seek

SACRAMENTO — “This is one of the most obscure issues the California voter has ever been asked to decide.”

That was how Fred Main, vice president and general counsel for the California Chamber of Commerce, described Proposition 162 on the Nov. 3 ballot, a measure that would give governing boards of public employees retirement systems more authority and independence.

Obscure though the initiative may be, supporters say it is needed to protect the $70-billion Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) fund and other public employee pension funds from political “raids.”

They cite the deal that allowed Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature to use $1.9 billion in supplemental pension funds to balance the 1991-92 state budget and also to Wilson’s attempt last year to place more gubernatorial appointees on the PERS governing board.

However, opponents argue that the measure does little to prevent raids but instead makes pension fund governing boards more autonomous and less accountable to the Legislature and other elected bodies.

Proposition 162 would change the state Constitution to:

* Give the governing board of a public employee pension fund “sole and exclusive authority” over investment decisions and management of the system.

* Require governing boards to place more emphasis on providing benefits to the system’s participants and less on the costs to taxpayers. The state, using taxpayer funds, makes an annual contribution to PERS.

* Allow the PERS board to hire its own actuaries–experts who calculate the contributions needed to keep the fund sound–instead of using those named by the governor, as state law requires.

* Maintain the present composition of PERS and other public pension fund governing boards.

The measure is supported by the California State Employees Assn., the state School Employees Assn. and other public employee unions. It is opposed by the California Taxpayers Assn., the state Chamber of Commerce and the League of California Cities.

Backers of the initiative raised $1.6 million by Sept. 30, Common Cause reported, while there is no organized financial effort in opposition.

Although there are more than 100 public employee pension systems in the state, most attention is focused on PERS because of last year’s budget maneuvering.

Jeff Raimundo, communications director for Californians for Pension Protection, said giving governing boards sole authority to manage the funds would “keep it away from the Legislature, keep their hands out of the cookie jar.”

Raimundo acknowledged that future governors, Legislatures and PERS governing boards still could reach agreements similar to last year’s $1.9-billion deal but said the Legislature “won’t be able to grab these funds unilaterally. They’ll have to negotiate with the governing board whether this use of the money is in the best interests of the trust fund.”

Ron Roach of the California Taxpayers Assn. said the change would “create a lack of accountability and give public employee pension boards–which often are dominated by public employee unions–control over the amount of taxpayer contributions, which are in fact taxpayer dollars.”

Wilma Krebs, a retired economics professor and a supporter of the initiative, said restoring the PERS board’s right to name its actuaries was important because “if the governor makes the appointment, we feel that spells political control.”

The actuaries study the pension system’s assets and liabilities each year and determine what the state contribution to the fund should be.

Wilson was given the authority, subject to approval by the Legislature, to name the PERS actuaries in legislation passed last year. Wilson’s nominees were approved by the Senate but rejected by the Assembly, and the pension system has continued to use its own actuaries.

“Over time, there could be a big cost to taxpayers” if PERS names the actuaries, Roach said. “The fund is so large that a change in the estimate (of state contributions) by one-half of 1% could mean hundreds of millions of dollars.”

DALLAS — Ross Perot, outlining how he would mend the U.S. economy, proposes a combination of tax cuts and loans for small business and tougher trade policy to create more jobs at home.

“We cannot be a superpower if we cannot manufacture here,” the Texas billionaire said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. He called for the United States to make almost everything it needs at home. “We have to manufacture here,” he said.

Perot, whose undeclared presidential candidacy has surged in opinion polls, described himself as a “fair and free trader” but believes that “agreements we’ve cut with countries around the world are not balanced at all.”

He said he would adjust the “tilted deck” of trade with Japan “in a very nice, diplomatic way. In this case (make) the Japanese say: ‘We’ll take the same deal on cars we’ve given you.’ ”

The effect, he said, would be to drastically reduce imports from Japan. “You are going to see the clock stop,” said Perot. “You could never unload the ships to this country; just could never unload the ships.”

In a similar vein, he opposes a free-trade agreement with Mexico, believing it would drain manufacturing jobs from a U.S. economy that cannot afford to lose them.

Perot said he is willing to have his mind changed. “This is a complicated, multi-piece equation that we need to think through very carefully. In carpenter’s terms, measure twice, cut once,” he said.

But in Mexico, “labor is a 25- year-old with little or no health-care expense working for a dollar an hour. You cannot compete with that in the U.S.A., period,” he said. “So you would have a surge in building factories down there but a long-term drought here at a time we cannot pay our budget deficits.”

The interview centered on Perot’s agenda on the issues of trade, taxes and the federal deficit. In Perot’s view, problems of the U.S. economy are interrelated, from trade to the national debt and the troubled public school system–which he calls “the least effective public education system in the industrialized world.”

“We’ve got a country $4 trillion in debt, adding $400 billion this year,” he said in his Dallas office–graced by portraits of his family and the painting “Spirit of ‘76” on a wall behind his desk.

“And we have a declining job base, which gives us a declining tax base at a time when we’ve run our debt through the ceiling. In business terms, that’s a ticket for disaster. Never forget that every time you lose a worker–who goes on welfare–the welfare check exceeds the tax payment that used to come to the IRS.”

Perot’s reference to a declining job base reflects his belief–disputed by some scholars–that jobs created in the 1980s were at lower wages than the jobs they replaced as manufacturing companies restructured. Most analysts and government data agree that wages for less educated, industrial workers have fallen over the last two decades. But there have been rising incomes at the same time for educated employees–especially those in new, computer-based information industries.

Perot, who will turn 62 this month, is a pioneer of the information-based industry. In 1962 he founded Electronic Data Systems, which innovated the business for organizing computer data for large companies and the government. It made Perot one of the nation’s wealthiest men. But Perot says that advanced industries alone cannot be the solution for the United States.

“Don’t bet the farm on high tech,” he said. “Information industry is all about intellectual acuity. And in a country with the least effective public education in the industrialized world, it kind of makes you grimace.

“What I’m saying is, right now, we can’t take people out of factories and send them to Microsoft (the leading computer software firm). If their children had a great education, we could. That’s generational change. But their children are not getting a great education.”

Perot made great efforts on behalf of educational reform in Texas in 1984, and has said he supports greatly expanded funding for education starting at preschool levels for all children. “It’s the best investment we can make,” he has said.

But education is for the future, and there is a need to create jobs now in the United States, not overseas, Perot declared.

“Do we need to make clothing in this country? Of course we do. Do we need to make shoes in this country? Of course we do. We have places in our country where people would be delighted to work in a shoe factory for reasonable wages.

“When I think of shoes, I think of Valley Forge (the winter encampment during the American Revolution where George Washington’s soldiers wrapped their feet in bandages and rags),” said Perot, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.

“My mind bounces back and forth between the world I hope we have and the world that might be. We might be fighting barefooted.”

Perot contended that jobs can be created fastest in small companies.

“The quickest way to stimulate the economy and have a growing, dynamic job base is to stimulate small business. You’ll create more jobs faster by going through small business than through the huge industries,” said Perot, who started his business career as a salesman for IBM.

He said small-business people today are starved for credit and capital since banks are cautious of lending in the aftermath of the speculative 1980s, and small business doesn’t have access to big stock and bond markets.

But if he should become President, solving the credit problem will be “easy,” Perot said. “Change the regulations and the banks will loan the money,” he said, indicating that bank examiners should loosen their definitions about prudent loans and reduce the amount banks must reserve against potential losses.

Perot would attract investors to small business ventures by reducing the tax on capital gains. “I’ve got to give you a reason to take money out of Treasury bills to invest in a high-risk, wildcatting venture,” Perot explained.

“I can’t force you to take your money out of T-bills, so I have to create an environment where you want to take this risk.” That means a tax preference. “But I’m not changing capital gains for everybody. This is for the really high-risk start-up of a small company,” Perot said.

But “you will rarely hear me use the word ‘capital gains tax rate.’ I’ll be talking about money to create jobs,” he said.

Perot’s own considerable fortune, estimated by various business publications at $3.3 billion, is invested mostly in T-bills and corporate and high-rated municipal bonds. He has $200 million invested in Perot Systems, $350 million in real estate and about $40 million in funds for start-up companies, including a stake in Next Inc., the computer company headed by Apple co-founder Steven P. Jobs.

Perot also spoke of pushing for legislation to allow, and encourage, banks to make equity investments in start-up companies–a form of government-backed development bank.

“Or some other vehicle will emerge,” he said. “You find what seems to be the best way out–and then you adjust 1,000 times as you go. That’s the way you do anything, whether it’s cutting grass or making rockets.”

Perot’s views on big business are harsh. He believes a ruinous gap opened up between management and labor in large corporations, between executives who paid themselves handsomely while demanding reductions in the pay of ordinary workers. The result was a reduction in American competitiveness and hurt the U.S. economy, he says, repeating a theme he sounded often in two stormy years on General Motors’ board of directors.

Today, he is not surprised that the chief executives of more than a dozen major corporations, meeting last month at the Business Council in Hot Springs, Va., uniformly disapproved of him and his candidacy.

“They’re part of the Establishment,” Perot said. “The status quo works for them right now, and I’m talking about major, major change.”

Still, big companies should be enlisted in a drive to turn the U.S. economy to pursuits of peace, from what Perot terms “45 years of Cold War which drained us. The Cold War broke Russia, but it drained us.”

For all his distrust of foreign trade agreements, Perot admires the way Japanese companies do business–in particular Toyota, which he studied while a director of GM. “They work as a team and their products have quality,” Perot said. “Have you spent time in a Lexus dealership? All those guys selling Lexuses have to do is get you to drive it around the block.”

Perot himself drives an ’87 Oldsmobile. But he said U.S. industry should start doing things the way Japanese industry does, having senior business figures help small start-ups, “targeting industries of the future and making sure sacrifice in corporations starts at the top.”

Perot acknowledges that many things he admires in Japanese industry stem from that country’s different way of organizing society. “But my point is, you and I, our company is failing. And we have a competitor who’s winning. I would say, let’s go study him and figure out why he wins.”

To pay for his programs, Perot said, “We are not going to raise taxes unless we have to. But I ain’t stupid enough to say ‘Watch my lips.’ ”

He would “go to a new tax system because the one we have now is paper-laden, inefficient, not fair and so on.” But he claims to have no specific ideas yet on how to change taxes. “I would get people in, and in 60 days I’d have half a dozen new tax systems,” he said.

“My points on taxes are basically three: We’ve got to raise the revenues to make the country go.

“Two, we’ll get rid of the waste. The Department of Agriculture, with 2% of our people engaged in farming, is bigger than it was when a third of our people were farming. You’ve got to cut it down and you need a strong consensus to do that.”

He has been criticized for not being more specific on what other programs he would cut, and by how much. But as a third step, he said he would demand authority to selectively cut programs approved by Congress. “Give me the line-item veto, or don’t send me there,” said Perot, echoing a demand first raised by Ronald Reagan.

Perot has become linked with the idea that wealthy people might help reduce the federal deficit by giving up their rights to Social Security and Medicare. By one calculation, which Perot ascribes to Bush Administration chief economic adviser Michael J. Boskin, such a sacrifice by the wealthy could save the Treasury $100 billion a year–although Perot says that figure has proved dubious.

“I’d give up Social Security in a minute,” said the Texas billionaire. “And if a lot of people would give it up who did not need it, that’s worth looking at.”

Would that be subjecting the venerable Social Security program to a “means test,” which would adjust individual benefits based on income or assets.

“I never got down to what means testing is,” Perot said. “We’ve just got to go through and look at every single item. We have work to do.”

Allan Bunting has stepped down from his role as New Zealand director of rugby following the Black Ferns’ semi-final exit at the recent Women’s Rugby World Cup.

New Zealand Rugby has announced it will recruit a new head coach following an “extensive review of the Black Ferns programme” after the tournament in England – and that Bunting will not be seeking the position.

New Zealand, who had won six of the previous seven Women’s Rugby World Cups, were knocked out in the semi-finals of the 2025 edition by Canada but then beat France to finish third.

Hosts England defeated Canada in the final to win the competition.

Bunting, who was appointed director of rugby of the Black Ferns in 2023, said it had been an “absolute honour” to lead the team.

He added: “Over the past 14 years, I’ve been honoured to contribute across both the Sevens and Fifteens programmes and experience pinnacle events such as the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, World Series and World Cups.

“To have played a role in the growth of the women’s game during this time has been a privilege.”

LAS VEGAS — Last offseason, the Dodgers swung big in their offseason pursuit of impact bullpen additions.

After largely striking out, however, they might now have to decide if they’re comfortable doing it again.

The Dodgers don’t have glaring needs this winter, but the back end of the bullpen is one area they will look to upgrade. Although the team has ample relief depth, it has no clear-cut closer as it enters 2026.

The main reason why: Tanner Scott’s struggles after landing a lucrative four-year, $72-million pact last winter.

Scott’s signing represented the second-largest contract, by guaranteed money, the Dodgers had ever given to a relief pitcher (only behind the five-year, $80 million deal closer Kenley Jansen got in 2017). It was a high-risk, high-reward move that, at least in Year 1, quickly felt like a bust.

Scott posted a 4.74 ERA in the regular season, converted only 23 of his 33 save opportunities, and did not pitch in the postseason (in part because of an abscess incision procedure he underwent in the National League Division Series).

The Dodgers’ other big reliever acquisition last winter, Kirby Yates, suffered a similar fate, posting a 5.23 ERA on a one-year, $13-million deal before injuries also knocked him out of postseason contention.

Scott will be back next year, and is one of several veteran relief arms the club is hopeful will make improvements. Still, for a team vying for a third straight World Series title, adding a more established closer remains of interest.

The question now: Will they be willing to do so on another long-term deal? Or will last year’s failed signings make them more hesitant to traverse that same path again?

It might not take long to start finding out.

Already at this week’s general managers’ meetings at The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas, the Dodgers have expressed interest in two-time All-Star Devin Williams, according to people with knowledge of the situation not authorized to speak publicly.

The 31-year-old right-hander had a down year with the New York Yankees (4.79 ERA, albeit with 18 saves in 22 opportunities), but his underlying metrics remain strong, and the Dodgers’ interest in him dates to last offseason when he was a trade target of the club before ultimately landing in the Bronx.

With a mid-90s mph fastball and signature “Airbender” changeup that has made him one of the most prolific strikeout threats in all the majors over his seven-year career (in which he has a 2.45 ERA and averages more than 14 strikeouts per nine innings), he would significantly improve their ninth-inning outlook.

But the Dodgers’ pursuit of him, which was first reported by The Athletic, could come with a tricky decision.

Williams is expected to have several serious suitors this offseason. And, though some outlets projected him to sign only a one-year deal upward of $20 million, others have him pegged to land a three- or four-year contract.

By nature, the Dodgers typically prefer shorter-term deals, particularly in a role as volatile as relief pitching. If Williams does receive longer-term offers from other clubs, it’s unclear if the Dodgers would be willing to match.

The team could face similar dynamics if it goes after other top relievers on the market, including three-time All-Star and top free-agent closer Edwin Díaz (who also comes with the added complication of a qualifying offer that would cost them a draft pick).

They could wind up having to once again weigh a high-risk, high-reward move.

And on Tuesday, general manager Brandon Gomes struck a decidedly risk-averse tone in the wake of last year’s failed signings.

“It’s one of those things that, I don’t think it’s a ‘need,’” Gomes said of the team’s interest in making another splashy reliever acquisition. “But it could be a nice-to-have, depending on how it all plays out.”

There are other alternatives, of course.

Former Tampa Bay Rays right-hander Pete Fairbanks is one potentially shorter-term target some in the industry see as a fit in Los Angeles, after racking up 75 saves with a 2.98 ERA over the last three seasons.

Former Angels and Atlanta Braves right-hander Raisel Iglesias is potentially another, after amassing 96 saves with a 2.62 ERA over the last three years, thanks to a mid-90s mph fastball and swing-and-miss changeup that have kept him productive even at age 35.

There are other familiar free-agent relievers available this winter, too, from former San Diego Padres closer Robert Suarez to former St. Louis Cardinals and New York Mets right-hander Ryan Helsley (who has also been linked to the Dodgers in trade rumors in the past).

The Dodgers could also explore the offseason’s trade market, or roll the dice with a current relief corps that still includes Scott (whose 2025 issues had more to do with execution than quality of stuff), Alex Vesia (who has established himself as one of the top left-handed relievers in the sport) and Blake Treinen (another reliever the team sees as a bounce-back candidate after he struggled with injuries last season in the first season of a two-year, $22 million deal). They will also be getting Brusdar Graterol and Evan Phillips back from injuries, with Graterol on track to be ready for the start of 2026 after missing last year with a shoulder problem, and Phillips expected to return at some point in next season after undergoing Tommy John surgery last June.

For now, however, the team’s search could depend on how the markets for Williams, Díaz and others develop — and whether it’s willing to take another big bullpen swing on a longer-term deal.

“We have so many guys that are capable of closing and have done it in the past,” Gomes said, highlighting the team’s current returning bullpen arms. “But it’s one of the areas we’ll look to potentially add to the team.”

Skenes wins NL Cy Young Award, Yamamoto third in voting

Yoshinobu Yamamoto will always be remembered for his historic performance in the Dodgers’ postseason this past October.

On Wednesday, his regular-season performance received some deserved recognition, too.

While Pittsburgh Pirates ace Paul Skenes won the National League Cy Young Award as expected, after leading the majors with a 1.97 ERA in just his second MLB season, Yamamoto finished third for a campaign in which he went 12-8, posted a 2.49 ERA over 30 starts, and anchored a Dodgers rotation that was ravaged by injuries for much of the season.

Philadelphia Phillies left-hander Cristopher Sánchez was the NL’s other Cy Young finalist, and was runner-up. Skenes garnered all 30 first-place votes while Sánchez received all 30 second-place votes. Yamamoto collected 16 third-place votes.

Yamamoto’s finish was the highest by a Dodgers pitcher since Julio Urías came in third in 2022.

It caps a year in which the 27-year-old Japanese star made significant strides from his debut rookie MLB season (when he had a 3.00 ERA and was limited to 18 starts because of a shoulder injury) and helped carry the Dodgers to a World Series with a 1.45 ERA in six playoff outings and a grueling 37 1/3 October innings — including back-to-back complete games in the NL Championship Series and World Series, before back-to-back victorious appearances in Games 6 and 7 of the Fall Classic.

SAN FRANCISCO — It is a delicate situation: Democratic Rep. Sala Burton, whose district encompasses 75% of this city, is battling cancer. And various politicians–some of them her friends–are openly lining up support to go after her seat, should it suddenly come open.

Politics are always lively in the city that has produced such powerful operators as Burton’s late husband, Phillip, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy. But the next election in the 5th Congressional District–whenever it comes–promises to be especially intense because it will pit increasingly powerful gay and neighborhood activists against the old Democratic machine built by Phil Burton and Brown.

“This thing is the talk of the town,” said Paul Ambrosino, a young San Francisco political consultant. “There’s really only been one hot race for this seat since Phil Burton won it 20 years ago. So nobody knows precisely what the values of the voters are or how the various voting blocs might respond.”

Sala Burton, 61, underwent surgery for colon cancer in August and recently went back into George Washington University Hospital. She met Saturday with relatives and friends in Washington and announced that she hopes to finish out her term but will not seek reelection in 1988.

“It’s an awful situation,” said Paul Pelosi, whose wife, Nancy, a San Francisco socialite and longtime Democratic activist, is a close friend of Sala Burton and wants to succeed her when she leaves Congress.

“I really believe Sala is going to get better,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview. “I will seek her seat in 1988 if she does not run.”

Pelosi, former chairwoman of the California Democratic Party, is well-connected to numerous national Democratic figures and has helped many of them raise money. She could expect them to return the favor, and she would also get help from former Rep. John Burton, Sala Burton’s brother-in-law, and from Brown and McCarthy, who have been close to Pelosi for years.

Until recently, that kind of support from the Democratic establishment would have made Pelosi the heavy favorite. But that is no longer the case, according to political consultants familiar with the district.

65% Democratic

With 65% of its voters registered Democratic, the 5th Congressional District has long been a stronghold of liberal, pro-labor forces.

But its working-class character has been altered in recent years by the influx of young, upwardly mobile professionals, or Yuppies. In the 1984 Democratic presidential primary, for example, Yuppie favorite Gary Hart of Colorado stunned the supporters of former Vice President Walter Mondale by winning five of the six national convention delegates.

Gays and neighborhood groups are increasingly active in the district.

What this means, according to consultants in the city, is that an establishment candidate like Pelosi would face a major battle for the 5th District from Harry Britt, a gay activist and champion of renters’ rights who who has served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors since 1979. He has announced that he will run if Burton’s seat becomes open.

“The (Burton) machine expects us to always give them their votes, but this time it’s different,” said Dick Pabich, Britt’s political consultant, who explained that better leadership on the AIDS issue is the major goal of the gay community.

AIDS a ‘Top Priority’

“If Harry won, his top priority in Congress would be AIDS,” Pabich said. “Some members of Congress, like (Los Angeles Democratic Rep. Henry) Waxman have been helpful on this, but there is no one back there really out front in a leadership role on AIDS.”

San Francisco political consultant Clint Reilly said: “The gays feel they have paid their dues, that they’ve come of age. They believe it is their turn, and Britt is their candidate. I would expect money to pour in from gays all over the country if there is a special election for this seat.”

Political consultants say Britt would go into a special election with a significant bloc of gay votes, a bloc that would be magnified in importance if turnout is low, as expected.

Also mentioned as possible candidates for the Burton seat are Supervisors Bill Maher and Carol Ruth Silver, both Democrats.

Even Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who is in the last year of her tenure, has considered running for the seat while she bides her time for a possible statewide candidacy later. Some of her advisers have urged her to run if Burton resigns, even if that comes before the end of Feinstein’s term as mayor. But Deputy Mayor Hadley Rolfe said: “She wants to finish out her last year as mayor; it’s very important to her.”

Should Burton not be able to finish out her term, Gov. George Deukmejian would have to call a special election. It would be preceded by an open primary, meaning that Democrats and Republicans could vote for candidates of either party.

That could be significant, according to Reilly, because if the Republicans do not come up with a credible candidate of their own, one of the Democratic candidates could benefit from a bloc of the Republican votes if they could be motivated to turn out.

SAN FRANCISCO — Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

“As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

“I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

Chakrabarti, in a statement Thursday, thanked Pelosi for her “decades of service that defined a generation of politics” and for “doing something truly rare in Washington: making room for the next one.”

While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with UC San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

“It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

“She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

“She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

“Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.