Reduction

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Wednesday from firing thousands of government workers based on the ongoing federal shutdown, granting a request from employee unions in California.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the temporary restraining order after concluding that the unions “will demonstrate ultimately that what’s being done here is both illegal and is in excess of authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”

Illston slammed the Trump administration for failing to provide her with clear information about what cuts are actually occurring, for repeatedly changing its description and estimates of job cuts in filings before the court, and for failing — including during Wednesday’s hearing in San Francisco — to articulate an argument for why such cuts are not in violation of federal law.

“The evidence suggests that the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore,” Illston said — which she said was not the case.

She said the government justified providing inaccurate figures for the number of jobs being eliminated under its “reduction in force” orders by calling it a “fluid situation” — which she did not find convincing.

“What it is is a situation where things are being done before they are being thought through. It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” she said. “And it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston also ran through a string of recent comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the firings and their intentionally targeting programs and agencies supported by Democrats, saying, “By all appearances, they’re politically motivated.”

The Trump administration has acknowledged dismissing about 4,000 workers under the orders, while Trump and other officials have signaled that more would come Friday.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Wednesday on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that the number of jobs cut could “probably end up being north of 10,000,” as the administration wants to be “very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding,” and the shutdown provided that opportunity.

Attorneys for the unions, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, said that the figures were unreliable and that they feared additional reduction in force orders resulting in more layoffs, as promised by administration officials, if the court did not step in and block such actions.

Illston, an appointee of President Clinton, did just that.

She barred the Trump administration and its various agencies “from taking any action to issue any reduction in force notices to federal employees in any program, project or activity” involving union members “during or because of the federal shutdown.”

She also barred the administration from “taking any further action to administer or implement” existing reduction notices involving union members.

Illston demanded that the administration provide within two days a full accounting of all existing or “imminent” reduction in force orders that would be blocked by her order, as well as the specific number of federal jobs affected.

Elizabeth Hedges, an attorney for the Trump administration, had argued during the hearing that the order should not be granted for several procedural reasons — including that the alleged harm to federal employees from loss of employment or benefits was not “irreparable” and could be addressed through other avenues, including civil litigation.

Additionally, she argued that federal employment claims should be adjudicated administratively, not in district court; and that the reduction in force orders included 60-day notice periods, meaning the layoffs were not immediate and therefore the challenge to them was not yet “ripe” legally.

However, Hedges would not discuss the case on its actual merits — which is to say, whether the cuts were actually legal or not, which did not seem to sit well with Illston.

“You don’t have a position on whether it’s OK that they do what they’re doing?” Illston asked.

“I am not prepared to discuss that today, your honor,” Hedges said.

“Well — but it’s happening. This hatchet is falling on the heads of employees all across the nation, and you’re not even prepared to address whether that’s legal, even though that’s what this motion challenges?” Illston said.

“That’s right,” Hedges said — stressing again that there were “threshold” arguments for why the case shouldn’t even be allowed to continue to the merits stage.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the unions, suggested the government’s positions were indefensible and directly in conflict with public statements by the administration — including remarks by Trump on Tuesday that more cuts are coming Friday.

“How do we know this? Because OMB and the president relentlessly are telling us, and other members of the administration,” Leonard said.

Leonard said the harm from the administration’s actions is obvious and laid out in the union’s filings — showing how employees have at times been left in the dark as to their employment status because they don’t have access to work communication channels during the shutdown, or how others have been called in to “work without pay to fire their fellow employees” — only to then be fired themselves.

“There are multiple types of harm that are caused exactly right now — emotional trauma. That’s not my word, your honor, that is the word of OMB Director Vought. Let’s cause ‘trauma’ to the federal workforce,” Leonard said. “And that’s exactly what they are doing. Trauma. The emotional distress of being told you are being fired after an already exceptionally difficult year for federal employees.”

Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which is co-counsel for the unions, praised Illston’s decision in a statement after the hearing.

“The statements today by the court make clear that the President’s targeting of federal workers — a move straight out of Project 2025’s playbook — is unlawful,” Perryman said. “Our civil servants do the work of the people, and playing games with their livelihoods is cruel and unlawful and a threat to everyone in our nation.”

Illston asked the two parties to confer on the best date, probably later this month, for a fuller hearing on whether she should issue a more lasting preliminary injunction in the case.

“It would be wonderful to know what the government’s position is on the merits of this case — and my breath is bated until we find that,” Illston said.

After the hearing, during a White House news conference, Trump said his administration was paying federal employees whom “we want paid” while Vought uses the shutdown to dismiss employees perceived as supporting Democratic initiatives.

“Russell Vought is really terminating tremendous numbers of Democrat projects — not only jobs,” Trump said.

“This level of gambling advertising during the Premier League’s first weekend is frankly astonishing,” said Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, chair of the Gambling Reform All Party Parliamentary Group.

“The industry claimed it was taking steps to self-regulate and reduce advertising, but yet again they have not kept to their word. The whistle-to-whistle ban is far too limited and is ineffective.”

Overall, there were 27,440 gambling messages measured across the entire opening weekend, a slight decrease from last year but still more than triple the tally from 2023.

The total is found by adding together every individual instance of gambling messaging from live match coverage, plus output on TalkSport, Sky Sports News and some social media channels.

There have been growing calls for a ban on gambling advertising, akin to the 2002 ban on tobacco promotion, and in 2023 the Gambling Commission recommended the government should limit the amount and frequency of gambling ads promoted within elite sports venues.

Lord Foster of Bath, chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, said: “The government must simply step in to reduce people’s and particularly children’s exposure to gambling advertising that we know can lead to harm. The government has all the powers it needs to protect people and it must do so now.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport told the BBC: “The government recognises that more work needs to be done to ensure that gambling advertising is appropriate, responsible, and does not exacerbate harm.

“We are consulting a wide range of evidence to inform our next steps in this space and working with industry to further raise standards.”

The Premier League did not provide a comment.

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily halted a Trump administration plan to reduce disaster relief and anti-terrorism funding for states with so-called sanctuary policies for undocumented immigrants.

U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy granted the temporary restraining order curtailing the cuts at the request of California, 10 other states and the District of Columbia, which argued in a lawsuit Monday that the policy appeared to have illegally cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

The states said they were first notified of the cuts over the weekend. McElroy made her decision during an emergency hearing on the states’ motion in Rhode Island District Court on Tuesday afternoon.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta cheered the decision as the state’s latest win in pushing back against what he described as a series of unlawful, funding-related power grabs by the Trump administration.

“Over and over, the courts have stopped the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to tie unrelated grant funding to state policies,” Bonta said. “It’s a little thing called state sovereignty, but given the President’s propensity to violate the Constitution, it’s unsurprising that he’s unfamiliar with it.”

Neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the funding and notified the states of the cuts, immediately responded to a request for comment Tuesday.

Sanctuary policies are not uniform and the term is imprecise, but it generally refers to policies that bar states and localities — and their local law enforcement agencies — from participating in federal immigration raids or other enforcement initiatives.

The Trump administration and other Republicans have cast such policies as undermining law and order. Democrats and progressives including in California say instead that states and cities have finite public safety resources and that engaging in immigration enforcement serves only to undermine the trust they and their law enforcement agencies need to maintain with the public in order to prevent and solve crime, including in large immigrant communities.

In their lawsuit Monday, the states said the funding being reduced was part of billions in federal dollars annually distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and which administrations of both political parties distributed “evenhandedly” for decades before Trump.

Authorized by Congress after events such as Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina, the funding covers the salaries of first responders, testing of state computer networks for cyberattack vulnerabilities, mutual aid compacts between regional partners and emergency responses after disasters, the states said.

Bonta’s office said California was informed over the weekend by Homeland Security officials that it would be receiving $110 million instead of $165 million, a reduction of its budget by about a third. The states’ lawsuit said other blue states saw even more dramatic cuts, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, while red states saw substantial funding increases.

Bonta on Tuesday said the administration’s reshuffling of funds based on state compliance with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement priorities was illegal and needed to be halted — and restored to previous levels based on risk assessment — in order to keep everyone in the country safe.

“California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters — meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death,” he said. “This is not something to play politics with. I’m grateful to the court for seeing the urgency of this dangerous diversion of homeland security funding.”

Homeland Security officials have previously argued that the agency should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining its core mission of defending the nation from threats, including the threat it sees from illegal immigration.

Other judges have also ruled against the administration conditioning disaster and public safety funding on states and localities complying with federal immigration policies.

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON — The White House is telling agencies to prepare large-scale firings of federal workers if the government shuts down next week.

In a memo released Wednesday night, the Office of Management and Budget said agencies should consider a reduction in force for federal programs whose funding would lapse next week, are not otherwise funded and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” That would be a much more aggressive step than in previous shutdowns, when federal workers not deemed essential were furloughed but returned to their jobs once Congress approved government spending.

A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but eliminate their positions, which would trigger yet another massive upheaval in a federal workforce that has already faced major rounds of cuts this year due to efforts from the White House’s cost-cutting team the Department of Government Efficiency, and elsewhere in the Trump administration.

Once any potential government shutdown ends, agencies are asked to revise their reduction in force plans “as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions,” according to the memo, which was first reported by Politico.

This move from OMB significantly increases the consequences of a potential government shutdown next week and escalates pressure on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The two leaders have kept nearly all of their Democratic lawmakers united against a clean funding bill pushed by President Trump and congressional Republicans that would keep the federal government operating for seven more weeks, demanding immediate improvements to healthcare in exchange for their votes.

In statements issued shortly after the memo was released, the two Democrats showed no signs of budging.

“We will not be intimidated by your threat to engage in mass firings,” Jeffries wrote in a post on X. “Get lost.”

Jeffries called Russ Vought, the head of OMB, a “malignant political hack.”

Schumer said in a statement that the OMB memo is an “attempt at intimidation” and predicted the “unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back.”

OMB noted that it held its first planning call with other federal agencies earlier this week to plan for a shutdown. The budget office plays point in managing federal government shutdowns, particularly planning for them ahead of time. Past budget offices have also posted shutdown contingency plans — which would outline which agency workers would stay on the job during a government shutdown and which would be furloughed — on its website, but this one has not.

The memo noted that congressional Democrats are refusing to support a clean government funding bill “due to their partisan demands,” which include an extension of enhanced health insurance subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, plus a reversal of Medicaid cuts that were included in Republicans’ big tax and spending cuts law.

“As such, it has never been more important for the Administration to be prepared for a shutdown if the Democrats choose to pursue one,” the memo reads, which also notes that the GOP’s signature law, a major tax and border spending package, gives “ample resources to ensure that many core Trump administration priorities will continue uninterrupted.”

OMB noted that it had asked all agencies to submit their plans in case of a government shutdown by Aug. 1.

“OMB has received many, but not all, of your submissions,” it added. “Please send us your updated lapse plans ASAP.”

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

IMOGEN Thomas has given fans a health update as she returned to social media with her first snap since undergoing breast reduction surgery.

The former Big Brother star, 42, posted a fresh-faced selfie as she gave her followers a glimpse of her surgery day.

6

6

She thanked fans for their support as she adjusts to life after surgery.

Imogen shared snaps taken before the op – posing in her gown while consulting with her surgeon and getting marked up.

She later posted a hospital bed selfie post-surgery, bandaged up but smiling, giving the camera a thumbs up.

She wrote on Instagram: “It’s been 5 days since I’ve had my surgery and this in journey has been incredible.

“Do you wanna see how my breasts look on day 7? So u can see step by step what is expected.

“I’m blown away by all your messages and your investment in this as so many of you want to get it done and I’m so happy my journey is helping you x”.

Imogen revealed she was getting a boob job as she said: “Hi everyone, so I just wanted to pop on and tell you a bit of news in my life.

“I am going to Istanbul on Monday for breast augmentation. I cannot wait, my boobs right now are really big for me.

“I’ve lost quite a bit of weight and I just can’t have this anymore.

“So I found the best surgeon in Istanbul.”

She continued: “I had a great video consultation with him and I’m flying out. I’m getting them done.

“I’m going smaller and I’m getting an uplift and I cannot wait to show you guys the results in my dresses, in my workout wear. I cannot wait to feel body confident again.

“Like the excitement is literally unreal. I can’t believe I found the time to go for a start, which is great.”

Imogen ended by saying: “So yeah, cannot wait to show you guys. It’s something that I’m super excited about and yeah, you’re going to see a lot in the next few days.”

Big Brother winners from over the years

Since launching in 2000, reality TV juggernaut Big Brother has crowned several champions over the years. Let’s take a look back at some of them.

The former glamour model remained in the spotlight ever since her stint in the famous house and even had an affair with a VERY famous footballer.

The former Miss Wales lasted 86 days in the Big Brother house, becoming good pals with the late Nikki Grahame and fellow Welshman Glyn Wise, who finished runner-up behind Pete Bennett.

As soon as she was evicted she was commanding five-figure sums for racy lads’ mag shoots — and was named Wales’s Sexiest Woman.

Since then, she has been known for her sexy photo shoots over the years.

She was also seen at the swankiest showbiz parties and dated high-profile footballers, including a heavily publicised affair with married Wales and Man Utd star Ryan Giggs, who placed a gagging order on her.

Once news of the relationship broke, she publicly apologised for the affair.

At the time, she said: “I called it off a million times but he kept coming back.

“He knew it was wrong as well, he said as much, but he was pursuing me.”

Imogen now boasts a property empire worth £10million.

The mum-of-two insisted that fame “doesn’t last forever” and urged new reality stars to “take every opportunity” that comes their way.

“What you get offered take because beggars can’t be choosers at the end of the day,” Imogen said.

“When I was on the show, there were so many magazines that I could be modelling for and I was for like 10 years straight. I had so many contracts with them.”

She continued to the Metro: “Yes, you’ve got social media and I work on that now and I’m making thousands a post but brands are a little bit more cautious now and they don’t want to be paying the money anymore.

“So for me, I would just say take whatever you can get and make good of the situation because it does dry out.”

She also told The Sun: “I came off the show and I just started working from day one. It was amazing, I made a lot of money.

“It was just all a bit surreal because I went in as a hostess and came out just making all this money and being wanted by everyone.

“It was pretty crazy to get your head around. But I loved it.

“I was in there for three months, no contact with the outside world, then all of a sudden everyone knows you, and you’ve got to get used to the fame.”

6

6

6

6

MASERU, Lesotho — The southern African nation of Lesotho has had its U.S. export tariff reduced from a threatened 50% to 15%, but its crucial textile industry still faces massive factory closures, officials said Friday.

Despite a reduction announced by President Trump, the country’s textile sector says it remains at a competitive disadvantage and faces ongoing factory closures and job losses.

In April, the Trump administration announced a 50% tariff on imports from Lesotho, the highest among all countries.

The tariffs were paused across the board, but the anticipated increase wreaked havoc across the country’s textile industry, which is its biggest private-sector employer with more than 30,000 workers.

About 12,000 of them work for garment factories exporting to the U.S. market, supplying American retailers such as Levi’s and Wrangler.

The Associated Press reported this week that clothing manufacturer Tzicc has seen business dry up ahead of the expected tariff increase, sending home most of its 1,300 workers who have made and exported sportswear to American stores, including JCPenney, Walmart and Costco.

David Chen, chairperson of the Lesotho Textile Exporters, has warned that the U.S. government’s move to reduce the tariffs offers little relief for the struggling industry as their competitors have lesser tariffs.

“Other countries which we are competing against are already being charged 10%, which makes it difficult for us to compete on an equal footing,” said Chen, singling out the East African country of Kenya as its strongest competitor with a more favorable 10% tariff.

“As a result, many factories will have to shut down,” Chen said. “They had already been forced to lay off workers when the tariffs were first announced in April.”

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, in 2024, U.S.-Lesotho bilateral trade stood at $240.1 million. Apart from clothing, Lesotho’s exports also include diamonds and other goods.

Lesotho is classified as a lower-middle-income country by the World Bank, and nearly half of its 2.3 million population live below the poverty line, while a quarter are unemployed.

Lesotho’s minister of Trade, Industry and Business Development, Mokhethi Shelile, said that while several meetings with U.S. trade representatives led to a reduced tariff, more needed to be done to lower it further.

“We remain committed to pushing for a further reduction to the minimum tariff level of 10%, which is essential for our textile sector to compete effectively in the U.S. market,” he said. “I have already communicated with the U.S. Embassy regarding continued negotiations.”

Lesotho’s neighbor and trading partner, South Africa, is also reeling after Trump announced a reciprocal 30% tariff for the country, which is expected to significantly affect its agriculture and manufacturing sectors, among others.

Phakela writes for the Associated Press.

Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?

Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that’s before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare’s impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it’s infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder.

The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill’s reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden.

Maybe we wouldn’t keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we’re willing to pay for.

Otherwise, it’s too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That’s because all the benefits and subsidies that we’re unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That’s morally and economically reprehensible.

Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities.

First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we’re this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won’t be enough.

Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive.

Here’s something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between.

This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don’t simply continue what they’ve been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies.

Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It’s why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor.

If the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections.

Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some.

It’s long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be “paid for.” Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.

I suspect that most people aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare.

Until we align Congress’ promises with what we’re willing and able to fund, we’ll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

WASHINGTON — Two-term Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said Sunday that he will not seek reelection next year, an abrupt announcement that came one day after he staked out his opposition to President Trump’s tax and spending package because of its reductions to healthcare programs.

His decision creates a political opportunity for Democrats seeking to bolster their numbers in the 2026 midterm elections, creating a wide-open Senate race in a state that has long been a contested battleground. It could also make Tillis a wild card in a party where few lawmakers are willing to risk Trump’s retribution by opposing his agenda or actions. Trump had already been threatening him with a primary challenge.

“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” Tillis said in a lengthy statement Sunday.

Tillis, who would have been up for a third term in 2026, said he was proud of his career in public service but acknowledged the difficult political environment for those who buck their party and go it alone.

“I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit and representing the great people of North Carolina to the best of my ability,” Tillis said in a statement.

Republicans hold a 53-47 edge in the Senate.

Trump, in social media posts, had berated Tillis for being one of two Republican senators who voted Saturday night against advancing the massive bill.

The Republican president accused Tillis of seeking publicity with his “no” vote and threatened to campaign against him next year. Trump also accused Tillis of doing nothing to help his constituents after last year’s devastating floods.

“Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER,” Trump wrote.

The North Carolina Republican Party chairman, Jason Simmons, said the party wishes Tillis well and “will hold this seat for Republicans in 2026.”

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the chairman of the campaign arm for Senate Republicans, did not mention Tillis in a statement but said the party’s winning streak in North Carolina will continue. Scott noted that Trump won the state three times.

Democrats expressed confidence about their prospects.

Former Rep. Wiley Nickel, who announced his candidacy for the Senate seat in April, said he was ready for any Republican challenger.

“I’ve flipped a tough seat before and we’re going to do it again,” Nickel said in a statement.

Some said Tillis’ decision is another sign of the dramatic transformation of the Republican Party under Trump, with few lawmakers critical of the president or his agenda remaining in office.

It “proves there is no space within the Republican Party to dissent over taking healthcare away from 11.8 million people,” said Lauren French, spokesperson for the Senate Majority PAC, a political committee aligned with the chamber’s Democratic members.

Tillis rose to prominence in North Carolina when, as a second-term state House member, he quit his IBM consultant job and led the GOP’s recruitment and fundraising efforts in the chamber for the 2010 elections. Republicans won majorities in the House and Senate for the first time in 140 years.

Tillis was later elected as state House speaker and helped enact conservative policies on taxes, gun rights, regulations and abortion while serving in the role for four years. He also helped push a state constitutional referendum to ban same-sex marriage, which was approved by voters in 2012 but was ultimately struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

In 2014, Tillis helped flip control of the U.S. Senate to the GOP after narrowly defeating Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. During his more than a decade in office, he championed issues such as mental health and substance abuse recovery, Medicaid expansion and support for veterans.

As a more moderate Republican, Tillis became known for his willingness to work across the aisle on some issues. That got him into trouble with his party at times, notably in 2023 when North Carolina Republicans voted to censure him over several matters, including his challenges to certain immigration policies and his gun policy record.

“Sometimes those bipartisan initiatives got me into trouble with my own party,” Tillis said in his statement Sunday, “but I wouldn’t have changed a single one.”

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti in Washington and Makiya Seminera in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed slashing funding by 67% for a pioneering deal with Google to support struggling California newsrooms, citing financial pressures that have promoted wider budget cuts.

California newsrooms had expected to receive $30 million from the state as part of a deal brokered last year in which Google and the state would jointly contribute money over five years to support local newsrooms through a News Transformation Fund. The state Department of Finance confirmed Wednesday that California instead will pay out $10 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

“The sole reason for the reduction is more limited/fewer resources than projected in the January budget,” Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said.

Newsom announced Wednesday that the state is facing an additional $12-billion budget shortfall next year. The revised $321.9-billion plan will also include a reduction in healthcare for low-income undocumented immigrants and a decrease in overtime hours for select government employees.

The deal was born of negotiations that began with a proposed funding bill written by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), which is known as the California Journalism Preservation Act. It would have required Google to pay into a fund annually that would have distributed millions to California news outlets based on the number of journalists they employ. The California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member, backed the larger effort.

It was designed to aid newspapers that have seen their finances collapse in recent years, leaving fewer journalists to cover institutions and communities.

The proposal was modeled after a Canadian bill that has Google paying about $74 million per year. Google fought the bill, arguing its passage would force the company to remove California news from its platform, thus restricting access for Californians.

Instead, the state and Google agreed in August to provide nearly $250 million to newsrooms over five years, starting in 2025, with funding slated for two projects.

The second initiative was a $68-million pledge for Google to fund artificial intelligence in the form of a National AI Accelerator. The AI funding element of the deal drew sharp rebukes from Democratic lawmakers and journalists.

California had pledged $30 million in 2025 and $10 million for each of the next four years. Google agreed to an initial payment of $15 million in 2025 and $55 million in total into the journalism fund. Google also agreed to boost its own journalism programs with a separate $50-million grant.