegseth had called military leaders to the Marine Corps base in Quantico, near Washington, without publicly revealing the reason until this morning. His address largely focused on his own long-used talking points that painted a picture of a military that has been hamstrung by “woke” policies, and he said military leaders should “do the honorable thing and resign” if they don’t like his new approach.

Meetings between top military brass and civilian leaders are nothing new, but the gathering had fueled intense speculation about the summit’s purpose given the haste with which it was called and the mystery surrounding it.

Admirals and generals from conflict zones in the Middle East and elsewhere were summoned for a lecture on race and gender in the military, underscoring the extent to which the country’s culture wars have emerged as a front-and-center agenda item for Hegseth’s Pentagon, even at a time of broad national security concerns across the globe.

‘We will not be politically correct’

Trump is used to boisterous crowds of supporters who laugh at his jokes and applaud his boasts during his speeches. But he wasn’t getting that kind of soundtrack from the generals and admirals in attendance.

In keeping with the nonpartisan tradition of the armed services, the military leaders sat mostly stone-faced through Trump’s politicized remarks, a contrast from when rank-and-file soldiers cheered during Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg this summer.

During his nearly hour-long speech, Hegseth said the U.S. military has promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons based on race, gender quotas and “historic firsts.”

“The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level,” Hegseth said.

That was echoed by Trump, who said “the purposes of America military is not to protect anyone’s feelings. It’s to protect our republic.″

″We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom,” Trump said. “And we will be a fighting and winning machine.”

Loosening disciplinary rules

Hegseth said he is loosening disciplinary rules and weakening hazing protections, putting a heavy focus on removing many of the guardrails the military had put in place after numerous scandals and investigations

He said he was ordering a review of “the department’s definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing.”

The defense secretary called for “changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable, earnest, or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity.”

“People make honest mistakes, and our mistakes should not define an entire career,” Hegseth said. “Otherwise, we only try not to make mistakes.”

Bullying and toxic leadership has been the suspected and confirmed cause behind numerous military suicides over the past several years, including the very dramatic suicide of Brandon Caserta, a young sailor who was bullied into killing himself in 2018.

A Navy investigation found that Caserta’s supervisor’s “noted belligerence, vulgarity and brash leadership was likely a significant contributing factor in (the sailor)’s decision to end his own life.”

Gender-neutral physical standards

Hegseth used the platform to slam environmental policies and transgender troops while talking up his and Trump’s focus on “the warrior ethos” and “peace through strength.”

Hegseth said the department has been told from previous administrations that “our diversity is our strength,” which he called an “insane fallacy.”

“They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQE+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females is totally normal,” he said, adding the use of electric tanks and the COVID vaccine requirements to the list as mistaken policies.

Hegseth said this is not about preventing women from serving.

“But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral,” he said. “If women can make it excellent, if not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result.”

Hegseth’s speech came as the country faces a potential government shutdown this week and as Hegseth, who has hammered home a focus on lethality, has taken several unusual and unexplained actions, including ordering cuts to the number of general officers and firings of other top military leaders.

Hegseth has championed the military’s role in securing the U.S.-Mexico border, deploying to American cities as part of Trump’s law enforcement surges, and carrying out strikes on boats in the Caribbean that the administration says targeted drug traffickers.

Finley, Toropin and Vucci write for the Associated Press. Finley and Toropin reported from Washington. AP writer Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

San Diego Democrat and former state Senate leader Toni Atkins dropped out of the 2026 California governor’s race Monday, part of a continued reshuffling and contraction of the wide field of candidates vying to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Atkins told supporters in a letter Monday afternoon that during a childhood in rural Virginia, she often felt “too country, too poor, too gay” to fit in. After building a life on the West Coast, where she found acceptance and opportunity, she worked for decades to build on “the promise of California” and extend it to future generations, she said.

“That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins wrote. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory.”

Atkins began her political career on the San Diego City Council after serving as a women’s clinic administrator. She became the first out LGBTQ+ person to serve as Senate president pro tem, the top position in the California Senate. She was also the speaker of the state Assembly, making her the first legislator since 1871 to hold both leadership posts.

In Sacramento, Atkins was a champion for affordable housing and reproductive rights, including writing the legislation that became Proposition 1 in 2022, codifying abortion rights in the California Constitution after national protections were undone by the U.S. Supreme Court.

With President Trump and his allies “gutting health care, cratering our economy, and stripping away fundamental rights and freedoms,” Atkins told supporters Monday, “we’ve got to make sure California has a Democratic governor leading the fight, and that means uniting as Democrats.”

Under California’s nonpartisan primary system, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election. Votes on the left could be fractured among a half-dozen Democratic candidates, creating a more viable path forward for one of the two high-profile Republicans in the race to make it to the November ballot.

Atkins picked up millions of dollars in donations after entering the governor’s race in January 2024, and reported having $4.3 million on hand — more than most candidates — at the end of the first half of the year. More recent reports from major donations suggest her fundraising had lagged behind former Orange County-based U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Atty. Gen. and Biden appointee Xavier Becerra.

Although well-known in political circles, Atkins is not a household name. Recent polls, including one conducted by UC Berkeley and co-sponsored by The Times, showed her support in the single digits.

Nine months before the primary, the field of candidates is still in flux, and many voters are undecided.

At the end of July, former Vice President Kamala Harris made the biggest news of the campaign when she said she would not run. Shortly afterward, her political ally Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis abandoned her gubernatorial bid and announced she would run for state treasurer.

Some polling has shown that Porter, who left Congress after losing a bid for a rare open seat in the U.S. Senate, is the candidate to beat.

Last week, lobbyist and former state legislative leader Ian Calderon, 39, launched his campaign for governor, calling it the advent of a “new generation of leadership.”

Calderon, 39, was the first millennial elected to the state Assembly and the youngest-ever majority leader of the state Assembly. He is part of a political dynasty from southeastern Los Angeles County that’s held power in Sacramento for decades.

His family’s name was clouded during his time in Sacramento when two of his uncles served prison time in connection with a bribery scheme, but Calderon was not accused of wrongdoing.

SACRAMENTO — A former state legislative leader says fellow Democrats in Sacramento have long ignored the housing needs of middle-class Californians. And he has a plan to help them buy a new home.

To their credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers have been chipping away at regulatory obstacles to home building in recent years, particularly in the just-concluded legislative session.

But the building pace is still far behind what’s sorely needed — and what Newsom promised when he first ran for governor seven years ago. Supply doesn’t come close to meeting demand and that pushes home prices much higher than millions of middle-class families can afford.

One of the biggest raps on California is that housing costs have skyrocketed out of reach for many. That’s a big reason why lots of middle-class folks have fled the so-called Golden State for less expensive regions.

“Much of the work by the governor and the Legislature in recent years has focused on homelessness and affordable housing, both of which require taxpayer subsidies and leave the middle class behind,” says former Van Nuys lawmaker Bob Hertzberg, who was an Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader.

“Middle-class Californians just can’t save up enough for a down payment. And the few government programs to assist middle-class buyers are complex, underfunded and are restricted to first-time homebuyers.”

He notes the political consequences: “We [Democrats] haven’t done enough for them. And they’re punishing us in their voting patterns.”

Yes, the middle class has been turning right all across the country. Housing affordability is a problem in many states, but is particularly acute in California.

In July, the median price for an existing single-family home in California was $884,050, according to the California Assn. of Realtors. The normal 20% down payment would require a buyer to lay out $176,810 in cash. Not many young couples — or middle-aged either — have that much spare money on them.

The median home price varies greatly throughout the state. In San Mateo County, it’s $2.1 million; in San Francisco, $1.6 million. Other counties: Orange, $1.4 million; Riverside, $630,000; Ventura, $949,500; Kern, $390,000; Sacramento, $559,000.

Hertzberg has submitted a proposed ballot initiative for the 2026 election that would allow middle-class buyers of brand-new homes to borrow most of their down payment.

Rather than putting up 20% of the selling price in cash, the buyer would fork over just 3% — $26,522 based on the July statewide median price — and borrow the remaining 17%, or $150,289.

So, there’d be the regular first mortgage on 80% of the selling price, plus a second mortgage on the down-payment loan.

Based on Hertzberg’s calculations, for example, a three-bedroom, three-bath Santa Clarita home selling for $700,000 would require monthly payments of $4,253 on the two mortgages. That assumes a combined interest rate of 7%.

New townhouses and condos also would qualify under the program. The statewide median price for those in July was $647,000.

Why only new homes? Hertzberg says it’s “critically important” to increase the housing supply and the only way to do that is to build more. At the same time, it creates construction jobs.

Also, politically, it draws the support of developers, carpenters unions and Realtors.

And for local governments, it generates more property and sales taxes.

Who’s defined as middle class? Buyers whose household income is less than 200% of the median for their local area. Statewide, that’s $193,000. But it varies: $213,200 in Palmdale, $262,600 in Camarillo, $207,800 in San Bernardino, $177,000 in Fresno, $311,720 in San Francisco.

Unlike other government housing programs, this one isn’t limited to just first-time homebuyers. It only requires buyers to be Californians and to live in the home as their primary residence. No renting out.

The program would be administered and implemented by the California Housing Finance Agency.

“Most importantly — no cost to taxpayers,” Hertzberg says.

The “Middle Class Homeownership” act would be financed by the sale of $25 billion in revenue bonds that would create the down-payment loan pot. Borrowers must repay their second mortgage if the home is sold or refinanced within 15 years.

Regular lending institutions would arrange the loans and charge minimum fees.

“It’s very difficult to work with a government bureaucracy, so we’ll have banks handle all the paperwork,” Hertzberg says.

He says the program would be self-financed. Loan repayments would resupply the pot for additional homebuyers. He figures the $25-billion kitty would generate up to 150,000 new homes — helpful, but still well below the millions more that California needs.

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., says California would need to be building 437,000 new homes annually to reach Newsom’s original campaign promise of 3.5 million by the time he leaves office after next year. Instead, we’re building only 112,000.

Hertzberg recalls that about five years ago he introduced legislation to spur middle-class home ownership. “It got loaded up with taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing and provisions from so many interest groups, I just walked away,” he says.

“Anytime there’s a nickel on the table, the interest groups find a way to grab it.”

“I was majority leader of the Senate,” he continues. “I know how to do this stuff. But I couldn’t get something just focused on the middle class.

“Let’s get them a home. Home is where the wealth is. Home is a dream.”

Hertzberg’s plan makes sense in concept. We rightly help veterans buy homes. Why not also help the entire struggling middle class.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supporters of redrawing California’s congressional districts raise tens of millions more than opponents
The deep dive: DC Explained: Medi-Cal Cuts Loom in San Diego as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Begins to Hit Home
The L.A. Times Special: Who’s winning the redistricting fight? Here’s how to read the polls

Until next week,
George Skelton

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