Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
SACRAMENTO — There are echoes from California Republicans’ disastrous past in their solid support of the Trump administration’s ugly raids targeting Latinos suspected of illegal immigration.
California’s GOP apparently still hasn’t learned. Scaring, insulting and angering people is not an effective recruiting tool. It doesn’t draw them to your side. It drives them into the opposition camp.
That should have been a lesson learned three decades ago when Republicans strongly pushed a harsh anti-illegal immigration ballot initiative, Proposition 187. It became principally responsible for changing California from a politically competitive state to one where the GOP is essentially irrelevant.
The in-depth poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies delved into voter attitudes toward Trump’s mass deportation actions.
On the basic question of his immigration enforcement strategy, 69% of registered voters disapproved and just 29% approved. But there was a sharp difference between political parties. Democrats almost unanimously disapproved — 95%. And 72% of independents were opposed. But 79% of Republicans approved.
Interviewers also asked about specifics. And GOP voters were with Trump all the way.
Strong majorities of Republicans disagreed that federal agents “have unfairly targeted Latino communities for their race or ethnicity,” believed the raids have “primarily focused” on undocumented “serious” criminals — although evidence shows that many law-abiders have been snatched — and thought “all undocumented immigrants need to be deported.”
Smaller Republican majorities disagreed that detained undocumented immigrants “have a right to due process” and a court hearing — although the due process clause of the 5th Amendment indicates they do — and agreed that “agents should expand enforcement into schools, hospitals, parks and other public locations.”
Democrats and independents expressed emphatically opposite views — and they greatly outnumber Republicans in California.
The parties also reported diametrically opposite feelings when viewing news accounts of raids by federal agents. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said it made them feel “hopeful, like justice is finally being served.” Democrats said they were “enraged and/or sad. What is happening is unfair.”
Republicans were more divided on whether immigration agents should be required to show clear identification, such as wearing badges. Armed agents have been going incognito in street clothes, traveling in unmarked vehicles and wearing masks.
Among GOP voters, 50% opposed requiring identification and 45% supported the idea.
Two bills currently are awaiting votes in the state Assembly to require agent identification and ban masks in most circumstances.
“Agents have been running around wearing essentially ski masks, grabbing people, throwing them into unmarked cars and disappearing them,” says Sen. Mark Wiener (D-San Francisco), author of the mask ban bill. “In a democracy, we don’t have secret police running around masked.”
Listening to Republican voters, I’m hearing reverberations from 1994 when that GOP generation overwhelmingly backed Proposition 187, led by Gov. Pete Wilson, who was subsequently demonized by Democrats and, particularly, Latinos.
That now-infamous measure would have denied most public services — including schooling — to undocumented immigrants, and turned teachers and nurses into snitches. It passed by a landslide, but a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.
Republicans voted for Proposition187 by 3 to 1 and independents by 3 to 2, according to a Los Angeles Times exit poll. Democrats opposed it by 2 to 1.
White people voted for Proposition 187 by 59% to 41% — the exact victory margin — but Latinos opposed it by 78% to 22%. Today, there are a lot fewer white people and lots more Latinos in California.
And it instigated a hemorrhaging of Republican voters in California. In the November presidential election, Republicans amounted to only 25% of registered voters. In 1994, they were 37%. Many have since shifted to registering as independents, who amounted to only 10% back then and are 22% now. Democrats also have lost slightly to nonpartisan ranks, falling from 49% to 46%.
No Republican candidate has won a statewide race since 2006, and Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative houses.
The GOP has been touting an uptick in Latino support in November’s election. But is that a trend, or just the reflection of a sorry Democratic presidential campaign? How will Latino voters react to immigration agents chasing people through farm fields, seizing teens without telling their parents and stalking picnickers?
“Republicans can talk about crime and homelessness and gas prices all they want but the immigration issue is a boulder in the road that will keep large numbers in California from listening to what they say on any other issue,” says Dan Schnur, a USC and UC Berkeley political science instructor who was Wilson’s spokesman in 1994.
GOP consultant Mike Madrid, who has written a book about how Latinos are transforming democracy, says Republicans “are limiting what could be a tidal wave of voters in their direction. They’re their own worst enemies.”
He adds: “Latinos are primarily economic voters but will respond when attacked. As long as the GOP resorts to anti-Latino appeals they’ll fight back.”
Republican voter attitudes also are symptomatic of today’s extremely polarized politics.
“Wherever Trump decides to steer the ship, Republicans are following him. Trump is the Pied Piper here,” says Mark DiCamillo, the IGS pollster.
Republican consultant Kevin Spillane theorized that Republican respondents in the poll were “rallying around Trump. They thought they were really being asked about him.”
Whatever. They need to evolve into the increasingly diverse 21st century. We can secure the border without storming churches, hospitals and schools.
Fin Graham won his fourth successive road race World Championship title as Great Britain’s Para-cyclists brought home nine medals from Belgium.
Graham, 25, launched an attack inside the final kilometre and held off France’s Thomas Peyroton Dartet to retain his C3 crown.
His victory came two days after he won time trial bronze in Ronse.
“To win a first world title back in 2022 was a dream come true, so to now be retaining that for the fourth year in a row, is something that I could never have imagined,” he said.
“To do it here in Belgium, with that crowd, was phenomenal. I was made to work for it; it was such a hard race.
“It has finished off a really good week for our squad. Retaining this title, as Paralympic champion, is very special. To race in the rainbow stripes for another year is still a pinch me moment. I’ll never get tired of looking down and seeing the rainbow bands.”
Earlier on Sunday, Sophie Unwin – with her pilot Jenny Holl – won bronze in the women’s B road race, while Morgan Newberry won the same colour in the C5 equivalent.
Those followed silvers for both riders on Friday in their respective time trials.
There was a bronze medal too for Archie Atkinson in the C4 road race, while Felix Barrow finished third in the T2 race.
On Thursday, Callum Russell became the first British man to win a World Championship hand bike medal when he won bronze in the H4 time trial.
If you’re rushing for your flight, you’re in luck. A travel vlogger has revealed how to breeze past security queues in one of the UK’s busiest airports for free using a little-known trick
A travel vlogger has revealed a time-saving airport hack(Image: Bloomberg, Bloomberg via Getty Images)
There’s nothing more frustrating than rushing to your flight only to get stuck in a massive airport security queue, but luckily a travel expert has revealed a clever way you can beat the crowds.
Airports are incredibly busy places and changed flight times and luggage mishaps only make it worse. Even the most organised travellers have had to dash to make it to their boarding gate on time – an experience which can be even more panic-inducing in a busy airport like London Stansted.
Fortunately, travel vlogger Elaine Poon has revealed a handy way to skip past the crowds if you’re looking to get through security quickly. She posted her experience travelling through Stansted Airport using the trick.
Elaine Poon shared a little-known fast track hack to get through to airport security in less than one minute(Image: Jam Press/@travelainewithme)
On her TikTok channel @travelainewithme, she explained that everyone usually enters security through the ‘Departures’ queue to the left.
However, she said passengers should “turn right” instead and walk towards the sign reading ‘Fast Track’. She then showed another ‘Departures’ queue beside the Fast Track one.
She said: “A lot of people only think this is for Fast Track, so no one goes to this side. But as you can see, this whole middle section is free for us to go through.” Elaine then showed herself breezing up to security while a massive queue of people stood waiting on the other side of the rope.
She said: “This is crazy, look at the queue on the other side. We just skip all of that and go straight through to the front.”
Content cannot be displayed without consent
While some comments expressed scepticism, doubting that the lane was actually free to enter, others were quick to chime in that the hack was real and actually worked.
London Stansted’s official TikTok account even left a comment underneath the video, confirming the trick. They wrote: “We see you.”
Many viewers also thanked her for sharing her handy time-saving hack. “Thank you, just went through and it was super quick, no queue at all,” one said. “Only flown through Stansted Airport once will definitely use this hack the next time I fly thank you!!” a second chimed in.
A third joked: “I’m going next year. I need to tell my mum about these hacks.” However, other experienced flyers were slightly annoyed that their travel secret had been revealed.
One wrote: “Honestly, don’t tell people, I want to keep my almost empty path. I fly so much so I know the airport like the back of my hand.”
Frankie Muniz — the “Malcolm in the Middle” star turned NASCAR driver — is off the racetrack, for now at least.
The actor is recovering from a broken wrist he suffered after falling from a ladder at his home, he wrote on Instagram on Thursday.
“The phrase ‘FML’ (Frankie Muniz’s Life) takes on new meaning with moments like these,” he wrote.
The accident came right before a NASCAR event at Darlington Raceway in Darlington, S.C., over Labor Day weekend.
Muniz shared that the ladder mishap happened when he was trying to change batteries on a backyard security camera. While he joked about the situation, he said he’s heartbroken to miss the competition.
However, Muniz’s NASCAR career is far from over. He estimates he’ll be back behind the wheel within a few months.
Muniz began his professional driving career in 2006, after the end of “Malcolm in the Middle,” a move that stemmed from his lifelong admiration for the sport.
This isn’t the first time Muniz has found himself on the mend. In a previous interview, the 39-year-old told People that he’s simply “injury-prone,” and broke 38 bones between 2006 and 2017.
Muniz was involved in a crash at a 2024 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series Championship at Phoenix Raceway in Arizona. According to reports from a journalist at the track, Muniz was seen limping into an ambulance after a hard hit from behind, but escaped major injury.
Neither that nor his latest fall are as harrowing as his major crash in 2009.
During a race, the then-21-year-old’s vehicle flipped and violently crashed into a wall. He described the crash as “gnarly” and said it resulted in him breaking his back, ankle, four ribs and a hand.
“My thumb was dangling by the skin,” Muniz told People.
In comparison, his recent fall from the ladder was a bump in the road. As the actor-turned-racer recovers, he plans to come back to racing full-force — and probably follow the instructions on his ladder a little more closely.
“Note to self: heed the ladder warning that says, ‘Do not sit or stand on top step,’” Muniz wrote on social media. “In hindsight, a taller ladder would’ve been smarter. While I’m gutted to miss the races, I’m grateful it wasn’t worse.”
Norway heads to the polls on September 7-8, 2025, in a closely fought general election that could reshape both domestic economic policy, as well as the wider European energy landscape. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store’s Labour Party, in power since 2021, seeks to extend its rule after eight years of Conservative-led governments. Labour governs as a minority with backing from both the Socialist Left and Centre Party.
What Happened?
The election places the centre-left bloc led by the Labour Party against the centre right, dominated by the populist Progress Party and Conservatives.
Inequality and taxation top the list of Nordic voter concerns, followed by cost of living pressures, job security, and food price inflation (5.9% over the past calendar year).
Labour promises stable taxes, though allies push for higher rates on the wealthy; Conservatives and Progress advocate deep tax cuts across all income levels.
The campaign has also been shaped by debates surrounding Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund, oil and gas exploration, and power exports to Europe.
Why It Matters:
Norway is Europe’s leading gas supplier, replacing Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The election outcome could determine whether new oil and gas fields are opened or restricted, with consequences for both domestic revenues and Europe’s energy security. In addition, political control over the sovereign wealth fund could reshape debates about Nordic investments, including calls from the Socialist Left to divest from companies with links to Israel’s actions in Gaza. Energy policy and fiscal direction will not only shape Norway’s future but also ripple across the European Union, where stability of gas flows and power exports are closely monitored and viewed as a key commodity.
Stakeholder Reactions:
Socialist Left Party: Urgently demands divestments tied to Israel’s war in Gaza as a condition for backing the Labour Party in the next government if they were to emerge victorious.
Labour Party: Rejected the demand but may face pressure to revisit it post-election depending on both the landscape of the Gaza conflict and overall party productivity in regards to addressing the concerns of the everyday Nordic citizen.
Smaller Parties (Liberals, Greens): Deeply divided on oil exploration, some pushing for expansion with controls to ensure domestic revenue inflows, others calling for tighter restrictions or eventual phase-outs to become a greener economy.
EU observers: Undoubtedly watching closely as Norway debates limiting electricity exports, which would breach single market rules established by the Union.
What’s Next/
Election days: September 7-8, with polls closing September 8th at 1900 GMT.
Results: Early exit polls expected the same evening; final outcome could possibly take until September 9th to be announced.
Likely Scenarios: A continued Labour-led minority government, or a centre-right coalition led by Conservatives or Progress Party.
Wider Implications: Coalition negotiations will decide Norway’s position on tax policy, sovereign wealth fund investments, oil and gas exploration, and electricity exports, with consequences for both domestic voters and European partners.
WASHINGTON — The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is back in Washington as Congress prepares to return for the fall.
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called an early start to summer break in July, attempting to shut down bipartisan clamor for the full release of the Epstein files. But Democrats are eager to launch back into a scandal that has dogged President Trump and divided his MAGA base.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, plans to partner with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky to quickly force a vote on the House floor ordering the Justice Department to release its entire trove of documents from the investigation of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who abused hundreds of women and girls.
Newsletter
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
The success of the measure is far from guaranteed. It is unclear whether the Justice Department would even abide by it. But Democrats plan to make sure the issue does not go away, regardless of its outcome, multiple Democratic aides said.
Democratic lawmakers’ focus on Epstein will be “high” out of the gate once Congress returns after Labor Day, one senior House Democratic staffer told The Times.
Republicans “will not want to be put in a position of voting against disclosure,” said the staffer, who requested anonymity to share internal discussions. “The same thing that tripped up Johnson in July is still there.”
California Dems lead charge for release
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) has pushed for the release of the Epstein documents.
(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)
Epstein, a wealthy financier with a deep bench of powerful friends, died in a New York City prison in August 2019 facing federal charges in a sprawling child sex trafficking conspiracy.
The charges followed reporting by the Miami Herald of a scandalous sweetheart deal brokered by federal prosecutors in Florida that had allowed Epstein to serve a months-long sentence, avoiding federal charges that could have resulted in life imprisonment.
The chief prosecutor in that case, Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, went on to serve as Labor secretary in Trump’s first term.
It is just one of several milestones coming up for the Oversight Committee, which voted to subpoena all Justice Department records in the case before dismissing for recess. Democrats, partnering with Republicans rebelling against the party line, forced the subpoena vote.
The first set of those documents were delivered last week. But Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the committee, said that 97% of the 33,000 pages of documents handed over by the Justice Department so far were already public.
The Justice Department and the Oversight Committee said that the records would be released on a piecemeal basis as department officials work to redact sensitive information on Epstein’s victims.
Garcia and Khanna have been leading the charge for an expansive release of documents in the Epstein case — a call that has drawn fierce pushback from Trump, who had a close friendship with Epstein for roughly a decade.
“There is no excuse for incomplete disclosures,” Garcia said. “Survivors and the American public deserve the truth.”
‘Gentleman in all respects’
Democrats never made an issue of the Epstein files when they held Congress and the White House under President Biden, dismissing the story as another right-wing conspiracy theory. But Democratic lawmakers now see the issue as an opportunity to cause a split between Trump and his supporters, highlighting his resistance to releasing the files for a voter base that has called for their disclosure since Epstein’s 2019 death.
Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the Oversight Committee, issued a new subpoena this week to Epstein’s estate for all material from 1990 through his death that references presidents and vice presidents, as well address books, contact lists, and videos recorded at Epstein’s properties.
That could result in the disclosure of a book compiled for Epstein marking his 50th birthday in the early 2000s, first reported over the summer by the Wall Street Journal, that allegedly includes a letter from Trump featuring a lewd doodle and a note that reads, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump has denied he wrote the note.
The Oversight Committee has also voted to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close associate who is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls.
Maxwell and her attorneys are openly angling for a pardon from Trump, raising suspicions among Democrats over the reliability of her testimony. But any appearance by Maxwell on Capitol Hill would become a media sensation, drawing national attention back to the case.
The second most powerful figure in the Justice Department, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, personally interviewed Maxwell in July over the course of two days. She absolved Trump of any criminality in the interview without even being asked to do so.
“The president was never inappropriate with anybody,” Maxwell said, according to a transcript released last week.
“In the times I was with him,” she added, “he was a gentleman in all respects.”
Islamabad, Pakistan – India on August 20 announced that it had successfully test-fired Agni-V, its intermediate-range ballistic missile, from a test range in Odisha on its eastern Bay of Bengal coast.
The Agni-V, meaning “fire” in Sanskrit, is 17.5 metres long, weighs 50,000kg, and can carry more than 1,000kg of nuclear or conventional payload. Capable of travelling more than 5,000km at hypersonic speeds of nearly 30,000km per hour, it is among the fastest ballistic missiles in the world.
The Agni test came exactly a week after Pakistan announced the formation of a new Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC), aimed, say experts, at plugging holes in its defensive posture exposed by India during the four-day conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.
But experts say the latest Indian test might be a message less for Pakistan and more for another neighbour that New Delhi is cautiously warming up to again: China.
The Agni’s range puts most of Asia, including China’s northern regions, and parts of Europe within reach. This was the missile’s 10th test since 2012 and its first since March last year, but its timing, say analysts, was significant.
It came just ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, amid a thaw in ties – after years of tension over their disputed border – that has been accelerated by United States President Donald Trump’s tariff war against India. On Wednesday, the US tariffs on Indian goods doubled to 50 percent amid tensions over New Delhi’s oil purchases from Russia.
Yet despite that shift in ties with Beijing, India continues to view China as its primary threat in the neighbourhood, say experts, underscoring the complex relationship between the world’s two most populous nations. And it’s at China that India’s development of medium and long-range missiles is primarily aimed, they say.
India’s missile advantage over Pakistan
While India acknowledged losing an unspecified number of fighter jets during the May skirmish with Pakistan, it also inflicted significant damage on Pakistani military bases, particularly with its supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.
The BrahMos, capable of carrying nuclear or conventional payloads of up to 300kg, has a range of about 500km. Its low altitude, terrain-hugging trajectory and blistering speed make it difficult to intercept, allowing it to penetrate Pakistani territory with relative ease.
Many experts argue that this context shows the Agni-V test is not directly linked to Pakistan’s announcement of the ARFC. Instead, they say, the test was likely a signal to China. Indian and Chinese troops were in an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff along their disputed Himalayan border for four years after a deadly clash in 2020, before Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Russia in October 2024 to begin a process of detente.
Modi’s visit to China for the SCO summit on Sunday will be his first to that country since 2018. In the past, India has often felt betrayed by overtures to China, which, it claims, have frequently been followed by aggression from Beijing along their border.
“India’s requirement for a long-range, but not intercontinental, missile is dictated by its threat perception of China,” Manpreet Sethi, a distinguished fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies, told Al Jazeera.
“Agni-V is a nuclear-capable ballistic missile of 5,000km range, which India has been developing as part of its nuclear deterrence capability against China. It has no relevance to Pakistan,” Sethi added.
Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany, agreed.
“While the Agni-V might be usable against Pakistan, its primary mission would involve strikes on China,” he told Al Jazeera. “China’s east coast, where its most economically and politically important cities are situated, is hard to reach from India and requires long-range missiles.”
Missile race across South Asia
India and Pakistan have been steadily expanding their missile arsenals in recent years, unveiling new systems with increasing reach.
Before announcing the ARFC, Pakistan showcased the Fatah-4, a cruise missile with a 750km range and the capability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
India, meanwhile, is working on Agni-VI, which is expected to have a range exceeding 10,000km and carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), a capability already present in Agni-V.
MIRV-enabled missiles can carry several nuclear warheads, each capable of striking a separate target, significantly boosting their destructive potential.
Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, said India’s latest test demonstrates its growing intercontinental missile capabilities.
“With India working on different variants of Agni with multiple capabilities, this test was a technological demonstrator for India’s emerging submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capability,” Ahmed said.
“Depending on the configuration of the warheads for India’s SLBMs, India will be able to deploy anywhere between 200-300 warheads on its SSBN force alone over the next decade,” he added. SSBNs (ship, submersible, ballistic, nuclear) are nuclear-powered submarines designed to carry SLBMs armed with nuclear warheads. India currently has two SSBNs in service, with two more under construction.
Pakistan, by contrast, does not possess long-range missiles or nuclear submarines. Its longest-range operational ballistic missile, the Shaheen-III, has a range of 2,750km.
“Pakistan also has South Asia’s first MIRV-enabled ballistic missile called Ababeel, which can strike up to 2,200km range, but it is the shortest-ranged MIRV-enabled system deployed by any nuclear-armed state,” Ahmed said.
Tughral Yamin, a former Pakistani army brigadier and nuclear policy scholar, said the countries’ missile ambitions reflect divergent priorities.
“Pakistan’s programme is entirely Indian-specific and defensive in nature, while India’s ambitions extend beyond the subcontinent. Its long-range systems are designed for global power projection, particularly vis-a-vis China, and to establish itself as a great power with credible deterrence against major states,” said Yamin, author of The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia.
But some experts say Pakistan’s missile development programme isn’t only about India.
Ashley J Tellis, the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), said that while “India wants to be able to range China and Pakistan,” Islamabad is building the capability to keep Israel – and even the US – in its range, in addition to India.
“The conventional missile force in both countries is designed to strike critical targets without putting manned strike aircraft at risk,” Tellis told Al Jazeera.
US concerns over Pakistan’s ambitions, quiet acceptance of India’s rise
Pakistan’s missile programme came under intense spotlight in December last year when a senior White House official warned of Islamabad’s growing ambitions.
Jon Finer, serving in the then-Biden administration, described Pakistan’s pursuit of advanced missile technology as an “emerging threat” to the United States.
Pakistan publicly displayed its Fatah-4 missile on the eve of the country’s 78th Independence Day on August 14, 2025, in Islamabad [Anjum Naveed/AP Photo]
“If the trend continues, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States,” Finer said during an event at the CEIP.
By contrast, Tellis said India’s growing arsenal is not viewed as destabilising by Washington or its allies.
“Pakistan’s capabilities in contrast are viewed as unsettling because the early history of its nuclear programme had anti-Western overtones, sentiments that have taken on a specific anti-US colouration after 9/11 and the Abbottabad raid,” Tellis explained, referring to the US capture of Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan in 2011.
Ahmed, the Canberra-based academic, said India’s long-range missile development is openly supported by Western powers as part of the US-led Asia Pacific strategy.
“The US and European powers have viewed and encouraged India to act as a net security provider. The India-US civil nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver effectively gave India de facto nuclear weapons status without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said.
The NPT is a Cold War-era treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and advancing the goal of nuclear disarmament. It formally recognises only the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain as nuclear weapons states.
But the 2008 waiver from the NSG – a club of 48 nations that sell nuclear material and technology – allowed India to engage in global nuclear trade despite not being an NPT signatory, a unique status that elevated its global standing.
Clary from the University of Albany, however, pointed out that unlike the Biden administration, the current Trump White House has not expressed any concerns about Pakistan’s missile programme – or about India’s Agni-V test.
“For now, so long as Pakistan keeps its missile tests limited to ranges already demonstrated by the Shaheen-III and Ababeel, I don’t expect Western governments to concern themselves overly with South Asia’s missile developments,” he said. “There are more than enough other problems to keep them busy.”
A SUPERSTAR Cheltenham Festival-winning horse has been blocked from a £175,000 race – amid a row over his handicap mark.
A Dream To Share won the Champion Bumper in 2023 and looked like being the sport’s next big name for legendary owner JP McManus.
2
A Dream To Share is favourite for the Cesarewitch handicap at Newmarket – but is currently blocked from runningCredit: Getty
2
Billionaire owner McManus is appealing the refusal to give his Cheltenham Festival winner a rating so he can run in the £175,000 raceCredit: Getty
But he failed to win a race in his next season over hurdles and only recently returned to the winner’s enclosure with a 1m7f victory on the Flat at Leopardstown in June.
Iconic owner McManus entered the horse, who is trained in Ireland by John Kiely, for the Cesarewitch handicap at Newmarket on October 11.
He was made 7-1 favourite for the 2m2f marathon on the Flat with BetVictor while other firms made him joint-favourite.
But, as things stand, the seven-year-old gelding with almost £200,000 in winnings is not allowed to run because the Irish handicapper has twice refused to give him a mark, according to the Nick Luck Daily podcast.
McManus has apparently appealed the decision with the Irish and British boards.
But the BHA have declined the appeal on the grounds of reciprocity with the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board.
The most recent appeal to be turned away came last week.
It is believed those acting for McManus claimed enough time had passed between A Dream To Share’s most recent run on June 19 and now for a mark to be awarded.
Especially as several of the horses he beat, including runner-up Royal Hollow, had subsequently raced enough for the handicapper to be able to judge A Dream To Share accurately.
Interestingly, respected journalist Dave Yates said on the podcast that a mark of 104 had been ‘offered’ to A Dream To Share.
But still, nothing official has been granted meaning, as it stands, the favourite for the big race cannot run.
A Dream To Share won the hearts of punters at the 2023 Cheltenham Festival when schoolboy John Gleeson rode him to victory.
McManus bought the horse just a month before from Claire Gleeson, wife of ITV Racing pundit Brian, dad of John.
John said after the win: “Mr McManus was very generous. He said I would definitely keep the ride here today.
“There was no pressure from him. It’s brilliant. I’m very grateful.
“I’ve been going to John Kiely for as long as I can remember.
“I ride out this horse every day before I go to school so it is very special.”
Commercial content notice: Taking one of the offers featured in this article may result in a payment to The Sun. You should be aware brands pay fees to appear in the highest placements on the page. 18+. T&Cs apply. gambleaware.org.
Remember to gamble responsibly
A responsible gambler is someone who:
Establishes time and monetary limits before playing
Only gambles with money they can afford to lose
Never chases their losses
Doesn’t gamble if they’re upset, angry or depressed
Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ decision to forgo a run for California governor has created a wide-open race in next year’s election to run the nation’s most populous state, according to a poll released Tuesday by UC Berkeley and the Los Angeles Times.
Nearly 4 in 10 registered voters surveyed said they are uncertain about whom they will support in the 2026 contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“It’s very unsettled. Most of the voters, the plurality in this poll, are undecided,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, which was conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times. “They don’t really know much about the candidates.”
Share via
Among those who had a preference, former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine had a small edge as the top choice, with the backing of 17%. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, was the only other candidate who received double-digit support, winning the backing of 10% of respondents.
DiCamillo said Porter’s unsuccessful 2024 U.S. Senate campaign boosted her recognition among California voters, but cautioned that she had a small, early lead more than nine months before the June 2 primary. Bianco’s support was driven by voters focused on crime and public safety, taxes and the budget deficit, perennial concerns among GOP voters, according to the survey.
Other top candidates for governor — former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state legislative leader Toni Atkins, current California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck and conservative commentator Steve Hilton — received single-digit support as voters’ first choice in the poll. A few potential candidates also had single-digit support, including billionaire Los Angeles businessman Rick Caruso, former Trump administration official Ric Grenell and former GOP state Sen. Brian Dahle.
The survey is among the first independent public polls since Harris announced in late July that she would not run for governor in 2026, dramatically reshuffling the calculus in a crowded race that the former vice president was widely expected to dominate if she mounted a campaign. The poll also took place after Lt. Gov Eleni Kounalakis dropped out of the contest this month to run for state treasurer instead.
“It’s pretty wide-open,” DiCamillo said. “And when you look at the second-choice preference, first and second together, it’s bunched together.”
When voters were asked to rank their top two choices, Porter received 22% as the first or second choice, Becerra got 18%, Bianco notched 15% and Hilton won 12%, according to the poll.
None of the politicians running are well known by Californians compared with the state’s last three governors: Newsom, the former mayor of San Francisco and lieutenant governor, who during his two terms as governor has positioned himself as a foil to President Trump ; former two-term Gov. Jerry Brown, who along with his father left an indelible imprimatur on California’s history; and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a global celebrity who returned to the Hollywood limelight after he left office, along with launching efforts to fight climate change and support independent redistricting nationwide.
A pressing question is whether anyone else enters the race, notably Caruso, who has the ability to self-fund a campaign. The deadline to file to run for the seat is March 6.
Whoever is elected as California’s next governor will face the difficult task of contending with a hostile Trump administration and an electorate looking to the state’s next leader to address its most pressing concerns.
Economic issues are top of mind among all registered voters, with 36% saying the cost of living is their greatest concern and 25% focusing on the affordability of housing, according to the poll. But there were sharp partisan disparities about other issues. Democrats were more concerned about the state of democracy, climate change and healthcare, while Republicans prioritized crime, taxes and immigration.
Two of California’s most prominent Democrats, Newsom and Harris, are longtime friends grounded in their Bay Area roots and both viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates.
As a potential White House hopeful, Newsom has an edge over Harris among Californians overall as well as the state’s Democrats, according to the poll.
Roughly 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were very or somewhat enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% who expressed a similar sentiment about Harris. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of registered voters and 51% of Democrats said Harris should not run for president again after two unsuccessful White House bids — in the primary in 2020 and in the general election in 2024.
“She lost, which is always a negative when you’re trying to run again,” DiCamillo said. “It’s interesting that even after Harris bowed out of the governor’s race, most Californians don’t really think she should run for president.”
While he described Newsom’s support as a “mixed bag” among the state’s registered voters, DiCamillo pointed to his strength among Democrats. Nearly 7 of 10 registered Democratic voters in the state said they are very or somewhat enthusiastic about Newsom running for president, compared with 54% who expressed similar feelings about Harris.
The poll took place during a tumultuous period as Trump’s far-right policies begin to hit their stride.
Drastic cuts to healthcare, nutrition, reproductive rights and other federal safety-net programs are expected to disproportionately affect Californians. The Trump administration‘s aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles and across the state and country have caused the nation’s partisan divide to widen, driven by the president’s decision to deploy the military and target all undocumented immigrants, including law-abiding workers. Higher-education institutions across the nation have been targeted by the Trump administration, including UCLA, which is being threatened with a $1-billion fine.
Californians were surveyed shortly before Democratic state lawmakers, trying to fight the Trump administration’s agenda, voted Thursday to call a special election in November to redraw the state’s congressional districts. The action was taken to counter gerrymandering efforts in Texas and other GOP-led states as both parties fight for control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.
The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 4,950 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Aug. 11 to 17. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
With the power units being made simpler next year, will they generate more noise than presently (I accept they will never sound like they did up until 2013)? I consider it an embarrassment for the sport that the F3 cars (and Porsche Cup cars) that also race on the F1 weekends are louder than the main event – Raffi
The impression might be that the new engines being introduced next year should be louder because they will no longer have an MGU-H – the device that recovers energy from the turbo.
But I am told that while they might be a little louder than currently, they won’t be that different, because they still have turbos, which is the overriding impact on the sound.
As you may have read, there is a push from governing body the FIA at the moment to return F1 to older-style naturally aspirated engines, and that’s partly because of the noise.
Initially, this seems to have come from a whim of FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, with influence from Bernie Ecclestone and Christian Horner, rather than a reasoned opinion based on thorough research of the desires of the audience.
However, it does chime with concerns that exist about how F1 will look next year because of the energy-recovery demands of the new engines, which have close to 50% of their total power output coming from the electrical part of the engine.
From what I’m told about fan surveys done by F1, there is no widespread agreement on whether louder engines would be a positive.
Some – like Raffi – obviously think they would be.
But the F1 fanbase has changed a lot in recent years, and inside the sport there is concern that newer members of the audience – more women and children now come to races, for example – would not welcome engines that made so much noise as to be virtually deafening, that made ear defenders an absolute necessity, that stopped people having a comfortable conversation when the race was on, etc. Likewise the guests in the corporate boxes.
Equally, city races such as Miami and Las Vegas would be threatened if the cars suddenly became much noisier than was promised to residents when discussions about the races took place.
It would highly likely revive the complaints that used to take place in Melbourne about this, too.
The world has moved on in many different ways since the first decade of this century, and it’s far from clear that effectively turning the clock back 20 or 30 years would be a good idea, even if it was with the addition of a token hybrid element to the engines and sustainable fuel.
Talks are ongoing on the future direction of engines from 2030 or so onwards, but they are a long way from reaching a conclusion.
There is a sense that V8s might return – many manufacturers in F1 still make V8s for road cars. But most say a hybrid element is non-negotiable, and some – such as Audi – are currently insisting on a turbo, too. A conclusion is a long way away.
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the only remaining bilateral arms control agreement between the United States (US) and Russia, is set to expire on February 5, 2026. The New START, which accounted for 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, was signed in 2010 and entered into force in 2011. The treaty was originally set for 10 years with a further one-time expansion for five years, and this extension option was already availed in 2021. However, after the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the New START was deferred, and to date, its status has remained unchanged. As the treaty is approaching its end, and war in Ukraine continues, the questions about the future of arms control between the two states are arising, and security experts worldwide fear a new arms race between the Cold War rivals. The following article analyzes the evolving dynamic of arms control between the US and Russia amid the Ukraine war, and examines how, if timely measures are not taken, a renewed arms race may be imminent.
In 2022, after the outbreak of the Ukraine war, Russia suspended its participation in the New START treaty due to US military support to Kyiv. Russia accused the US of violating the treaty by attempting to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Later on, Moscow also accused Washington of violating the treaty provisions by removing over “100 units of the US strategic offensive arm” from accountability without any verification. In addition, Russia asserted that the US wanted to inspect Russian facilities while restricting Moscow from carrying out verifications on American territory, as promised in the treaty. However, despite the suspension of the treaty, both parties promised that they would adhere to the limits set by the treaty. Whereas the Bilateral Consultative Committee (BCC), established jointly under the treaty, remains inactive. Resultantly, US-Russia relations have reached a low point in arms control measures.
After President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office for his second tenure, there were hopes of a thaw between Moscow and Washington, especially after the beginning of ceasefire negotiations over Ukraine. Both sides officially signaled a willingness to engage positively on arms control. In February 2025, President Donald Trump said that he wanted to restart arms control discussions with Russia. Simultaneously, American Democratic lawmakers urged the Security of State, Marco Rubio, to renew the New START treaty with Russia. Further, in January 2025, Moscow Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia wants to resume arms control talks with the US, which is in the world’s interest. And even most recently, when President Trump was asked about the future of US-Russia arms control, he said that he would like to see arms control between the two states. However, as Russia-Ukraine ceasefire negotiations have failed to produce any positive outcomes, there seems to be less interest from the parties regarding arms control talks. For instance, Sergei Ryabkov, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, recently told Russian news agency TASS that there are no grounds for a full-scale resumption of New START in the current circumstances. Thus, given the current evolving geopolitical dynamics, a thaw aimed at the ongoing Ukraine war is highly unlikely.
At one point, there was no mechanism between the US and Russia to decide the future of arms control; on the other hand, there are some developments that might provoke a new arms race. According to a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) 2025 report, both the US and Russia are attempting to upgrade their strategic forces and their delivery means. The US has been investing in the modernization of its nuclear forces on air, land and sea. In 2023, the US Department of Defence procured more than 200 modernized nuclear weapons from National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Furthermore, US President Trump has announced the Golden Dome missile defence project intended to counteract the aerial threats, particularly from Russia and China. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov has called the “Golden Dome” extremely destabilizing, which can act as an impediment in arms control talks.
In parallel, Russia has also been actively upgrading its nuclear forces to enhance its national security. President Vladimir Putin, in 2018, had unveiled the Avangard program, consisting of nuclear armed hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) which are nearly impossible to intercept. In response, the US also started developing its long range hypersonic missile, Dark Eagle, to be fielded by the end of fiscal year 2025. Besides this, Russia also announced the development of unmanned, nuclear armed torpedo Poseidon capable of targeting at a longer range of 10,000 km, and an invincible nuclear-powered, nuclear armed intercontinental cruise missile Burevestnikhaving an unlimited range. Furthermore, Moscow revised its nuclear doctrine in 2024, further lowering the nuclear threshold, and reaffirmed its right to use nuclear weapons in response to any nuclear or conventional attack that jeopardizes the sovereignty of Russia or its allies.
Moreover, the geopolitical developments such as France extending the nuclear umbrella to Europe, the US deployment of the Aegis missile defense system in Poland, have raised concerns in Russia. On the other hand, Moscow has stationed its tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) on Belarus soil as part of its security. In addition, President Putin has announced plans to deploy Oreshnik, an intermediate-range hypersonic missile capable of carrying conventional as well as nuclear warheads in Belarus, which can reach the entirety of Europe. Similarly, most recently, Russia announced its intention to abandon the unilateral moratorium on the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, citing the deployment of intermediate range missiles by Washington in Europe and Asia. The move came following the announcement of the repositioning of nuclear submarines by President Trump as part of pressuring President Putin to put an end to war in Ukraine. These developments paint a bleak picture of the future of arms control between US and Russia as they not only breed mistrust but also incentivize the states to expand their arsenals in the absence of any verification, leading to a potential Cold War style arms race.
Given the strained relationships between the US and Russia due to on-going Ukraine war, the absence of communication and heightened mistrust, the expiry of the New START treaty with no follow-up or legally binding obligations, could result in both states significantly increasing their nuclear arsenals, exceeding the limits set by the treaty. This arms buildup signals a rapid shift in the geopolitical dynamics, further reducing the prospects of arms control and prompting each side to adopt an aggressive posture. These developments incentivize the states to expand their arsenals in the absence of any verification, potentially leading to the resurgence of a Cold War style arms race. To achieve lasting peace, formal talks between Russia and the US must once again be initiated to settle basic incompatibilities and build a new, holistic arms control regime.
Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. Here we are, right back where we started.
Newsletter
Are you a true-blue fan?
Get our Dodgers Dugout newsletter for insights, news and much more.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
You play 131 games only to end up where you were before Game 1 began: tied with the Padres. OK, technically, the Dodgers are in first place right now because they hold the tiebreaker advantage over the Padres. But it feels like a tie.
Before we get to the main topic here, there are a couple of points worth mentioning, with all due respect to the players involved:
Unless there is an injury involved, Buddy Kennedy should not be starting any games over Alex Freeland or Miguel Rojas. Let’s look at those numbers, shall we?
And it’s not like Kennedy is Ozzie Smith with the glove out there, while Rojas makes plays like this one from last week. Freeland hasn’t played much, but he was ranked as their No. 3 prospect, so there’s little reason to play Kennedy over him.
—Michael Conforto has gotten plenty of runway now. Time for him to hit the bench and for Alex Call to play every day. There are 161 players who have at least 400 plate appearances this season. Where does Conforto rank among those players? Let’s look:
Batting average 158. Ryan McMahon, NYY, .216 159. Anthony Volpe, NYY, .208 160. Oneil Cruz, Pittsburgh, .207 161. Michael Conforto, Dodgers, .183
Not only is Conforto last, he is 24 points behind the next-worst player.
On-base% 151. Michael Conforto, Dodgers, .293 158. Teoscar Hernández, Dodgers, .277 159. Anthony Volpe, NYY, .274 160. Michael Harris II, Atlanta, .273 161. Adolis Garcia, Texas, .270
Gee, two Dodgers in the bottom 10. Perhaps Hernández didn’t want Conforto to feel so bad.
Slugging % 158. Joey Ortiz, Milwaukee, .328 159. Ke’Bryan Hayes, Cincinnati, .317 160. Michael Conforto, Dodgers, .314 161. Victor Scott II, St. Louis, .312
WAR (which also factors in defense) 158. Agustín Ramírez, Miami, -0.2 159. Eric Wagaman, Miami, -0.6 160. Michael Conforto, Dodgers, -0.9 161. Nick Castellanos, Philadelphia, -1.1
So, please, he might be the nicest guy in the history of the universe and I know he’s getting paid $17 million, but it’s not like you have to pay him more if you don’t play him. Until Tommy Edman and Kiké Hernández get back, let’s send Call out. I don’t care what hand the pitcher throws with.
With the two teams tied with 31 games remaining, let’s do a few more comparisons:
Longest winning streak Dodgers, 8 Padres, 7
Longest losing streak Dodgers, 7 Padres, 6
Most runs scored Dodgers, 19 Padres, 21
Most runs allowed Dodgers, 18 Padres, 14
Times shut out Dodgers, 6 Padres, 8
Times opponent was shut out Dodgers, 6 Padres, 15
Comeback wins Dodgers, 40 Padres, 33
Walkoff wins Dodgers, 8 Padres, 6
Walkoff losses Dodgers, 7 Padres, 6
Run differential Dodgers, +94 Padres, +57
Home Dodgers, 41-24, .631 Padres, 43-22, .662
Road Dodgers, 33-33, .500 Padres, 31-35, .470
Before the All-Star break Dodgers, 58-39, .598 Padres, 52-44, .542
After the All-Star break Dodgers, 16-18, .471 Padres, 22-13, .629
Extra-inning games Dodgers, 7-5, .583 Padres, 6-4, .600
One-run games Dodgers, 21-20, .512 Padres, 26-19, .578
Games decided by 5+ runs Dodgers, 21-9, .700 Padres, 18-14, .563
vs. NL West Dodgers, 25-11, .694 Padres, 24-18, .571
So what’s going to happen? No idea. Will the Dodgers’ offense remain erratic? Will the bullpen improve? Will the Padres get even better (because they have holes too)? I don’t what’s going to happen over the next 31 games. No one does. So don’t give in to pessimism or false hope. Enjoy each game as it happens. Get frustrated at times, sure. But these next 31 games will be exciting. A division race that comes down to the wire. It doesn’t get any better than that.
An interesting race
The race for the NL batting title is going to be interesting to follow. Here are the leaders after Sunday’s games:
Freddie Freeman, .302 Trea Turner, Philadelphia, .300 Sal Frelick, Milwaukee, .298 Will Smith, .297 Manny Machado, San Diego, .292 Xavier Edwards, Miami, .291 Nico Hoerner, Chicago, .291
Smith was leading the NL for quite a while this season, but the rigors of playing catcher have caught up to him, as he is hitting just .158 in August (9 for 57). That’s not meant as a criticism. Playing catcher is taxing, especially in the heat, and we’ve had a lot of warm nights in Los Angeles this month. The hope was that by releasing Austin Barnes and bringing up Dalton Rushing, the Dodgers could give Smith more days off, which they have, but it hasn’t helped.
In major league history, a catcher has won the batting title only seven times (Bubbles Hargrave in 1926, Ernie Lombardi in 1938 and 1942, Buster Posey in 2012 and Joe Mauer in 2006, 2008 and 2009.) All the foul balls you take off your body also take a tremendous toll.
Will Freeman hold on to win? Will Turner win another batting title? Tune in next week to find the answers, same Bat-time, same Bat-… wait wrong show.
And isn’t it amazing that only two players who qualify for the title are hitting .300?
Lou Johnson homers in Game 7 of the 1965 World Series to give the Dodgers the lead. Watch and listen here.
Until next time…
Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at [email protected]. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
SACRAMENTO — There are “Wizard of Oz” echoes in the retaliatory redistricting fight being waged by California Democrats against President Trump and Texas Republicans.
That’s mainly because of the script being followed by Republican opponents. But Democrats seem to be parroting some Oz lines, too.
That was evident last week during several tense debates by California lawmakers on legislation setting a special state election for Nov. 4 to counteract Texas’ attempts to flip five congressional seats from Democrats to Republicans.
California’s Legislature, after much emotional rhetoric, easily passed the Democrats’ proposed constitutional amendment and supporting legislation on party-line, supermajority votes. The bills were immediately signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, their instigator and chief promoter. They’ll be Proposition 50 on the November ballot.
All the while, script lines from “The Wizard of Oz” movie classic kept ringing in my ears.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” the Wizard implores Dorothy and her pals after her little dog, Toto, pulls back the curtain to reveal him as a fraud.
In Sacramento, it’s as if Republicans — and progressive do-gooders — are being admonished to pay no attention to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has committed the same sins of partisan redistricting that they’re attacking Newsom for. The Texan isn’t even mentioned by California assailants of Newsom’s gerrymandering. It smacks of hypocrisy.
Abbott doesn’t have to, of course. In Texas, it’s perfectly legal for the legislature to rig congressional districts for partisan advantage. In California, voters banned gerrymandering of congressional districts in 2010 and turned over their drawing to the bipartisan citizens commission. Newsom needs voter permission to suspend that law.
Nationally, Democrats need to gain only a handful of seats to capture control of the House and end the GOP’s one-party rule of Washington. Trump fears that likelihood. So he pressured Abbott into engineering a legislative gerrymandering of Texas’ House districts in mid-decade, rather than wait for the normal redrawing after the 2030 census. And he’s browbeating other red state governors to likewise rig their congressional lines.
“California will not be a bystander to Trump’s power grab,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Salinas) said as Newsom signed the legislation. “We will not stand by while the House is hijacked by authoritarianism.”
But back to the Emerald City.
The Wizard introduces himself to Dorothy by bellowing behind the curtain: “I am Oz, the great and powerful.” Later, he breaks his word to the girl, she sees through his bullying and stands up to him, scolding: “If you were really great and powerful, you’d keep your promises.”
Trump is a great big bully whose word can’t be taken at face value because he consistently changes his mind to fit the moment. He’s clearly anti-California, holding back federal funds, assessing fines and reducing environmental protections. Newsom and Democratic leaders will repeatedly remind voters of that as the election approaches.
Unlike Dorothy, it’s a rare Republican elected official who has the courage to stand up to this power-obsessed bully. But one surprisingly surfaced during the Assembly redistricting debate.
Referring to Trump’s urging Abbott and other GOP governors to gerrymander districts, Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City asserted: “He is wrong to do so.” And he added for emphasis: “Let me repeat. He is wrong…. Where does it end?”
Later, Gallagher reiterated, “My president is wrong on this point. What I don’t hear from the other side is, ‘My governor is wrong.’ ”
Gallagher and several Republicans insist — as Newsom and Democrats do — that gerrymandering should be outlawed in every state and district lines drawn by citizens’ commissions rather than self-interested legislators. But that won’t happen in the foreseeable future.
Gallagher also contended that Democrats are hyping Trump’s threat to democracy. He said they’re arguing that “in order to save democracy, we must undermine it” by committing sleazy gerrymandering.
He has a point about the Democrats’ excessive warning of democracy’s peril under Trump.
“Californians won’t stand by while Donald Trump destroys democracy,” Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) declared during an oft-uncivil hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. “If we let Trump get away with this rigging of elections, then we may not have free and fair elections in the future.”
That seems a stretch.
This and other hyperbole by several legislators of both parties reminded me of frightened Dorothy, Tin Man and Scarecrow chanting in the dark forest: “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!”
I suspect the best pitch for Proposition 50 in this heavily Democratic state is a straight-forward anti-Trump message focused on his inhuman policies and the urgent need to restore checks and balances in Washington.
“We are going to punch this bully in the mouth,” Newsom vowed during a press conference hosted by the Democratic National Committee.
OK, but the governor should cool the Trump-like rhetoric. It probably wouldn’t impress Dorothy or — more important — her Uncle Henry and Aunt Em.
Tayce has claimed that as ‘negative focus on trans people’ cost her a place on Strictly Come Dancing even though she won the Christmas special last year
11:09, 25 Aug 2025Updated 11:10, 25 Aug 2025
Drag Race star Tayce won last year’s Christmas special of Strictly alongside Kai Widdrington but was not part of this year’s line-up(Image: PA)
Tayce has claimed that a ‘negative focus on trans people’ cost her a place on Strictly Come Dancing. The drag queen, whose real name is Tayce Szura-Radix, found fame when she finished as runner-up on the second series RuPaul’s Drag Race and then won the Christmas edition of the BBC competition last year in a history-making move for the show, but failed to secure a place on the main line-up.
The TV star initially sparked rumours that she had been snubbed when she claimed in a viral social media post that she was ‘too much’ for the main programme as stars like Geordie Shore legend Vicky Pattison, Stefan Dennis of Neighbours fame and fellow drag queen La Voix were revealed as some of the contestants taking part for this year’s full series.
She would have jumped at the chance to take part in the programme, but Tayce, who is not trans, believes that the fact that she looks ‘more like Naomi Campbell‘ than a typical drag queen, some of the audience wouldn’t be prepared to accept her on the mainstream show.
Speaking on behalf of WhichBingo, Tayce told The Mirror: “I had the most amazing time. It was such an honour and a privilege to be the first drag queen on that show. I mean, I’ve obviously was only for the Christmas special, the whole main series. I would have loved to have been in the main series, but that didn’t happen for me for some reason. I don’t know why.
“Because I guess I look the way that I do, where we’re in a climate right now where there’s so much of an attack and a light and a negative focus on trans people.
“I mean, I myself, I’m obviously not trans, but I don’t look like your standard hokey pokey, artichokey kind of drag queen, where I think people only feel comfortable when they’re in on the joke and they feel like, oh, it’s a man in a wig. And I mean I don’t look like a man in a wig, I look like Naomi Campbell. And some people can’t handle the beauty and the essence. And I think that’s kind of more of a thing on them.”
The former Celebrity Gogglebox star then clarified that she would perhaps be ‘too much for the public’ if she were to hit the dancefloor for what could potentially be nearly three months, and insisted that she would still love to take part at some point in the future but had expected the call to come this year.
She said: “I would have loved to have done the main season. But when I said, in regards to what I said about being too much, it really meant about me being like, maybe I’m too much for the public.
“It didn’t mean I was too much the show or for the people who booked me. I think I’m maybe just too much of a people to handle me at home because I really had my fair share of backlash.
Tayce made history as the first drag star to take part in the programme when it aired its annual Christmas special last year(Image: BBC/Guy Levy)
“Throughout my whole time on the Christmas season on all sorts of social media and I read things but it’s something that doesn’t affect me but I know there would be someone that could have been in my position that really wouldn’t have been able to handle that kind of pressure or that kind of attack so maybe like when I say I was too much maybe I’m just too much for a whole season of my iconicness and if people can’t handle that that’s okay.”
“ I’m such a fan of the show and I know I would kill it. Double Dutch. So, yeah, I mean, if it is what it is. I mean at the end of the day, I would have loved to. I was honestly really expecting to be called back, especially because there’s been kind of a trend, if you will, of winners coming back from the Christmas season.
“So I kind of sat there thinking, yep, I’m going to get that call, it’s going to happen. So it humbled me a bit than I did at the call, but you know what, maybe I was just, yeah too much for the public at home.”
Motorists are flocking to Amazon to get their hands on a smart bit of car kit that’s seen a dramatic tumble in price.
The gadget is the second-generation Echo Auto, and it’s been picking up some proper rave reviews from blokes and lasses who have snapped it up.
1
The Echo Auto will introduce hands-free Alexa control to your car
Amazon Echo Auto (2nd gen), £19.99 (was £59.99)
Originally fetching a hefty £59.99, the nifty Echo Auto is currently on sale for just £19.99 on Amazon.
That’s a cracking deal and a perfect time for anyone looking to introduce some smart tech into their motor – and crucially, without splashing out a fortune.
This little gizmo is designed to be your co-pilot, letting you command Alexa while you’re busy at the wheel.
Hands-free control: You can talk to Alexa to play music, make calls, or set reminders without ever touching your phone.
Navigation: Get directions from apps like Google Maps just by asking Alexa where you want to go.
Play music: Listen to your favourite songs and podcasts from services like Spotify or Amazon Music.
Smart home control: You can ask Alexa to turn on your house lights or adjust the heat while you are driving home.
Hear your voice: It has special microphones that can hear you clearly over car noise, like the radio or air conditioner.
The 2nd-gen Echo Auto is a small and discreet piece of kit that slots right into your car.
It hooks up to your phone and your car’s speakers to bring a whole new level of voice control to your ride.
Getting it all set up is a doddle too. You just plug it into a spare USB slot, link it to your phone’s Alexa app, and you’re sorted.
This brilliant bit of kit has an average rating of 4.4 out of 5 stars on Amazon, with thousands of happy drivers raving about how it’s transformed their motors.
One buzzing punter, who slapped a 5-star rating on it, wrote: “Highly recommend this. Works in my 23-year-old Nissan Micra.
“Voice activated, can listen to a music playlist or podcasts, can make hands-free calls, listen to LBC, etc. Works brilliantly.”
Another shopper commented: “Works seamlessly… very useful as just a Bluetooth pass through to car speakers.”
Another chuffed buyer said: “Great piece of tech, [I] love Alexa at home.
“Now she comes on the road with us and, unlike my phone, she hears very well and plays whatever I want. Terrific.”
A proper ringing endorsement came from a verified customer who simply put: “This is an amazing piece of kit, highly recommend.”
Whether you want to listen to tunes, get directions, or just stay connected on the go, the Auto is a simple and cheap way to do it.
At that sale price, it’s a bit of a no-brainer.
Amazon Echo Auto (2nd gen), £19.99 (was £59.99)
For more savings on other smart gadgets, head to our Amazon device deals round-up.
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday promised to quickly sign off on a new, Republican-leaning congressional voting map gerrymandered to help the GOP maintain its slim majority in Congress.
“One Big Beautiful Map has passed the Senate and is on its way to my desk, where it will be swiftly signed into law,” Abbott said in a statement. The bill’s name is a nod to President Trump’s signature tax and spending bill, as Trump urged Abbott to redraw the congressional districts to favor Republicans.
Texas lawmakers approved the final plans just hours before, inflaming an already tense battle unfolding among states as governors from both parties pledge to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.
In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has approved a special election in November for voters to decide whether to adopt a redrawn congressional map designed to help Democrats win five more House seats next year.
Meanwhile, Trump has pushed other Republican-controlled states, including Indiana and Missouri, to also revise their maps to add more winnable GOP seats. Ohio Republicans were also already scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan.
In Texas, the map includes five new districts that would favor Republicans.
Democrats vow to challenge it in court
The effort by Trump and Texas’ Republican-majority Legislature prompted state Democrats to hold a two-week walkout and kicked off a wave of redistricting efforts across the country.
Democrats had prepared for a final show of resistance, with plans to push the Senate vote into the early morning hours in a last-ditch attempt to delay passage. Yet Republicans blocked those efforts by citing a rule violation.
“What we have seen in this redistricting process has been maneuvers and mechanisms to shut down people’s voices,” said state Sen. Carol Alvarado, leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, on social media after the new map was finalized by the GOP-controlled Senate.
Democrats had already delayed the bill’s passage during hours of debate, pressing Republican Sen. Phil King, the measure’s sponsor, on the proposal’s legality, with many alleging that the redrawn districts violate the Voting Rights Act by diluting voters’ influence based on race.
King rejected that accusation, saying, “I had two goals in mind: That all maps would be legal and would be better for Republican congressional candidates in Texas.
“There is extreme risk the Republican majority will be lost” in the U.S. House of Representatives if the map does not pass, King said.
Battle for the House waged via redistricting
On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in the midterms.
The Texas redraw is already reshaping the 2026 race, with Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the dean of the state’s congressional delegation, announcing Thursday that he will not seek reelection to his Austin-based seat if the new map takes effect. Under the proposed map, Doggett’s district would overlap with that of another Democratic incumbent, Rep. Greg Casar.
Redistricting typically occurs once a decade, immediately after a census. Though some states have their own limitations, there is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that the Constitution does not prohibit partisan gerrymandering to increase a party’s clout, only gerrymandering that’s explicitly done by race.
Other states
More Democratic-run states have commission systems like California’s or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then only with voter approval.
Republicans and some Democrats championed a 2008 ballot measure that established California’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, along with a 2010 one that extended its role to drawing congressional maps.
Both sides have shown concern over what the redistricting war could lead to.
California Assemblyman James Gallagher, the Republican minority leader, said Trump was “wrong” to push for new Republican seats elsewhere. But he warned that Newsom’s approach, which the governor has said is an effort to “fight fire with fire,” is dangerous.
“You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens?” Gallagher asked. “You burn it all down.”
Vertuno, Cappelletti and Golden write for the Associated Press and reported from Austin, Washington and Seattle, respectively. AP writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.
