speech

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday laid out a second-term agenda weighted heavily toward the creation of environmentally friendly jobs to rescue Los Angeles from its economic malaise but warned of serious pain ahead as the city digs out of a half-billion-dollar budget shortfall.

Delivering his fourth State of the City speech since taking office, Villaraigosa’s remarks struck the tone of a Democratic candidate for governor, with scorching critiques of both Sacramento lawmakers and Washington conservatives.

Villaraigosa denounced the “politics of no” as he called for a green technology hub along the west side of the Los Angeles River to attract new jobs and start-up companies.

“We need to build a future in which clean technology is as synonymous with Los Angeles as motion pictures or aerospace,” said the mayor, appearing at the Harbor City factory of Balqon Corp., which manufactures electric big-rigs for use at the city’s ports.

During his 33-minute address, Villaraigosa also promised to provide care for families decimated by job losses and foreclosures, to turn over failing L.A. schools to charter operators and to press ahead with his expansion of the Los Angeles Police Department. Portions of his ambitious agenda hinge on the city securing hundreds of millions of dollars from President Obama’s stimulus package.

By focusing so heavily on environmental themes, Villaraigosa delivered an upbeat message to accompany the dire scenario City Hall now faces: an estimated $530-million hole in its upcoming budget, two pension systems severely battered by investment losses and a city workforce that is being asked to choose between wage reductions or layoffs of thousands of employees.

“He found a way to give a realistic speech while still finding opportunities to be optimistic,” said Villaraigosa ally Richard Katz, who serves with the mayor on the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Villaraigosa called on the city’s powerful public-employee unions to embrace wage and benefit concessions, saying it was the only path to prevent layoffs and protect city services. The mayor, who will release his 2009-10 budget Monday, called for immediate action and warned residents that the budget shortfall could grow to nearly $1 billion next year.

At least one union leader was cool to the mayor’s suggestion, saying that his members preferred early retirement packages and “no steps backwards” on existing contracts. “The mayor’s proposals are off base,” Bob Schoonover, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 721, said in a statement.

As a centerpiece of his speech, Villaraigosa reintroduced his plan for a “green” industry corridor just east of downtown that would serve as a spawning ground for environmentally conscious businesses. The speech echoed Villaraigosa’s message during his recent reelection campaign, when he promised to make Los Angeles “the greenest big city in America.”

Over the last four years, Villaraigosa has pushed the Port of Los Angeles to replace up to 17,000 diesel trucks with cleaner-burning models. And at the Department of Water and Power, he has pressed officials to expand the utility’s reliance on renewable sources of energy — primarily wind, solar and geothermal power.

Villaraigosa’s green agenda, combined with his emphasis on public safety and concessions from public employee unions, could broaden his appeal to moderates in California, some political experts said.

“If you’re going to pick a statewide theme that will afford you safe ground, there’s probably no better topic now than the green movement and the environment,” said San Jose State political scientist Larry Gerston, who is keeping a close watch on the early political maneuvering of potential contenders in the 2010 governor’s race.

Still, Villaraigosa’s drive to create green jobs has hit some roadblocks in recent months. Measure B, the solar initiative that he backed in the March 3 election, narrowly went down to defeat despite the use of television commercials that featured the mayor.

Meanwhile, the union leader who largely conceived of the energy plan has been highly critical of Villaraigosa’s other environmental initiatives at the DWP, including efforts to secure solar power sources in the Mojave Desert and geothermal power in Imperial County. Brian D’Arcy, who heads the union that represents DWP workers, has also criticized some of Villaraigosa’s environmental allies, saying that they are more interested in their clean energy benefactors than they are in the needs of Los Angeles.

Either way, Villaraigosa’s emphasis on job creation and the environment only fueled speculation that he would use similar themes next year in a run for statewide office. “It sounded gubernatorial,” said City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who attended the speech.

—

phil.willon@latimes.com

david.zahniser@latimes.com

Times staff writer Maeve Reston contributed to this report.

In a State of the State speech that largely ignored any talk of the big, fat budget black hole that threatens to swallow the California dream, Gov. Gavin Newsom instead laid out a vision of the Golden State that centers on inclusivity and kindness to combat Trump’s reign of darkness and expulsion.

In a week dominated by news of immigration authorities killing a Minnesota mother; acknowledgment that “American First” really means running Venezuela for years to come; and the U.S. pulling even further out of global alliances, Newsom offered a soothing and unifying vision of what a Democratic America could look like.

Because, of course, far more than a tally of where we are as a state, the speech served as a likely road map of what a run for president would sound like if (or when) Newsom officially enters the race. In that vein, he drove home a commitment to both continuing to fight against the current administration, but also a promise to go beyond opposition with values and goals for a post-Trump world, if voters choose to manifest such a thing.

It was a clear volley against Republicans’ love of using California as the ultimate example of failed Democratic policies, and instead positioning it as a model.

“This state, this people, this experiment in democracy, belongs not to the past, but to the future,” Newsom told the packed Legislative chamber Thursday. “Expanding civil rights for all, opening doors for more people to pursue their dreams. A dream that’s not exclusive, not to any one race, not to any one religion, or class. Standing up for traditional virtues — compassion, courage, and commitment to something larger than our own self-interest — and asserting that no one, particularly the president of the United States, stands above the law.”

Perhaps the most interesting part of Thursday’s address was the beginning — when Newsom went entirely off script for the first few minutes, ribbing the Republican contingent for being forced to listen to nearly an hourlong speech, then seeming to sincerely thank even his detractors for their part in making California the state it is.

“I just want to express gratitude every single person in this chamber, every single person that shaped who we are today and what the state represents,” Newsom said, even calling out Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, one of his most vociferous foes, who released a questionable AI-generated “parody” video of Newsom in response to the speech.

It was in his off-the-cuff remarks where Newsom gave the clearest glimpse of what he might look like as a candidate — confident, at ease, speaking to both parties in a respectful way that the current president, who has labeled Democrats as enemies, refuses to do. Of course, he’d likely do all that during a campaign while continuing his lowbrow online jabbing, since the online world remains a parallel reality where anything goes.

But in person, at least, he was clearly going for classy over coarse. And gone is the jargon-heavy Newsom of past campaigns, or the guarded Newsom who tried to keep his personal life personal. His years of podcasts seem to have paid off, giving him a warmer, conversational persona that was noticeably absent in earlier years, and which is well-suited to a moment of national turmoil.

Don’t get me wrong — Newsom may or may not be the best pick for Democrats and voters in general. That’s up to you. I just showed up to this dog-and-pony show to get a close-up look at the horse’s teeth before he hits the track. And I’ve got to say, whether Newsom ends up successful or not in an Oval Office run, he’s a ready contender.

Beyond lofty sentiments, there was a sprinkling of actual facts and policies. Around AI, he hinted at greater regulation, especially around protecting children.

“Are we doing enough?” he asked, to a few shouts of “No,” from the crowd. This should be no surprise since his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, has made oversight of artificial intelligence a priority in her own work.

Other concrete policy callouts included California’s commitment to increasing the number of people covered by health insurance, even as the federal government seeks to shove folks off Medicaid. In that same wellness bucket, he touted a commitment to getting processed foods out of school cafeterias and launching more medications under the state’s own generic drug label, including an $11 insulin pen launched last week.

On affordability, he found common ground with a proposal Trump put out this week as well — banning big investors from buying up single family homes. Although in California this is less of a problem than in some major housing markets, every house owned by a big investor is one not owned by a first-time buyer. Newsom called on the Legislature to work on a way to curtail those big buyers.

He also hit on our high minimum wage, especially for certain industries such as fast food ($20 an hour) and healthcare ($25 an hour), compared with states where the federal minimum wage still holds sway at just more than $7 an hour.

And on one of his most vulnerable points, homelessness, where Republicans and Trump in particular have attacked California, he announced that unsheltered homelessness decreased by 9% across the state in 2025 — though the data backing that was not immediately available. He also said that thousands of new mental health beds, through billions in funding from Proposition 1 in 2024, are beginning to come online and have the potential to fundamentally change access to mental health care in the state in coming years. This July, a second phase of Proposition 1 will bring in $1 billion annually to fund county mental health care.

Newsom will release his budget proposal on Friday, with much less fanfare. That’s because the state is facing a huge deficit, which will require tough conversations and likely cuts. Those are conversations about the hard work of governing, ones that Newsom likely doesn’t want to publicize. But Thursday was about positioning, not governing.

“In California, we are not silent,” Newsom said. “We are not hunkering down. We are not retreating. We are a beacon.”

It may not be a groundbreaking stand to have a candidate that understands politics isn’t always a battle of good and evil, but instead a negotiation of viewpoints. It’s surely a message other Democrats will embrace, one as basic as it is inspiring in these days of rage and pain.

But Newsom is staking that territory early, and did it with an assurance that he explained in a recent Atlantic profile.

He’d rather be strong and wrong than weak and right — but strong and righteous is as American as it gets.

SACRAMENTO — In his final State of the State address, Gov. Gavin Newsom will look to define his legacy by touting California’s economic and policy achievements while casting the state as a counterweight to dysfunction in Washington.

The speech, which he will deliver Thursday morning to lawmakers in the Capitol, highlights economic strength, falling homelessness and expanded education funding, while also offering a glimpse of how Newsom is positioning himself beyond his final year in office.

In a summary of the speech provided Thursday morning, Newsom portrayed California as a financial powerhouse that strives to help those in need and works diligently to address its own shortcomings, including high housing costs, unlike the chaotic Trump administration. Newsom, who has acknowleged that he is considered a 2028 bid for president, argues that the state is positioned not just to endure the moment but to help shape what comes next nationally.

Newsom is expected to announce an estimated 9% drop statewide in unsheltered homelessness last year, addressing a topic that has been a persistent political vulnerability for the two-term governor and former San Francisco mayor. Despite some improvements, California has been home to nearly a quarter of the nation’s homeless population, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Newsom also said two of his top priorities — the mental health program known as CARE Court and Proposition 1, the statewide bond measure he championed to provide funding for mental health and homelessness — are achieving results ahead of schedule, with counties now equipped with funding, authority and tools to combat the crisis.

Calling affordability a multi-layered crisis, Newsom is expected to signal a tougher stance toward the buying spree of homes by private equity and institutional investors in California. That message is a rare point of rhetorical overlap with Trump, who has said the United States should bar such practices because they push prices beyond the reach of many Americans.

Newsom offered a few previews of select budget priorities, with his office set to unveil the full proposed budget on Friday. The governor will announce that the state would set a record on per-student funding in public schools and fully fund universal transitional kindergarten under his budget proposal. He is also expected to announce a major shift in how the state oversees education, unifying the policymaking State Board of Education with the California Department of Education, which is responsible for carrying out those policies.

The address will mark the first time in five years that Newsom delivers a State of the State from the Assembly rostrum. His last in-person address came shortly before COVID-19 shut down the Capitol in early 2020.

Last year, he delivered his written remarks unusually late, in September, during which he said the state was under siege by the Trump administration — which he accused of dismantling public services, flouting the rule of law and using extortion to bully businesses and universities — all while California grappled with the aftermath of the devastating Los Angeles County fires, spiraling housing costs and an uneven economic recovery.

Like past speeches, Newsom will tout the successes of California, now the world’s fourth-largest economy.

GORDON Ramsay has broken his silence on his ‘fiery’ wedding speech in his first interview since daughter Holly’s wedding ceremony to Adam Peaty.

The TV chef appeared alongside his daughter Tilly on ITV‘s This Morning as he discussed the highly-publicised Bath Abbey ceremony for the first time.

Gordon had raised eyebrows as he appeared to make a thinly-veiled dig at Adam’s ongoing family feud when he delivered a wedding speech during the nighttime celebrations.

But the star has insisted his speech was “perfect” despite courting controversy.

When asked by Cat Deeley about preparing his speech, Gordon said: “Being a dad of three daughters, you dream of that moment.

“I was a hot mess but the speech was perfect, it went well.

Read More on Gordon Ramsay

REAL DEAL

Gordon Ramsay welcomes Adam Peaty into his family as he makes sweet declaration

RAMSAY’S ROLE

Holly Ramsay reveals dad Gordon’s wedding role – and he ‘didn’t stop crying’

“You’ve got to be warm and emotional but it was a tough gig.”

Elsewhere, Tilly had her say on the wedding and also called it “perfect” despite Adam’s family largely not attending.

Only his sister Bethany was present with his heartbroken mum Caroline banned from the Abbey amid a huge fallout with Adam and being left hurt after Holly refused to invite her to her hen-do with her A-list pals, including Victoria Beckham.

Speaking on the daytime show, Tilly added: “It was so emotional but so incredible to see her and Adam so happy. It was a big day for all of us.”

She also admitted she checked Gordon’s speech on Christmas Eve and confessed “no tweaks were needed” before confirming: “It made everybody cry.”

Gordon further revealed his “shock” at Holly’s decision to wear Tana’s wedding dress for a section of the reception saying: “It was a shock as she had it on for the majority of the night but I don’t know why she needed to change three times!”

The chef was alluding to her multiple dress changes for the big day – with the star wearing three gowns in total.

In Gordon’s speech he was understood to be heard saying his wife Tana “will be a good mum to them both,” amid the fallout.

Ramsay, 59, gushed at how beautiful Holly looked and told Adam he was a “lucky man”, adding: “Look at Tana and that’s what you have to look forward to.” 

And in a sly dig at Adam’s absent parents he told Holly, 25: “Shame you don’t have the same.” 

Adam’s feud with mum Caroline, 60, exploded last month after she was not invited to Holly’s hen do.  

Last night a Peaty family source hit back at Gordon’s speech saying: “It just goes to show that this was the Ramsays’ plan all along.”  

Adam hailed the 200 guests’ support in a “difficult time”. Sister Beth, 32, was his only family at the service, maid of honour with Holly’s sisters Megan, 27, and Tilly, 24. 

Adam’s mum, dad Mark, 65, and brothers James and Richard stayed at home in Staffordshire. 

GORDON Ramsay gave a fiery speech at daughter Holly’s wedding to Olympian Adam Peaty — saying his wife Tana “will be a good mum to them both”. 

The celebrity chef waded into the swimmer’s family feud as it emerged 31-year-old Adam has blocked their texts. 

Ramsay, 59, gushed at how beautiful Holly looked and told Adam he was a “lucky man”, adding: “Look at Tana and that’s what you have to look forward to.” 

And in a sly dig at Adam’s absent parents he told Holly, 25: “Shame you don’t have the same.” 

Adam’s feud with mum Caroline, 60, exploded last month after she was not invited to Holly’s hen do.  

Last night a Peaty family source hit back at Gordon’s speech saying: “It just goes to show that this was the Ramsays’ plan all along.”  

ICY MESSAGE

Adam Peaty ‘sent brutal text by aunt moments before marrying Holly Ramsay’

FACE OF GLOOM

Adam Peaty’s parents look devastated as they break cover after wedding snub

And it emerged Adam’s aunt Louise texted him moments before he walked into Bath Abbey on Saturday — but he never read it because he has blocked family messages. 

The triple Olympic gold medallist, 31 yesterday, acknowledged the pain caused by the bust-up in his speech at the reception at Kin House in Kington Langley, Wilts.  

He told how his swim coach Mel Marshall has been “everything”, “grounding and inspiring” him. 

After an emotional pause he said she was, “like a mum”. 

Adam also hailed the 200 guests’ support in a “difficult time”. Sister Beth, 32, was his only family at the service, maid of honour with Holly’s sisters Megan, 27, and Tilly, 24. 

Adam’s mum, dad Mark, 65, and brothers James and Richard stayed at home in Staffordshire. 

The family source said: “This was the Ramsays’ plan all along. They wanted Adam’s family gone and they have succeeded. 

“You’d think that as parents, Gordon and Tana would have a bit more compassion towards Caroline, Mark and the family. 

“Caroline did everything and more to help Adam. She and Mark sacrificed a lot to get him where he is. Adam ought to be ashamed of himself for going ahead with the wedding without them after everything they did to support him.  

“Beth has betrayed her mum to see what she can get out of being the only family member who gets on with Adam and Holly. 

“This isn’t the Bethany we all know, she’s changed her appearance and personality to fit in with the Ramsays’ celebrity lifestyle.” 

The source also revealed Adam had disinvited his great-aunt Janet and her husband Eddie days before the wedding — despite them booking accommodation and purchasing outfits. The source added: “It’s completely unacceptable.” 

In her message, shortly before Adam entered the abbey with son George, five, his aunt Louise wrote: “I hope you never suffer the depth of pain you have put your mother through and despite it all she loves you still. Shame on you both. 

“Remember on this, your happiest day, and on each anniversary of your happiest day, that you hurt your mum so deeply her soul screams.”

A family source confirmed Adam did not receive or read the message.  

This was the Ramsays’ plan all along. They wanted Adam’s family gone and they have succeeded

Family source

Holly wore two outfits at the reception — including Tana’s gown when she wed Gordon in 1996. 

A DJ announced the tribute, sparking applause from guests including Ramsay pals David and Victoria Beckham. 

A source said: “David and Victoria were on the dance floor most of the evening. And they were almost the last to leave it. They happily mingled with everyone else.” 

Adam’s best man was Ed Baxter, a former swimmer and business partner. Adam’s coach Mel sparked laughter by referring to her student as Golden Balls, while pointing out “the other” Golden Balls, Becks. 

Mel told of her pride and joy at seeing Adam win the 100metres breaststroke gold at the 2016 Olympics in Rio, and Covid-hit Tokyo Games postponed to 2021. 

All guests wore a wristband embossed with Adam and Holly’s initials to prevent wedding crashers. 

A pal said last night: “Nothing interrupted what was a peaceful, joyous day with those closest to Holly and Adam. 

“The ceremony was magical and the reception very emotional, there were a lot of tears. 

“Gordon made an amazing speech that had everyone laughing and crying. None of the outside noise overshadowed what was an occasion filled with heartfelt joy and happiness for two people who are very much in love.” 

Gordon walked his daughter down the aisle and Tana gave a reading during the hour-long service. 

Look at Tana and that’s what you have to look forward to

Gordon Ramsay

Holly arrived nearly 30 minutes late, wearing a bridal cape over her Christmas-themed dress. 

A crowd of onlookers cheered the couple as they emerged. They were later whisked to the reception in a black Rolls-Royce. The maids of honour wore red dresses designed by Victoria, while Tana wore a similar style dress in green. 

Other celebrities in attendance included Dragons’ Den star Sara Davies and TV presenter Dan Walker, who said on social media: “We had a lovely time celebrating with Adam and Holly. 

“Great wedding, top people, wonderful service, unforgettable reception, brilliant speeches and we got to sing some bangers in the church too.” 

A select few were invited to a breakfast gathering yesterday. 

£50,000 FLOWERS JOKES IN SPEECH

Exclusive by Stephen Moyes

MEGABUCKS chef Gordon jokingly complained about the wedding’s £50,000 flowers in his speech.  

And he poked gentle fun at Holly — calling her easily the most expensive of his six children. 

Gordon revealed how young Holly worked out how to attach his credit card to her Apple Pay. 

And he joked his other children will have to marry in a register office. 

He said: “Only Holly could pick the most beautiful church and choose to cover its stunning windows in white roses.” 

Holly will show off her wedding dress in Vogue magazine, published on New Year’s Day. 

A source added: “Holly has always wanted to do Vogue so this is a coup.” 

Her and Adam’s gift list included a £1,450 Big Green Egg outdoor cooker. 

Other options were a £995 mahogany table, £800 chair and footstool, and £450 log storage bin. 

ATLANTA — Lloyd Bentsen, a tall Texan with a mission to protect the Democratic Party’s right flank, was nominated for vice president Thursday night, and he had a message for America: It is time to wake up and go to work.

“My friends, America has just passed through the ultimate epoch of illusion: An eight-year coma in which slogans were confused with solutions and rhetoric passed for reality, a time when America tried to borrow its way to prosperity,” the 67-year-old U.S. senator told the Democratic convention delegates.

‘Epoch of Illusion’ Ending

In a speech that depicted the Democrats as a new party of competence and frugality, Bentsen said: “At long last the epoch of illusion is drawing to a close. America is ready for the honest, proven, hands-on leadership of Michael Dukakis backed up by the power of a united, committed Democratic Party.”

A Texas-Size Night

It wasn’t just a big night, it was a Texas-size night for Bentsen, a dapper politician who until now has seen more of the inner sanctums of the Senate than the national spotlight. Suddenly he is in the spotlight and on the ticket with the presidential nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, in what many believe is the most united Democratic Party in 24 years.

But Bentsen was ready, striding into the gaze of a curious public with the looks, the soothing voice and the self-assurance of a senator who might have been created by Hollywood. In the audience was his 94-year-old father, “Big Lloyd,” who reared his son to shoot straight and ride fast in the Rio Grande Valley.

Also in the audience were some delegates whose concern about Bentsen reflected what an odd couple he and Dukakis make. The senator disagrees with the governor on a number of major issues, including the MX missile and aid for the Nicaraguan Contras, both of which Bentsen supports and Dukakis opposes.

“I will support Bentsen on the ticket,” said Vernice Garrison, a California delegate who held up a “No on Contra Aid” sign. “But I want him to know how I feel about Contra aid.”

Lack of Enthusiasm Noted

There was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for Bentsen among some supporters of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who believed that their man should have been picked as vice president because he got 7 million votes, and won more than 1,200 delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

Some Jackson supporters in the New Jersey delegation wanted to stage a protest over Bentsen’s position on the Contras, but Jackson’s floor leaders were instructed to prevent that, according to Newark Mayor Sharpe James.

It was also clear that Bentsen’s plain speaking style will not upstage Dukakis in this campaign. Some delegates chatted through the entire address.

Dukakis picked the more conservative Bentsen in part to offset his more liberal Northeastern image. He also wants him to take the battle to Texas, the adopted home state of the expected GOP nominee, Vice President George Bush, where 29 electoral votes are at stake.

But Bentsen has never been known as an attacker and that was evident in his speech. He criticized the Reagan-Bush Administration without ridiculing it, zeroing in on what he believes are its flaws without dwelling too long on the downside.

And, although Bentsen has made fun of Bush on occasion and says he looks forward to challenging him on their home turf in the oil-producing states, his speech indicated that he does not intend to be overly harsh.

“Lloyd Bentsen is not going to be the hatchet man of this campaign,” said Texas political consultant George Christian, who helped Bentsen draft his speech.

‘They’re Good Friends’

“I was involved in Lloyd’s 1970 Senate race with Bush and to my knowledge he never did really attack Bush,” Christian said. “They’re good friends. But there is going to be good honest criticism of the Administration in this campaign, and it has to be done sharply.”

“Democrats agree that the American worker who has struggled for 20 years to support his or her family has earned 60 days’ notice if management plans to shut down that plant. But the Reagan-Bush Administration insists that a pink slip in the mail is notice enough,” Bentsen said in a reference to a plant-closing bill that the Reagan Administration recently opposed.

Bentsen and Dukakis believe the differences between the two political parties on that legislation could be crucial in luring back many working-class Democrats who supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and are expressing doubts about Bush in opinion polls.

Bentsen and Dukakis are aware, however, that they may have trouble convincing some middle class voters that these are difficult times, given the sustained economic growth and low unemployment under Reagan.

Targeting Specific Group

So, as Bentsen’s speech showed, they are aiming for that portion of the middle class that is struggling or is at least apprehensive about the future.

“I see the charts and numbers that suggest prosperity,” Bentsen said. “But I also talk with people and I hear what they have to say.

“I know that if you are a teacher or a factory worker, or if you are just starting a family, it’s almost impossible to buy a house–no matter how hard you work or how carefully you plan. A college education is slipping beyond the reach of millions of hard-working Americans.”

Then, in a sales job for Dukakis and his record as governor, Bentsen said: “Michael Dukakis . . . turned around the economy of Massachusetts, not by writing hot checks but by careful management of the taxpayers’ dollar and a healthy respect for the entrepreneurial system.”

Bentsen was nominated for vice president by longtime Bentsen ally Rep. Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

The nomination was seconded by former Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan, a widely admired black leader whom Bentsen aides described as one of the senator’s home state heroes, and by Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, one of a group of young senators elected recently by the Democrats. Daschle’s home state is where Bentsen’s Danish forebears settled in the 19th Century. His father, Lloyd Sr., moved from South Dakota to Texas in the 1920s and built a ranching and real estate empire from scratch.

Introduced by Glenn

Bentsen was introduced by Ohio Sen. John Glenn, the No. 1 “bridesmaid” among those other Democrats Dukakis was considering for vice president. “I just knew I’d be making a speech tonight about the vice presidency,” Glenn joked, and then went on to praise his Senate colleague as “a real Texan” who is “superbly qualified for the job.”

Ironically, Glenn’s short, tough speech, which cheered Bentsen and ridiculed Bush, appeared to be one of the best he has ever given, the kind that, delivered sooner, could have put to rest the doubts of Dukakis’ aides about Glenn’s campaigning ability.

Glenn received a very enthusiastic reception, better than Bentsen’s. The delegates also cheered Jordan, who described Bentsen as a man with “an instinct for doing what is right,” an allusion to his civil rights record, which is much better than that of many Southern white leaders of his generation.

With the senator’s father in the convention hall were Bentsen’s wife, Beryl Ann, their sons, Lloyd III and Lan, and their daughter, Tina Bentsen Smith.

Bentsen wrote his speech with the help of his former Senate aide Stephen Ward. Christian, former press secretary to President Lyndon B. Johnson, helped hone the address. According to Christian and Jack DeVore, Bentsen Senate press secretary, the Dukakis campaign offered little in the way of suggestions.

Defers to Senator

“Dukakis trusts Lloyd,” Christian said. Reporters following the two men in the last week have found that, despite their differences on some key issues, they seem comfortable, if not gregarious, together. Dukakis has been seen deferring to the senator in several situations involving members of the House and Senate who are attending the convention.

At the end of his speech, Bentsen, a multimillionaire, thanks to real estate and other businesses, told his audience that his forebears had started out in a sod hut in South Dakota.

“They made their way in America,” Bentsen said. “That’s the American dream we have nourished for 200 years, the dream of freedom and opportunity, the chance for a step up in life. I want to help Michael Dukakis protect that dream for the next generation.”

Staff writers John Balzar, Bob Drogin, Patt Morrison, David Lauter and Henry Weinstein contributed to this story.

BRUSSELS — The European Union’s executive arm on Wednesday warned that it would take action against any “unjustified measures” after the U.S. State Department barred five Europeans it accuses of pressuring U.S. technology firms to censor or suppress American viewpoints.

The Europeans were characterized by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio as “radical” activists and “weaponized” nongovernmental organizations. They include the former EU commissioner responsible for supervising social media rules, Thierry Breton.

Breton, a businessman and former French finance minister, clashed last year on social media with tech billionaire Elon Musk over broadcasting an online interview with Donald Trump in the months leading up to the U.S. election.

The European Commission, the EU’s powerful executive branch and which supervises tech regulation in Europe, said that it “strongly condemns the U.S. decision to impose travel restrictions” and that it has requested clarification about the move. French President Emmanuel Macron also condemned it.

“If needed, we will respond swiftly and decisively to defend our regulatory autonomy against unjustified measures,” the commission said in a statement, without elaborating.

Rubio wrote in an X post on Tuesday that “for far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose.”

“The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,” he posted.

The European Commission countered that “the EU is an open, rules-based single market, with the sovereign right to regulate economic activity in line with our democratic values and international commitments.”

“Our digital rules ensure a safe, fair, and level playing field for all companies, applied fairly and without discrimination,” it said.

Macron said that the visa restrictions “amount to intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty,” he posted on X.

Macron said that the EU’s digital rules were adopted by “a democratic and sovereign process” involving all member countries and the European Parliament. He said that the rules “ensure fair competition among platforms, without targeting any third country.”

He underlined that “the rules governing the European Union’s digital space are not meant to be determined outside Europe.”

Breton and the group of Europeans fell afoul of a new visa policy announced in May to restrict the entry of foreigners deemed responsible for censorship of protected speech in the United States.

The four others are: Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate; Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, leaders of HateAid, a German organization; and Clare Melford, who runs the Global Disinformation Index.

Rubio said the five had advanced foreign government censorship campaigns against Americans and U.S. companies, which he said created “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States.

The action to bar them from the U.S. is part of a Trump administration campaign against foreign influence over online speech, using immigration law rather than platform regulations or penalties.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Sarah Rogers, the U.S. under secretary of state for public diplomacy, called Breton the “mastermind” behind the EU’s Digital Services Act, which imposes a set of strict requirements designed to keep internet users safe online. This includes flagging harmful or illegal content like hate speech.

Breton responded on X by noting that all 27 EU member countries voted for the Digital Services Act in 2022. “To our American friends: ‘Censorship isn’t where you think it is,’” he wrote.

Cook writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Angela Charlton contributed to this report from Paris.

WASHINGTON — President Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking $10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.

The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021” in order to “intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

The BBC said it would defend the case.

“We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” it said in a statement.

The broadcaster apologized last month to Trump over the edit of the Jan. 6 speech. But the publicly funded BBC rejected claims it had defamed him, after Trump threatened legal action.

BBC chairman Samir Shah had called it an “error of judgment,” which triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news.

The speech took place before some of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.

The BBC had broadcast the hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Trump said earlier Monday that he was suing the BBC “for putting words in my mouth.”

“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right?” the president said unprompted during an appearance in the Oval Office. “They’re beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn’t say that, but they put terrible words.”

The president’s lawsuit was filed in Florida. Deadlines to bring the case in British courts expired more than a year ago.

Legal experts have brought up potential challenges to a case in the U.S. given that the documentary was not shown in the country.

The lawsuit alleges that people in the U.S. can watch the BBC’s original content, including the “Panorama” series, which included the documentary, by using the subscription streaming platform BritBox or a virtual private network service.

The 103-year-old BBC is a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by every household that watches live TV or BBC content. Bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, it typically faces especially intense scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals.

Dec. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is suing the BBC for $10 billion, alleging it intentionally misrepresented a speech he gave before the Jan. 6 storming of Capitol Hill in order to influence the result of the 2024 presidential election.

The lawsuit was filed in a Florida court on Monday, more than a month after Trump threatened to bring litigation against Britain’s public broadcaster over the editing of a speech he gave to supporters in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, in the documentary Trump: A Second Chance.

Trump’s lawyers described the documentary’s depiction of him as “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory and malicious,” alleging it was aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment.”

The suit is for $5 billion in damages, plus interest, costs, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief the court finds appropriate.

The BBC declined to comment Tuesday but vowed it would fight the case.

“As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” said a spokesman.

The Panorama documentary aired in Britain on Oct. 28, 2024, just days ahead of the Nov. 5 election. The BBC stresses it was not broadcast in the United States and that it did not make it available to view there.

In the documentary, video of Trump’s speech was edited to piece together two comments the president made about 50 minutes apart, while omitting other parts of his speech.

“[T]he BBC “intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021,” his lawyers state in the lawsuit.

“The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The claim refers to the splicing together of excerpts lifted from the video that made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell,” was what viewers of the program saw, when Trump’s actual words were, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

It wasn’t until 50 minutes later in the speech that Trump made the comments about fighting.

The infraction went unnoticed until early November when The Telegraph published an exclusive on a leaked internal BBC memo in which a former external ethics adviser allegedly suggested that the documentary edited Trump’s speech to make it appear he directed the Jan. 6 attack on Congress.

Following the report, the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, and head of news, Deborah Turness, resigned.

BBC chairman Samir Shah immediately apologized for what he called an unintentional “error of judgment.”

After Trump wrote the BBC demanding a correction, compensation and threatening a $1 billion lawsuit, the corporation formally apologized and issued a retraction that was the lead story across all of its news platforms on television, radio and online — but said it strongly disagreed “there is a basis for a defamation claim.”

To win the case, Trump’s legal team would need to convince the court the program had caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The BBC has said that since the program was not broadcast in the United States or available to view there, Trump was not harmed by it and the choices voters made in the election were not affected as he was re-elected days after.

However, Trump’s legal team alleges the BBC had a deal with a third-party media company that had rights to air the documentary outside of the United Kingdom.

The blunder has reignited a furious national debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the institution itself, which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

It also comes as the future of the BBC is under review, with the renewal date of its royal charter approaching on the centenary of its founding in 2027.

Trump has won out-of-court settlements in a series of disputes with U.S. broadcasters, although largely at significantly reduced sums than those sought in the original lawsuit.

In July, CBS settled a $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 5.

ABC News paid Trump $15 million and apologized to settle a defamation suit over comments by presenter George Stephanopoulos that incorrectly stated Trump was “liable for rape.”

In 2022, CNN fought and successfully defended a $475 million suit alleging it had defamed Trump by dubbing his claim the 2020 election was stolen from him as the “Big Lie.” The judge ruled it did not meet the legal standard of defamation.

He has live cases pending cases against the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

US President Donald Trump has filed a $5bn (£3.7bn) lawsuit against the BBC over an edit of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama documentary.

Trump accused the broadcaster of defamation and of violating a trade practices law, according to court documents filed in Florida.

The BBC apologised to Trump last month, but rejected his demands for compensation and disagreed there was any “basis for a defamation claim”.

Trump’s legal team accused the BBC of defaming him by “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring his speech”. The BBC has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

Trump said last month that he planned to sue the BBC for the documentary, which aired in the UK ahead of the 2024 US election.

“I think I have to do it,” Trump told reporters of his plans. “They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth.”

In his speech on 6 January 2021, before a riot at the US Capitol, Trump told a crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Panorama programme, a clip showed him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

The BBC acknowledged that the edit had given “the mistaken impression” he had “made a direct call for violent action”, but disagreed that there was basis for a defamation claim.

In November, a leaked internal BBC memo criticised how the speech was edited, and led to the resignations of the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness.

Before Trump filed the lawsuit, lawyers for the BBC had given a lengthy response to the president’s claims.

They said there was no malice in the edit and that Trump was not harmed by the programme, as he was re-elected shortly after it aired.

They also said the BBC did not have the rights to, and did not, distribute the Panorama programme on its US channels. While the documentary was available on BBC iPlayer, it was restricted to viewers in the UK.

In his lawsuit, Trump cites agreements the BBC had with other distributors to show content, specifically one with a third-party media corporation that allegedly had licensing rights to the documentary outside the UK. The BBC has not yet responded to these claims, nor has the company with the alleged distribution agreement.

The suit also claims that people in Florida may have accessed the programme using a VPN or by using streaming service BritBox.

“The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed,” the lawsuit said.

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10bn from the BBC over a documentary that edited his speech to supporters before the US Capitol riot in 2021.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Monday, seeks “damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000,000” for each of two counts against the United Kingdom broadcaster for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Earlier in the day, Trump confirmed his plans to file the lawsuit.

“I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally… I guess they used AI or something,” he told reporters at the White House.

“That’s called fake news .”

President Trump: “I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally…I guess they used AI or something…they actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6th that I didn’t say.” pic.twitter.com/cUwXqBq3Zd

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2025

Trump has accused the UK publicly-owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021, speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.

The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.

Trump’s lawsuit alleges that the BBC defamed him, and his lawyers say the documentary caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

The BBC has already apologised to Trump, admitted an error of judgement and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.

The broadcaster also said that there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, and that to overcome the US Constitution’s strong legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove in court not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the programme did not damage Trump’s reputation.

Trump, in his lawsuit, said that the BBC, despite its apology, “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses”.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the BBC had “a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda”.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed on Monday.

The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.

Other media organisations have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC, when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.

Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all of which have denied wrongdoing.