speech

Jimmy Kimmel’s show is gone. So is Stephen Colbert’s. And if President Trump has his way, Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon will be next.

In the MAGA establishment’s ongoing censorship campaign against Trump’s critics, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” became its latest victim when ABC announced Wednesday that it was pulling the show “indefinitely.” The network’s abrupt announcement followed an outcry from Trump’s supporters that the show’s host — a longtime critic of the president — had inaccurately described the political motivations of Tyler Robinson, the suspect in last week’s killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The network’s announcement came hours after Brendan Carr, the Trump-nominated chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, targeted Kimmel on a right-wing podcast and suggested the FCC could take action against ABC because of remarks made by the host. He said Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people,” and that the FCC was “going to have remedies that we can look at.”

“Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he told the podcast’s host, Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

The alleged “lies” cited by Kimmel in his Monday night monologue? That MAGA was trying to paint Robinson as “anything other than one of them.”

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was, uh, grieving on Friday — the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.”

Kimmel then cut to a clip showing Trump taking questions from reporters, and when the president was asked how he was holding up, he said, “I think very good, and by the way, right there where you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House.” Trump went on to discuss the plans for the ballroom and said the results will “be a beauty.”

It wasn’t Kimmel’s best work, but it certainly wasn’t a bombshell, either. Yet in today’s environment, it was enough to spook ABC into pulling a late-night franchise that’s endured for decades.

The FCC unsurprisingly did not apply the same standards to an outburst Monday by Greg Gutfeld, Fox News’ conservative answer to network television’s thinning herd of late-night hosts. Gutfeld cursed on air, demeaned the loss of life from another assassination earlier this year and cited information that was incorrect to back his tirade.

On Fox’s show “The Five,” Gutfeld asserted that political violence in the U.S. was only going one way — from left to right — during a conversation with co-host Jessica Tarlov. When she pushed back on his argument by bringing up the June assassination of the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Melissa Hortman, and her husband, Mark, Gutfeld exploded.

“What is interesting here is, why is only this happening on the left and not the right?” he asked. “That’s all we need to know.”

“You wanna talk about Melissa Hortman?” he shouted at her. “Did you know her name before it happened? None of us did. None of us were spending every single day talking about Mrs. Hortman — I never heard of her until after she died.”

“So, it doesn’t matter?” Tarlov asked.

“Don’t play that bulls— with me!” Gutfeld shouted. “You know what I’m talking … What I’m saying is there was no demonization, amplification about that woman before she died. It was a specific crime against her by somebody who knew her.”

No evidence has been publicly presented that the alleged killer of the Hortmans, Vance Boelter, knew the couple. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Boelter “had a list of possible targets,” and investigators have suggested that the suspect’s right-wing political views played a role in the attacks.

Carr’s assail of Kimmel is the latest attack against the media by Trump and his administration. Trump sued ABC last year in a case that the network paid $15 million to settle. On Monday, the president filed a $15-billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and four of its reporters.

In July, CBS also canceled storied network franchise “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” claiming that the cancellation was a financial decision, but the timing also suggests it was done to placate Trump while Paramount was awaiting the FCC’s approval of a major merger between CBS’ owner Paramount and Skydance Media. A few weeks after CBS agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” the merger was approved.

Ratings for late-night television have been slipping over the last decade due to a number of factors, including the decline of linear TV as a whole and changing viewing habits with the advent of streaming and online engagement. In the 1990s, for example, Johnny Carson’s final episode in 1992 drew 50 million viewers. Letterman averaged around 7.8 million viewers in the same year. In the second quarter of 2025, “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” topped the 11:35 p.m. hour with an average of 2.417 million viewers. “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” came in second with an average of 1.772 million viewers. NBC’s “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” finished third with an average of 1.188 million viewers.

On Wednesday, Trump posted a celebratory comment about Kimmel’s show being pulled: “Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump wrote. “Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT”

But the true loser here isn’t Trump’s critics or his enemy, the left. It’s freedom of speech.

Palestinian activist Saeed Taji Farouky, of Defend Our Juries, says UK free speech is under threat after dawn raids on activist Paddy Friend and others. He warns that peaceful campaigners face terror charges over holding Zoom calls.

In the days since Charlie Kirk’s killing, conservatives have embraced a phenomenon they previously called toxic: cancel culture.

The impulse to cancel some voices this past week is understandable: Celebrating murder is cruel. It’s gross. It’s wrong. But the irony is impossible to miss: Conservatives, who long treated cancel culture as an affront to the 1st Amendment spirit of open discourse, are now calling for people to lose their jobs and their livelihoods, all because of something stupid they said on the internet.

This is the same issue that drove numerous stand-up comedians, young men, podcasters and Silicon Valley tech bros into the arms of Donald Trump in 2024. But now, in an amazing turn of events, conservatives are now aping the progressive scolds and speech cops, only with red hats.

Actually, their version is worse. The left’s “accountability culture” mob might have been overbearing, but their agenda was (with a few notable exceptions) largely driven by hall monitors. Today’s “woke right” is executing things in a more overt, efficient and official manner — which for the record means it can violate not just the spirit of the 1st Amendment but the actual, you know … 1st Amendment.

As a case in point, JD Vance, the vice president of the United States of America, recently told Kirk’s radio audience: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer.”

Which raises the question, what if their employer is the government? That would be awkward. But no problem! Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly telling staff to track down soldiers guilty of wrongspeak. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) is trying to get teachers terminated, tweeting: “We don’t fund hate. We fire it” — which feels like the sort of slogan Mao might have had printed on a T-shirt.

And speaking of printers, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has warned that the government can “prosecute” any professional printer who refuses to “print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil.” She also pledged to “absolutely target” anyone who targets anyone with “hate speech.”

Not long ago, progressives insisted bakers must bake cakes for gay weddings, and now a U.S. attorney general from a Republican administration is insisting that printers must print images for vigils. Funny how the tables turn.

Then, there’s the so-called Charlie Kirk Data Foundation, which claims to have a searchable list of tens of thousands of people who posted mean tweets after Kirk’s death. Collectively, this purge campaign seems to be working. A lot of scalps have already been claimed, including those of prominent pundits and late night host Jimmy Kimmel (who was suspended after making remarks about the motives of Kirk’s killer).

But — let’s be clear — opposition to cancel culture is merely the latest principle that Trump-era Republicans have conveniently abandoned. Indeed, almost every tenet that conservatives held dear a decade ago has been reversed.

And people are starting to notice. Oregon state Rep. Cyrus Javadi recently switched parties, citing the GOP’s abandonment of principles like “limited government, fiscal responsibility, free speech, free trade, and, above all, the rule of law.”

He has a point. Trump’s America now owns a chunk of U.S. chipmaker Intel (so much for small government), spends like a drunken sailor, slaps tariffs on everything that moves (bye-bye, free trade) and ignores laws he doesn’t like — most recently, the TikTok sell-off mandate that was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, which Trump decided to treat like a menu item he didn’t order — until he found a suitable buyer.

But it’s not just normie Republicans who are worried about Trump diverting from the Reagan-Bush playbook.

Comedian and podcaster Tim Dillon recently observed that the Trump agenda looks suspiciously like the dystopia that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones used to warn us about between colloidal silver ads: “Military in the street, the FEMA camp, the tech company that monitors everything, the surveillance. This is all of that.”

So why is this happening? Why the contortions? I’m reminded of an old story Rush Limbaugh used to tell about the late actor Ron Silver.

As the story goes, Silver went to Bill Clinton’s first inauguration as a bleeding-heart liberal and was horrified by the military flyover. And then he realized, “Those are our planes now.”

That’s where conservatives are when it comes to cancel culture. They’ve finally realized that this is their cancel culture now.

And maybe that’s the grubby little secret about politics in the Trump era. Almost nobody cares about values or morals — or “principles” — anymore. Free speech, limited government, fiscal restraint — these are all rules for thee, but not for me.

Cancel culture wasn’t rejected, it was just co-opted. So go ahead. Drop a dime. See something, say something. Big Brother is watching.

Irony, meet guillotine.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Washington, DC – Journalists, academics, airline employees, doctors and restaurant workers across the United States have been fired or investigated by their employers over the past week for comments deemed insensitive on the killing of Charlie Kirk.

The firings at a moment of rising political tensions in the US have ignited debates over the limits of free speech, cancel culture, doxxing and labour protections, as well as the legacy of Kirk.

The 31-year-old right-wing commentator was fatally shot in Utah last week.

While parts of the country mourned Kirk as a martyr who championed patriotism and open debate, others recalled his divisive views, including his anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric. Some even celebrated his death.

Many Republicans responded with a campaign of naming and shaming to ostracise people who reacted to the assassination in ways that they considered objectionable.

Former MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd was one of the earliest targets of that effort.

Shortly after Kirk was shot, Dowd said the conservative commentator pushed “hate speech” against some groups. “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions,” the analyst said on air.

The comment sparked outrage from Kirk’s supporters, leading MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler to apologise for what she called the “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” remarks.

Dowd was later fired – a move that he rejected and blamed on a right-wing “media mob” that “misconstrued” his words.

This week, columnist Karen Attiah was also sacked from her position at the Washington Post over her response to the killing of Kirk.

Attiah had fired off a series of social media posts around race and gun violence after the assassination.

A letter of termination that she shared online on Tuesday cited a post in which she defended refusing to engage in “performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence” without explicitly mentioning Kirk as one of the reasons for her sacking.

A statement from Post Guild leadership:

The Washington Post Guild condemns the unjust firing of columnist Karen Attiah

The Washington Post wrongly fired Opinions columnist Karen Attiah over her social media posts.

— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) September 15, 2025

Officials back sacking campaign

Private citizens from all walks of life have also faced calls to be let go from their jobs over their takes on the killing of Kirk – social media posts that ranged from revelling in his death to linking the assassination to the commentator’s own views and support for gun rights.

For example, influential right-wing social media accounts have been demanding the firing of a Pennsylvania teacher for calling Kirk “racist”, although she also said that he “didn’t deserve to die”.

Kirk himself was no stranger to controversial opinions. He repeatedly attacked Islam and Muslims.

“Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America,” he wrote in a recent social media post.

He was also a promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory – the notion that there is a plan (usually claimed to be carried out by Jewish elites) to replace white populations with immigrants, which has inspired white nationalist mass shooters across the world.

But on the right, the status of Kirk only rose after his death. With that apparent canonisation came the push to protect his legacy from detractors and those finding humour, joy or irony in his death.

Almost immediately after the shooting, right-wing groups started publishing the names and personal information – including place of employment – of social media users who allegedly celebrated the assassination.

Republican politicians, including lawmakers, joined calls for the firing of individuals over Kirk-related social media posts deemed by them to be offensive.

In Indiana, State Attorney General Todd Rokita encouraged submissions to a database on school employees who made “comments that celebrate or rationalise” the shooting of Kirk.

🚨Hoosiers: If you have evidence of Indiana educators or school administrators making comments that celebrate or rationalize the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we need to hear from you.

These individuals must be held accountable—they have no place teaching our students.

➡️… pic.twitter.com/w6ohKUyLqP

— AG Todd Rokita (@AGToddRokita) September 12, 2025

US Vice President JD Vance backed the effort as well, saying that people who celebrated the assassination should be held to account. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said on Monday.

US Congressman Randy Fine, of Florida, threatened to revoke the professional state licences of offenders, including lawyers, teachers and doctors.

Fine himself cheered for the killing of US citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi by Israeli forces last year. “One less #MuslimTerrorist. #FireAway,” he wrote on social media after Eygi was fatally shot in the occupied West Bank.

Is it legal?

While the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not apply to private employers.

But some states have laws to protect speech and political activities of employees when they are not at work.

Jenin Younes, a prominent free speech lawyer who recently became the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), said private companies have “a lot of latitude” to reprimand workers for their speech.

However, when it comes to public schools and universities, it’s more complicated.

“Public employers, broadly speaking, are bound by the First Amendment,” Younes said. “But there are circumstances in which they can consider someone’s speech to fire them.”

These “exceptions and qualifications” are on a case-by-case basis.

For example, Younes said a public school teacher could say that Kirk’s ideas were “loathsome”, but saying that he deserves to die would probably cross the line.

The law aside, Younes said the firing frenzy is “problematic philosophically”, especially given that some of the people were sacked for simply criticising Kirk, not glorifying violence.

“It’s very bad for a free society,” she told Al Jazeera. “People rely on their jobs. They need their jobs in order to live and support their families. So, if we want to live in a society where we have robust dialogue and debate, which is the purpose of the First Amendment, it’s bad from a practical standpoint.”

Younes said she understands why private employers may want to curb social media posts by employees that clash with the company’s brand and mission.

But a better approach than letting go of workers, she added, is to discuss the matter with them and warn them to refrain from posting similar messages in the future.

“We should always err towards more discussion and debate and not silencing people,” Younes said. “And we have to remember people have moments when they get emotional and say things they don’t mean.”

Beyond the firing campaign, several Republican politicians have pushed policy ideas to regulate speech, especially on social media, after Kirk was killed.

Republican US Congressman Clay Higgins vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate [an] immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination” of Kirk.

US Congressman Chip Roy led a congressional letter requesting the formation of a committee to investigate the “radical left”.

For her part, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that federal authorities will push to penalise speech that they view as hateful.

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” she said on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Role reversal

For some observers, that right-wing push is increasingly appearing like a role reversal of the ideological blocs in the US.

For years, the right raged against the notion of “hate speech” and some left-wing activists’ push to fire and “cancel” those with views they find offensive – especially on issues of race and gender identity.

Right-wing politicians were also vocal opponents of any governmental efforts to regulate social media content.

Kirk himself had rejected penalising “hate speech”, although he backed US President Donald Trump’s clampdown on pro-Palestine student activists.

“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” Kirk wrote in a social media post last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Younes, who led a lawsuit against the Democratic administration of former US President Joe Biden over alleged social media censorship efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, noted what she called “the hypocrisy”.

“A lot of the people who were against ‘cancel culture’, when it was the left doing it, are now suddenly very eager to embrace cancel culture when they don’t like the speech in question, which I think shows the heart of the struggle on this issue,” she said.

“Everybody claims to be against censorship when it’s ideas that they like that are being censored, but then when it’s their ideological opponents, they’re very happy to do the censoring.”

She warned that the push to curb freedom of expression around the killing of Kirk could extend to other issues, including intensifying the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy.

“Any kind of censorship that’s used for one type of speech can always be adjusted to apply to another type of speech,” she said.

Stephen Graham was presented with the Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited or Anthology Series or Movie for his role in Netflix’s Adolescence.

Stephen Graham couldn’t help but get emotional during his Emmy acceptance speech as he stated “this kind of thing doesn’t happen to a kid like me”.

Adolescence became an instant global success when it was dropped on Netflix earlier this year, telling the story of a teenage boy accused of fatally stabbing another child.

Graham portrayed Eddie, the father of said teenager Jamie Miller, portrayed by 15-year-old Owen Cooper who has become the youngest male actor to win an Emmy.

When the 52-year-old took to the stage himself to claim his award for Outstanding Lead Actor, he touched upon his past before becoming an actor.

Graham shared: “This kind of thing doesn’t happen to a kid like me. I’m just a mixed race kid from a block of flats in a place called Kirkby.

“So for me, to be here today, in front of my peers and to be acknowledged by you is the utmost humbling thing I could ever imagine in my life, and it shows you that any dream is possible.”

While Graham was born in Kirby, Lancashire, he has both Jamaican and Swedish heritage on his father’s side.

His biological grandfather was part of the Windrush generation who moved to the UK from Jamaica in the 1960s but died before the actor was born.

Graham previously opened up on experiencing bullying when he was younger, telling Desert Island Discs: “I’m mixed race and that was kind of frowned on in those days.

“There were times growing up when I was slightly unsure where I fitted in. That n-word popped up when I was younger.”

Graham also spoke about how it was his step-father Mike Fazakerley, who he affectionately calls Pops, helped him through this difficult time.

He added: “He [Mike] helped me see who I am and what I am is good enough.

“He helped me find my own way and I got that sense of self in many respects from my mother, finding your own way.”

Adolescence proved to be the overall winners of the night at the Emmy this weekend with the show taking home six awards.

This included accolades for both Graham and Cooper’s performances, as well as for Limited or Anthology series, and Outstanding Supporting Actress for Erin Doherty.

Adolescence is available to watch on Netflix

NEW YORK — In the days since the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, workers in a variety of industries have been fired for their comments on his death.

It’s hardly the first time workers have lost their jobs over things they say publicly — including in social media posts. In the U.S., laws can vary across states, but overall, there’s very few legal protections for employees who are punished for speech made in or out of private workplaces.

“Most people think they have a right to free speech … but that doesn’t necessarily apply in the workplace,” said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO. “Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections for that type of speech at work.”

Add to that the prevalence of social media, which has made it increasingly common to track employees’ conduct outside of work or for internet users to publish information about them with the intent of harming or harassing them.

Employers have leeway

Protections for workers vary from one state to the next. In New York, if an employee is participating in a weekend political protest, but not associating themselves with the organization that employs them, their employer cannot fire them for that activity when they return to work. But if that same employee is at a company event on a weekend and talks about their political viewpoints in a way that makes others feel unsafe or the target of discrimination or harassment, then they could face consequences at work, Matsis-McCready said.

Most of the U.S. defaults to “at-will” employment law — which essentially means employers can choose to hire and fire as they see fit, including over employees’ speech.

“The 1st Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees’ speech,” said Andrew Kragie, an attorney who specializes in employment and labor law at Maynard Nexsen. “It actually does protect employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’ speech.”

Kragie said there are “pockets of protection” around the U.S. under various state laws, such as statutes that forbid punishing workers for their political views. But the interpretation of how that gets enforced changes, he notes, making the waters murky.

Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin and faculty director of the school’s Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, also points to some state laws that say employers can’t fire their workers for “legal off-duty conduct.” But there’s often an exception for conduct seen as disruptive to an employer’s business or reputation, which could be grounds to fire someone over public comments or social media posts.

“In this scenario, if somebody feels like one of their employees has done something that suggests they are glorifying or celebrating a murder, an employer might still be able to fire them even with one of those laws on the books,” Collis said.

For public employees, including school teachers, postal workers and elected officials, the process is a bit different. That’s because the 1st Amendment plays a unique role when the government is the employer, Collis explains — and the Supreme Court has ruled that if an employee is acting in a private capacity but speaking on a matter of public concern, they’re protected.

However, that has yet to stop the public sector from restricting speech in the aftermath of Kirk’s death. For instance, leaders at the Pentagon unveiled a “zero tolerance” policy for any posts or comments from troops deemed to be making light of or celebrating the killing of Kirk.

The policy, announced by the Defense Department’s top spokesman, Sean Parnell, on social media Thursday, came hours after numerous conservative military influencers and activists began forwarding posts they considered problematic to Parnell and his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American,” Parnell wrote Thursday, referring to the Department of Defense by the name adopted recently by President Trump.

A surge of political debate

The ubiquity of social media is making it easier than ever to share opinions about politics and major news events as they’re unfolding. But posting on social media leaves a record, and in times of escalating political polarization, those declarations can be seen as damaging to the reputation of an individual or their employer.

“People don’t realize when they’re on social media, it is the town square,” said Amy Dufrane, chief executive of the Human Resource Certification Institute. “They’re not having a private conversation with the neighbor over the fence. They’re really broadcasting their views.”

Political debates are certainly not limited to social media and are increasingly making their way into the workplace as well.

“The gamification of the way we communicate in the workplace — Slack and Teams, chat and all these things — they’re very similar to how you might interact on Instagram or other social media, so I do think that makes it feel a little less formal and somebody might be more inclined to take a step and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe this happened,’” Matsis-McCready said.

Many employers unprepared

In the tense, divided climate in the United States at the moment, many human resource professionals have expressed that they’re unprepared to address politically charged discussions in the workplace, according to the Human Resource Certification Institute. But those conversations are going to happen, so employers need to set policies about what is acceptable or unacceptable workplace conduct, Dufrane said.

“HR has got to really drill down and make sure that they’re super clear on their policies and practices and communicating to their employees on what are their responsibilities as an employee of the organization,” Dufrane said.

Many employers are reviewing their policies on political speech and providing training about what appropriate conduct looks like, both inside and outside the organization, she said. And the brutal nature of Kirk’s killing may have led some of them to react more strongly in the days since his death.

“Because of the violent nature of what some political discussion is now about, I think there is a real concern from employers that they want to keep the workplace safe and that they’re being extra vigilant about anything that could be viewed as a threat, which is their duty,” Matsis-McCreedy said.

Employees can also be seen as ambassadors of a company’s brand, and their political speech can dilute that brand and hurt its reputation, depending on what is being said and how it is being received. That is leading more companies to act on what employees are saying online, she said.

“Some of the individuals that had posted and their posts went viral, all of a sudden the phone lines of their employers were just nonstop calls complaining,” Matsis-McCready said.

Still, experts such as Collis don’t anticipate a significant change in how employers monitor their workers’ speech — noting that online activity has been in the spotlight for at least the last 15 years.

“Employers are already — and have been for a very long time — vetting employees based on what they’re posting on social media,” he said.

Bussewitz and Grantham-Philips write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom used his written State of the State address Tuesday to cast California as a bulwark against a menacing Trump administration he accused of dismantling public services, flouting the rule of law and using extortion to bully businesses and universities.

The remarks came as Newsom’s national profile has grown and given him a broader political stage, even as he skipped the literal one — opting to send his speech to lawmakers in writing rather than deliver it from the Assembly rostrum, which is customary. His address painted a portrait of a state under siege by the federal government even as it grapples with the aftermath of the devastating Los Angeles County fires, spiraling housing costs and an uneven economic recovery.

While he framed Trump and his allies as the chief obstacle to progress, he leaned on familiar themes of California’s resilience, pointing to disaster response, investments in schools and clean energy and the state’s economic staying power. He said as California celebrates the 175th anniversary of statehood, “the state of the state is strong, fully committed to defending democracy, and resolved to never bend.”

“It would be a mistake to think California is cowering in the face of this onslaught,” Newsom said in the 2,300-word address accompanied by a shortened video version.

The written address marks the fifth year in a row that Newsom has diverged from the decades-old tradition of the governor delivering the annual address in person to lawmakers at the state Capitol.

His unconventional approach has drawn some criticism, particularly by Republicans who characterized it as an example of Newsom lacking respect for the institution. California’s Constitution only requires that the State of the State be submitted as a written letter to the Legislature, which was how governors up until roughly the 1960s fulfilled their duty. Starting with the late Gov. Pat Brown, the addresses were delivered in person, typically in January as a way to set the agenda for the year.

Newsom, who dislikes reading from a teleprompter due to his dyslexia, has not delivered his State of the State in the Capitol since 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, Newsom’s address was streamed from an empty Dodgers Stadium and, two years later, he declined to give a speech in lieu of a statewide press tour, during which he unveiled new policies.

“His ambitions are more than his ability to govern this state,” Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher of Yuba City said in a video posted on X. “And here is another symbol of that, not showing up to talk about what is actually going on in the state and how we can actually come together to get things done.”

This year’s speech arrives unusually late in the year, as lawmakers race to approve hundreds of bills ahead of Friday’s legislative deadline. It also comes at a moment when Newsom, in the final stretch of his governorship, is drawing national attention not only for his confrontations with Trump but also for a shrewd social media assault that borrows the president’s own trolling style to energize supporters and burnish his public brand.

But Newsom’s record has also drawn sharp criticism.

After nearly two terms, California continues to wrestle with entrenched homelessness, soaring housing costs and one of the nation’s highest costs of living. A budget deficit has swelled in part because the governor expanded Medi-Cal healthcare coverage to include all income-eligible undocumented immigrants. And his move to undercut Texas lawmakers who redrew legislative maps to add additional Republican seats in Congress by asking California voters to do the same to add Democrats has fueled charges that he is accelerating a national wave of partisan gerrymandering and energizing state Republicans.

“My last letter to you warned about the poisonous populism of the right and the anxiety many people were feeling about the state of this country — some of it grounded in real fear about the national economy, but much of it stoked by misinformation and bigotry,” Newsom wrote to lawmakers. “We are now nine months into a battle to protect the values we hold most dear and to preserve the economic and social foundation we built for California. We are facing a federal administration built on incompetence and malicious ignorance, one that seeks the death of independent thinking.”

Newsom said California showed the country its resilient spirit in January during the deadly wind-driven wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes and forced mass evacuations in Los Angeles County. Newsom credited emergency responders who put their lives at risk saving trapped residents.

He glossed over criticisms that pre-deployed fire engines were inadequate, evacuation alerts were delayed and elderly and disabled residents were left stranded. Instead, he focused on the “historic speed and scale” for which federal, state and local officials responded. That commitment, he said, will be there until the last residents return and local businesses recover.

“Through executive orders waiving red tape, the state paved the way for debris-removal crews to move quickly through damaged areas and streamlined permits to speed rebuilding,” Newsom wrote. “Homes are now rising.”

While California looked to the Trump administration for help, Newsom said the state has found none.

“Even as fires still burned, the newly elected President began targeting our state — testing our resolve with his relentless, unhinged California obsession,” Newsom wrote.

From fires to immigration, Newsom said Trump’s approach has been the same: Abandon California when it is in crisis and attack its liberal values. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for federal authorities to return to mass immigration arrests at workplaces, bus stops and other places in Los Angeles. Newsom said Trump’s decision in June to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to help with immigration enforcement was a “cowardly attempt to scare us into submission.”

“We are committed to protecting the men and women who make this state stronger through their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit,” Newsom wrote before pivoting to Trump’s ongoing attacks on university funding. “And when the President threatens to bankrupt UCLA — an engine of innovation and economic prosperity, a world leader in science and medicine — with his own bankrupt ideas, he will fail.”

California has led the way in building a green economy, Newsom said, pointing to more than2 million zero-emission vehicles sold in the state and 51 miles of Caltrain railroad tracks now electrified. The state’s grid has run for the equivalent of 60 full days using 100% clean electricity, he added.

“Our climate investments will create millions of new jobs and cut air pollution by more than 70%,” Newsom wrote. “In California, economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand.”

Like past governors, he used the speech to underscore California’s outsized role in the national economy. With a gross domestic product topping $4.1 trillion, he said the state leads in startups, venture capital and space technology.

The governor closed on a note of defiance, promising to report next year — in what would be his final State of the State — that California is “brighter and more prosperous than ever before.”

Charlie Sheen wants to free himself from feeling like he’s being held hostage by his private life.

To shed that sensation, the “Wall Street” star decided to talk about his sexual past in his memoir, “The Book of Sheen,” which comes out Tuesday.

People from his past “had video things or whatever and had stuff over me,” the actor told Michael Strahan on “Good Morning America.” “So I was kind of held hostage, you know, and that’s just a bad feeling.”

Sheen talked Friday on the morning show about how his drug addiction led him to have sex with men — he called it “the other side of the menu” — and how he was forced to pay people to keep those sexual encounters out of the public eye.

Cherlie Sheen on his sexual encounters with men and feeling hostage by his private life.

He also hit on less salacious revelations like the connection between his stutter and his drinking. In the book, Sheen writes about masking his inability to pronounce certain words and sounds with drinking alcohol. “Drinking soften the edges,” he told Strahan. “It gave me freedom of speech.”

After joining the ABC show “Spin City” in 2000 and reading the script, he said, Sheen stopped hiding his speech impediment and asked for help.

“When in doubt, just be human enough to be vulnerable,” he told “GMA.”

Sheen also reveals in the book that some folks wanted to expose his HIV-positive diagnosis before he went public with it in 2015, according to People. Sheen said on “GMA” that finally revealing his diagnosis was a “tremendous relief.”

The “Two and a Half Men” actor — whose paycheck for the sitcom was estimated at as much as $2 million per episode — infamously landed in rehab in 2010 after threatening his ex-wife Brooke Mueller with a knife, trashed his room at the Plaza Hotel in New York and in 2011 was fired from his CBS sitcom amid a meltdown of epic proportions.

During the “GMA” interview, Strahan asked the actor if he had any regrets.

“I do,” Sheen said, “but there’s no value in them.”

A documentary about the actor’s life, “aka Charlie Sheen,” will premiere Wednesday on Netflix. Sheen, who has been sober for eight years, told People he decided to be vulnerable about his past because he wants to own his truth and his stories.

“The stories I can remember anyway,” he said.

As a young man, he stood next to Martin Luther King Jr. as he delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech. As a college basketball coach, he blazed a trail for Black coaches and players. As an executive, he was instrumental in signing Michael Jordan to his groundbreaking endorsement deal with Nike.

George Raveling had an impact that stretched far beyond basketball, the sport which he last coached three decades ago at USC. He became a revered figure in the game, not for the number of wins he accumulated over his career, but for his role as a mentor to many.

Raveling, 88, died Monday after a battle with cancer, his family announced.

“There are no words to fully capture what George meant to his family, friends, colleagues, former players, and assistants — and to the world,” the family said in a statement. “He will be profoundly missed, yet his aura, energy, divine presence, and timeless wisdom live on in all those he touched and transformed.”

Raveling coached at USC from 1986 to 1994, the first Black coach to take the helm of the Trojans basketball program. Over his first four seasons at the school, Raveling didn’t experience much success, winning just 38 of USC’s 116 games over that stretch.

Raveling found his stride in the second half of his tenure, taking the Trojans to two straight NCAA tournaments and two NITs after that. But his overall record at USC never broke .500 (115-118). In September 1994, Raveling was in a serious car accident that eventually led him to retire. He suffered nine broken ribs and a collapsed lung and fractured his pelvis and collarbone.

After his coaching career, Raveling joined Nike as the director of grassroots basketball, later rising to the role of director of international basketball.

But his biggest contribution at Nike came out of his relationship with Jordan, whom Raveling had coached as an assistant with the U.S. national team at the 1984 Olympics. Jordan, whose deal with Nike sent the brand into a new stratosphere, credited Raveling for making it happen. In the foreword for Raveling’s book, Jordan called him “a mentor”.

“If not for George, there would be no Air Jordan,” Jordan wrote.

Across the basketball world, similar plaudits came pouring in Tuesday in light of Raveling’s death.

Eric Musselman, USC’s current basketball coach, said Raveling was “not only a Hall of Fame basketball mind but a tremendous person who paved the way on and off the court.”

Former Villanova coach Jay Wright wrote on social media that Raveling was “the finest human being, inspiring mentor, most loyal alum and a thoughtful loving friend.”

Raveling grew up in Washington D.C., during a time of segregation and hardship. His family lived in a two-room apartment above a grocery store, where they shared a bathroom with four other families on the same floor. His father died suddenly when he was 9. His mother suffered a mental health crisis a few years later and spent most of her remaining years in a psychiatric hospital. Raveling left home at 14 to attend a boarding school.

It was at St. Michaels, a mostly white boarding school in Pennsylvania, that Raveling first started playing basketball. He earned a scholarship at Villanova, where he became a captain and later an assistant coach.

But the college experience, he later said, had an even more profound impact on Raveling.

“I’ve always felt like a sprinter who’d slipped at the starting box and was 20 yards behind everybody — I’ve been in a mad dash to catch up with everybody ever since,” Raveling told The Times in 1994. “My mom worked two jobs when I was a kid. There were no books in our house. Nobody envisioned that I’d graduate from college. No one even encouraged me to go to college.”

He’d spend the rest of his life, it seems, trying to make up for lost time.

Raveling was standing just a few feet away from King on the National Mall in Washington D.C. in 1963 as he delivered his famed “I Have A Dream” speech. King actually handed Raveling his copy of the historic speech immediately after he finished.

For decades, Raveling kept it tucked inside of a book, before recounting the story to a journalist. According to Sports Illustrated, a collector later offered Raveling $3 million for his copy of the speech. But he declined and donated it instead to Villanova.

George Raveling was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass., in 2015.

(Charles Krupa / Associated Press)

Raveling pioneered a path that few Black coaches ever had through his career. He was the first Black coach in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference when he started as an assistant in 1969. Three years later, at Washington State, he became the first Black coach to lead a Pac-8 (now Pac-12) Conference basketball team.

He coached at Iowa from 1983-86 before being hired at USC. At the time, the Trojans had a roster that included Hank Gathers and Bo Kimble, who were coming off their freshman season. Raveling gave the players a firm deadline to tell him if they planned to remain on the team and when they didn’t he revoked their scholarships. Both went on to star at Loyola Marymount.

Raveling was inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in 2015. But as a “contributor”, not as a coach. Even while he was coaching, Raveling seemed to understand that his role meant more than that.

“Winning basketball games just helps you keep your job,” he told The Times in 1994. “But keeping your job helps you work with these kids about the real challenges of life, which all happen away from the court. I know there’s an enormous demand around here to win. But I don’t want someone to ask me what I accomplished in my life and for me to say that I won this amount of games or took a team to some tournament.

“If all I can say is that I taught a kid how to shoot a jump shot, well, that’s not good enough. These kids come out of underprivileged, inner-city areas, and I’m just wasting my time if I haven’t put something of substance into their lives.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Leading European stock markets reflected a cautiously positive sentiment on Friday as investors watched for progress on Ukraine peace talks and awaited a speech from US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell. He will speak on Friday at Jackson Hole, where central bankers gather for their annual meeting. 

Markets also digested details of an EU-US trade truce and better-than-expected business activity data, announced on Thursday.

Despite the news that the German economy shrank more than initially estimated in the second quarter, the German DAX changed direction and made up its earlier losses, gaining around 0.1% after 11.00 CEST.

The FTSE 100, though trading in negative territory all morning, also followed suit and changed course, gaining a few points by late morning.

The Paris CAC 40 was up 0.2%, the Madrid IBEX 35 rose by 0.4%, and the European benchmark STOXX 600 increased by 0.2%. 

As for the London blue chip index, the early morning slight dip appeared to be just a small correction. “The FTSE 100 saw a subdued start on Friday after achieving a record close above 9,300 yesterday,” said AJ Bell investment analyst Dan Coatsworth in his note.

Investors are focusing on the message Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell might deliver at the Jackson Hole summit in Wyoming.

“Investors had been expecting a rate cut from the Fed next month so if Powell were to say anything suggesting rates might be kept on hold, it could see stocks come under greater pressure,” said Coatsworth. He added that robust PMI data from the US on Thursday pointed to a strong economy, potentially reducing the chances of the Fed lowering borrowing costs.

A cut in interest rates would be the first of the year and it would give asset prices and the economy a boost — but it could also risk worsening inflation.

The Fed has been hesitant to cut interest rates this year out of fear that President Donald Trump’s tariffs could push inflation higher, but a surprisingly weak report on employment growth earlier this month suddenly shifted focus towards the job market. Trump, meanwhile, has forcefully pushed for cuts to interest rates, directing fierce criticism towards Powell.

US markets closed in a gloomy mood

On Wall Street on Thursday, the S&P 500 slipped 0.4% to 6,370.17, continuing a gradual decline since a record on 14 August. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.3% to 44,875.50, and the Nasdaq composite fell 0.3% to 21,100.31.

In other dealings early on Friday, the US dollar rose to 148.48 Japanese yen, from 148.37 yen. The euro slipped to $1.1590 from $1.1606.

Meanwhile, oil prices fell by midday in Europe; the US benchmark crude lost 0.2% and was traded at $63.38 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, also was down by 0.2% at $67.52 per barrel.

Oil prices moved higher yesterday, “as the initial enthusiasm over progress towards a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine continues to fade”, said ING in a note. Expectations of increased global uncertainty are driven by the difficulties of setting up a Putin-Zelensky summit and securing potential security guarantees for Ukraine.

Asian markets were also mixed on Friday

Asian shares were also mixed on Friday. In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 rose less than 0.1% to 42,633.29 after Japan’s core inflation rate slowed to 3.1% in July, from 3.3% in June.

ING Economics said in a note that price pressures were broadly in line with market consensus. Inflation staying above 3% raises the likelihood of a rate hike as soon as October, it said.

In Chinese markets, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index rose 0.9% to 25,339.14. The Shanghai composite index climbed 1.5% to 3,825.76.

South Korea’s Kospi added 0.9% to 3,168.73. Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 fell 0.6% to 8,967.40 as traders sold to lock in gains after the benchmark surged to record highs in recent trading sessions.

Data by YCharts.

The S&P 500 (^GSPC -0.40%) slipped 25.6 points, or 0.4%, to 6,370.17 on Thursday, marking its fifth straight daily decline. Losses were broad, with weakness across technology and cyclical sectors, as investors grew cautious ahead of key central bank commentary.

The Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC -0.34%) also moved lower, dropping 72 points, or 0.3%, to finish at 21,100.31. Tech stocks continued to face pressure amid uncertainty over how the Federal Reserve will balance slowing labor market signals with still-sticky inflation.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI -0.34%) joined the decline, falling 152.81 points, or 0.3%, to 44,785.50. Financials and industrials slipped alongside technology, leaving all three major benchmarks in negative territory.

Looking ahead, attention is squarely on the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, where Fed Chair Jerome Powell is set to speak on Friday. Markets are searching for clarity on whether policymakers will move toward easing or maintain a cautious stance given the mixed economic backdrop. Powell’s remarks could prove pivotal in shaping expectations for the September meeting and the broader trajectory of rates.

Market data sourced from Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance on Thursday, Aug. 21, 2025.

Stanford University’s student newspaper is suing the Trump administration, claiming the threat to deport foreign students for speaking out against Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza is chilling free speech.

That threat is hampering the paper’s ability to cover campus demonstrations and to get protesters to speak on the record, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.

Some Stanford Daily writers, who are foreigners in the country on student visas, have even turned down assignments to write about unrest in the Middle East because they’re afraid they’ll be deported. Writers have also asked the paper to remove previously published stories from its website, citing the same concerns, the lawsuit says.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote in their complaint.

The suit accuses Trump administration officials, specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Noem, of placing their statutory authority to deport a foreign visa holder whose beliefs they deem un-American ahead of the constitutional right — guaranteed by the 1st Amendment— to free speech.

“When a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote, “the Constitution prevails.”

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, scoffed at the lawsuit, calling it “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

The lawsuit — which was filed by the 133-year-old student newspaper, not by the university itself — is the most recent salvo in an increasingly bitter fight between Trump and many of the nation’s elite universities. The president has made clear he sees top schools as hotbeds of liberal ideology and breeding grounds for anti-American sentiment.

His weapon of choice is to threaten to withhold billions of dollars in federal research grants from institutions that refuse to adopt policies on issues such as diversity, transgender rights and Israel that fall in line with his Make America Great Again ideology.

Critics call Trump’s campaign an attack on academic freedom, but fearing massive budget cuts, several Ivy League schools — including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown — have recently cut deals with the Trump administration in an attempt to limit the damage.

Stanford announced this week that it will be forced to lay off hundreds of employees as a result of cuts to research funding and changes to federal tax laws.

The Stanford Daily’s lawsuit focuses on two unnamed students, John and Jane Doe, who the paper’s lawyers say began self-censoring out of a well-founded fear of having their visas revoked and being deported.

Rubio has claimed that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows the secretary of State to revoke a noncitizen’s legal status if it is decided the person’s actions or statements “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

Rubio used that interpretation to justify the March arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was held in a Louisiana jail before a federal judge ordered his release.

The complaint cites the cases of two other foreign students — one at Columbia and one at Tufts — who were arrested for participating in pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations.

At Stanford, the plaintiff referred to as Jane Doe was a member of the group Students for Justice in Palestine. She has published online commentary accusing Israel of committing genocide and perpetuating apartheid, according to the lawsuit. She has also used the slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which has become a flash point in the Israel-Gaza debate.

Referencing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — the slogan is viewed as a call for freedom and self-determination by Palestinians. To many Israelis, it sounds like a call for their total destruction.

As a result, Doe’s profile appeared on the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel website that creators say is devoted to outing “hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.” Department of Homeland Security officials have acknowledged they consult the website’s profiles — most of which are of students and faculty at elite universities — for information on people worthy of investigation.

As a result, since March, Jane Doe has deleted her social media accounts and has “refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel,” the lawsuit claims.

John Doe has participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations, has accused Israel of genocide and chanted, “From the river to the sea.” But after the Trump administration started targeting campus demonstrators for deportation, he “refrained from publishing a study containing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza,” according to the lawsuit.

Unlike Jane Doe, John has since resumed public criticism of Israel despite the threat of deportation, according to the lawsuit.

Aug. 1 (UPI) — The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X said Friday that Britain’s newly-enacted Online Safety Act “seriously” is on the cusp of violating free speech masked as the fight to protect kids from explicit online content.

“Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public’s right to free expression,” the Global Government affairs wing of the Bastrop, Texas-headquartered X said Friday.

Britain’s Online Safety Act created a new set of legal duties by which tech companies must abide.

It mandated they evaluate the potential of users encountering illegal Internet content and children being exposed to online harm, which included a required safety assessment.

“When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety,'” the letter stated.

The British parliament passed it in September 2023 in the quest to improve online safety for young people.

X argues the British people may not of been aware of the “trade-off” when London passed the bill.

The OSA covers more than 130 offenses ranging from harassment and “assisting or encouraging suicide” to terrorism, fraud and “unlawful immigration.” It targets tech entities that span “social media or video-sharing platforms, messaging, gaming and dating apps, forums and file-sharing sites.”

According to the social media platform, the act’s “laudable intentions” were at risk of “being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach.”

“While everyone agrees protecting children is a critical responsibility, it is also clear that an overly rigorous statutory framework layered with a ‘voluntary’ code and heightened police monitoring, oversteps the intended mission,” it continued.

On Friday, a British watchdog group indicated that those fears may be valid.

“The BBC is now reporting that information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, UK rape gangs, and more is being censored online due to the government’s new Online ‘Safety’ Act,” Silkie Carlo, director of Britain-based Big Brother Watch, posted on X.

“Well done, lads,” she added in jest.

X’s government affairs office says free speech will suffer without a “more balanced, collaborative approach.”

Pornhub and other major pornographic websites had a targeted end of July date to implement its age verification mechanisms in order to comply.

Musk, 54, has characterized himself as a “free speech absolutist.”

The former White House DOGE adviser, for his part, has said the act’s purpose was “suppression of the people” as he tweeted a petition calling for its repeal that got more than 450,000 signatures.

OSA’s deadline required pornographic websites to implement “robust” age-verification methods or face fines close to $20 million or equal to 10% of company proceeds.

In addition to the increased government regulations, X officials also cite Britain’s new “National Internet Intelligence Investigations” team unit company officials say “sets off alarm bells” and will further “intensify scrutiny.”

The social media company said the Internet teams “sole” focus is to monitor social media for “signs of unrest, such as anti-immigrant sentiment, to prevent real-world violence.”

Speakers at Los Angeles City Council meetings will be banned from using the N-word and the C-word, the council decided Wednesday.

The ban comes after years of tirades by a few speakers who attack officials’ weight, sexual orientation or gender and who sometimes use racial slurs.

Speakers will now receive a warning for using either word — or any variation of the word. If they continue with the offensive language, they will be removed from the room and possibly banned from future meetings.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is Black, has said that the use of the words during public comment has discouraged people from coming to meetings.

“It is language that, anywhere outside this building where there aren’t four armed guards, would get you hurt if you said these things in public,” he said earlier this year.

The council’s decision to ban the words could be challenged in court, with some legal scholars saying it could violate speakers’ 1st Amendment free speech rights.

In 2014, the city paid $215,000 to a Black man who was ejected from a meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and a T-shirt with the N-word on it.

Attorney Wayne Spindler, who often uses offensive language at council meetings, said Wednesday that he plans to sue the city over the ban. He said he will read Tupac Shakur lyrics, including offensive curse words, until he is banned from a meeting.

“I’m going to file my $400-million lawsuit that I already have prepared and ready to file. If you want to make me the next millionaire, vote yes,” he said during public comment Wednesday.

Spindler was arrested in 2016 after submitting a public comment card showing a burning cross and a man hanging from a tree. On the card, he also wrote “Herb = [N-word],” referring to Herb Wesson, the council president at the time, who is Black. Prosecutors declined to press charges against Spindler.

Armando Herman, who attended the City Council vote Wednesday, is also a frequent offender.

At a City Council meeting earlier this month, Herman said the council was trying to suppress his speech, repeatedly referring to himself as a white N-word. He also used the C-word to describe an official in the room.

In 2023, a judge barred Herman from attending in person any public meetings at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, where the L.A. County supervisors meet, after he allegedly sent sexually suggestive emails to four female supervisors. He denied sending the emails.

Numerous other members of the public have spoken against the new rule, saying it violates their freedom of speech.

“You’re so weak you have to curb freedom of speech for everyone, and you know this is going to bring lawsuits,” said Stacey Segarra-Bohlinger, a member of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council who often punctuates her remarks with singing, at the council meeting earlier this month.

“This is an attack on free speech,” she added.

Several groups of professors in the United States are suing the Trump administration over its policy of arresting, detaining, cancelling visas, and deporting students who participate in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

The crackdown on free speech is creating a chilling effect across US academia, argues Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which is one of the organisations that brought the lawsuit.

Jaffer tells host Steve Clemons that the issue is much wider than the rights of non-citizens in the country. The government’s actions have the effect of “stifling a political viewpoint that the government doesn’t like”.

Donald Trump just spoke to one of the highest-profile stages in American politics at the Republican National Convention. How did he do? We asked Toastmasters, a 332,000-member global organization focused on helping people become effective communicators and leaders. 

We invited its 2015 public speaking world champion and international president to offer snap evaluations similar to those done in two minutes at Toastmasters meetings, focusing not on the content or the politics but on the presentation and performance.  

Here’s what they had to say, in their own words, edited for brevity: 

World Champion of Public Speaking Mohammed Qahtani

Mohammed Qahtani, a security engineer from Saudi Arabia, won the Toastmasters international speech contest in 2015. (Toastmasters)

He followed a very clear structure that was easy to follow. He quickly established rapport with the audience by focusing on what they want to hear. He used people’s language and spoke like a person who cared. However, I felt like he used too many numbers and statistics trying to convey his point.  

In terms of presence onstage, although he  was strict with the podium, he did manage to effectively engage the audience with body movement using his hand gestures. He distributed eye contact to everyone equally. However, I think he stuck to one particular hand movement.

He has [a] great commanding voice that was clear and projected strength. He also varied his tone and raised his voice on important phrases in his speech to allow it to stick [in] people’s minds, and he did effectively use pauses to allow his audience to digest his speech. However, I felt he was pausing more than needed and his pauses were a bit too long. That might disconnect the audience at times.

Overall, great presence onstage, excellent commanding voice and comprehensive speech writing. I would advise him to focus less on the numbers and statistics and more on touching people’s feelings and emotions. I would also recommend using less frequent pauses.

Toastmasters International President Jim Kokocki

Jim Kokocki of New Brunswick, Canada, has been a Toastmaster for nearly 30 years and holds the title Distinguished Toastmaster. (Toastmasters)

I observed several strengths such as simple, clear word choice and quite good use of vocal variety.

At times, he spoke in a quiet and sincere manner and more frequently with passion and more volume. His pacing during the speech was very good and varied. At times he spoke rapidly and at times more measured. His use of eye contact was strong, looking with purpose throughout the auditorium while he spoke. Use of gestures and body language was limited with an over reliance on the “OK” gesture and pointing. Simply having his hands in an open position would add variety and would appear very natural.

At one point [Trump] clapped into the microphone, which is typically very loud. When in front of a microphone, it is better to make a clapping gesture without actually clapping one’s hands together as the audience will see the gesture and follow.

Trump is very good at calling attention to key points by interjecting phrases such as “Think of this! Think of this!” He was very good at reading the audience energy and allowing the audience to express their enthusiasm.

There were a couple of misses in this regard. When he was introduced, there was loud applause and cheering, and Trump did a good job of letting the crowd express themselves. But then he started with a quiet, low-key “thank you, thank you.” This was an opportunity to comment on their enthusiasm and let them express their excitement further. Generally, a speaker should try to meet the audience at their excitement and energy level.

There was some opportunity for more consistency. I noted at the start an emphasis on working with the audience on a message of “we are a team.” However, later in the speech, he spoke of “my opponent.” “We” became “my.” This seemed like an opportunity to further unite the crowd with “our opponent.”

All in all, Trump is a talented speaker and during his 70-minute address displayed very strong speaking skills.

[email protected]

Chat me up on Twitter: @mmaltaisLA 

A more restrained tone and an appeal to populism: 5 takeaways from Donald Trump’s acceptance speech

Trump just gave the longest nomination acceptance speech since at least 1972, beating out Bill Clinton

‘I am your voice’: Trump shouts through an all-caps acceptance speech

WASHINGTON — There’s no filibuster in the House, but Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries essentially conducted one anyway.

Jeffries held the House floor for more than eight hours Thursday, taking his “sweet time” with a marathon floor speech that delayed passage of Republicans’ massive tax and spending cuts legislation and gave his minority party a lengthy spotlight to excoriate what he called an “immoral” bill.

As Democratic leader, Jeffries can speak for as long as he wants during debate on legislation — hence its nickname on Capitol Hill, the “magic minute,” that lasts as long as leaders are speaking.

He began the speech at 4:53 a.m. EDT and finished at 1:37 p.m. EDT, 8 hours, 44 minutes later, breaking the record set by then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) in 2021, when he was the GOP leader. McCarthy spoke for 8 hours, 32 minutes when he angrily criticized Democrats’ “Build Back Better” legislation, breaking a record set by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), when she spoke about immigration for 8 hours, 7 minutes in 2018.

“I feel an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to stand on this House floor and take my sweet time,” Jeffries said as he opened.

The speech pushed a final vote on Republican President Trump’s tax bill, initially expected in the early morning, into the daylight hours. The New York Democrat used the time to criticize the bill’s healthcare and food aid cuts, tax breaks for the wealthy and rollbacks to renewable energy programs, among other parts of the bill that Democrats decry.

He also killed time by riffing on hip-hop, King George III and his own life story, among other diversions. He called out Republicans who have voiced concerns about the bill, read stories from people concerned about their health care from those GOP lawmakers’ districts and praised his own members, some of whom sat behind him and cheered, clapped, laughed and joined hands.

“This reckless Republican budget is an immoral document, and that is why I stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives with my colleagues in the House Democratic caucus to stand up and push back against it with everything we have,” Jeffries said.

He ended the speech in the cadence of a Sunday sermon, with most of the Democratic caucus in a tight huddle around him. One colleague called out, “Bring it home, Hakeem!”

“We don’t work for President Donald Trump,” Jeffries said, as a handful of Republicans across the aisle sat silent and occasionally snickered at the leader as he kept talking.

He invoked the late John Lewis, a civil rights activist in the 1960s and longtime Democratic congressman from Georgia. “Get into good trouble, necessary trouble,” Jeffries said. “We’re going to press on until victory is won.”

Jeffries sneaked small bites of food and drank liquids to boost his energy, but did not leave the chamber or his podium. The speech would be over if he did.

Democrats were powerless to stop the huge bill, which Republicans are passing by using an obscure budget procedure that bypasses the Senate filibuster. So they were using the powers they do have, mostly to delay. In the Senate, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York forced Senate clerks to read the bill for almost 16 hours over the weekend.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) similarly gained attention in April when he spoke for more than 25 hours on the Senate floor about the first months of Trump’s presidency and broke the record for the longest continuous Senate floor speech in the chamber’s history. Booker was assisted by fellow Democrats who gave him a break from speaking by asking him questions on the Senate floor, but Jeffries’ “magic minute” did not allow for any interaction with other members.

Republicans who were sitting on the floor when Jeffries started trickled out, leaving half the chamber empty. When the speech was over, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) called it “a bunch of hogwash.”

The speech “will not change the outcome that you will see very shortly,” Smith said.

After the bill passed, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said that Democrats “wanted to speak for hours and hours and break records because they wanted to stand in the way of history.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. A.P. writers Matt Brown, Kevin Freking, Lisa Mascaro and Leah Askrinam contributed to this report.

Today we discuss presidential politics, window treatments and disasters of the natural and man-made variety.

Time for Gavin Newsom to start measuring those White House drapes.

Huh?

You know, president of the United States. I’m thinking something Earth-friendly, like recycled hemp.

Wait, what?

Did you catch the nationally televised speech the governor recently gave? The one about “democracy at a crossroads.”

I did.

It was a fine speech and the governor made some important points about President Trump’s reckless commandeering of California’s National Guard, his administration’s indiscriminate immigration raids and the wholly unnecessary dispatch of Marines to Los Angeles. (From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Venice Beach.)

Newsom was plenty justified in his anger and contempt. Trump, acting true to his flame-fanning fashion, turned what was a middling set of protests — nothing local law enforcement couldn’t handle — into yet another assault on our sorely tested Constitution.

Newsom’s speech certainly “met the moment,” to use one of his favorite phrases.

I’ll grant you that. Unlike a lot of extracurricular activities aimed at boosting his presidential prospects, Newsom was addressing a Trump-manufactured crisis unfolding right here at home. It was a moment that called for gubernatorial leadership.

Just the kind of leadership despondent Democrats need.

So it’s been said.

It’s not much of a leap to see Newsom leading the anti-Trump opposition clear to the White House!

Actually, that’s a bigger leap than it takes to clear the Grand Canyon.

Granted, Newsom’s speech received a lot of raves from Democrats across the country. Many are desperate for someone in a position of power to give voice to their blood-boiling, cranium-exploding rage against Trump and his many excesses. Newsom did a good job channeling those emotions and articulating the dangers of an imprudent president run amok.

But let’s not go overboard.

There is no lack of Democrats eager to take on Trump and become the face of the so-called resistance. There is no shortage of Democrats eyeing a 2028 bid for the White House. Those who run won’t be schlepping all the political baggage that Newsom has to tote.

Such as?

Rampant homelessness. An exploding budget deficit. Vast income inequality.

Plus, a lot of social policies that many Californians consider beneficent and broad-minded that, to put it mildly, others around the country consider much less so. Don’t get me wrong. I love California with all my heart and soul. But we have a lot of deep-seated problems and cultural idiosyncrasies that Newsom’s rivals — Democrat and Republican — would be only too happy to hang around his neck.

So let’s not get too caught up in the moment. The fundamentals of the 2028 presidential race haven’t changed based on a single — albeit well-received — speech. It’s still hard to see Democrats turning the party’s fate over to yet another nominee spawned in the liberal stew of San Francisco politics and campaigning with kooky California as a home address.

Stranger things have happened.

True.

That said, 2028 is a zillion political light years and countless news cycles away. First come the midterm elections in November 2026, giving voters their chance to weigh in on Trump and his actions. The verdict will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in 2028.

Well at least Newsom has brought his A-game to social media. His trolling of Trump is something to behold!

Whatever.

You’re not impressed?

I think it’s best to leave the snark to professionals.

I do, however, have some sympathy for the governor. It’s not easy dealing with someone as spiteful and amoral as the nation’s ax-grinder-in-chief.

Consider, for instance, the disaster relief money that fire-devastated Southern California is counting on. Helping the region in its time of desperate need shouldn’t be remotely political, or part of some red-vs.-blue-state feud. Historically, that sort of federal aid has never been.

But this is Trump we’re dealing with.

To his credit, Newsom tried making nice in the days and weeks following the January firestorm. He ignored the president’s provocations and held what was later described an an amicable session with Trump in the Oval Office. Their working relationship seemed to be a good one.

But few things last with the transactional Trump, save for his pettiness and self-absorption. Asked last week if his “recent dust-ups” with Newsom would impact the granting of wildfire relief, Trump said, “Yeah, maybe.”

He called Newsom incompetent, trotted out more gobbledygook about raking forests and then soliloquized on the nature of personal relationships. “When you don’t like somebody, don’t respect somebody, it’s harder for that person to get money if you’re on top,” Trump said.

Yeesh.

Responding in a posting on X, Newsom correctly noted, “Sucking up to the President should not be a requirement for him to do the right thing for the American people.”

Hard to argue with that.

Yet here we are.

The nation’s second-most populous city is occupied by National Guard and Marine troops. Thousands of people — displaced by disaster, their past lives gone up in smoke — are hostage to the whims of a peevish president who always puts his feelings first and cares nothing for the greater good.

The midterm election can’t come soon enough.

After announcing the “very successful” US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, United States President Donald Trump addressed the nation.

Here is the full transcript of his speech on Saturday evening:

A short time ago, the US military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.

Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace.

If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

For 40 years, Iran has been saying, “Death to America, death to Israel”.

They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs – that was their speciality.

We lost over a thousand people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate, in particular, so many were killed by their general, Qassem Soleimani.

I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen.

It will not continue.

I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.

I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done and, most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight, and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades.

Hopefully, we will no longer need their services in this capacity. I hope that’s so. I also want to congratulate the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan “Razin” Caine – spectacular general – and all of the brilliant military minds involved in this attack.

With all of that being said, this cannot continue.

There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.

Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal, but if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.

There’s no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight, not even close. There has never been a military that could do what took place just a little while ago.

Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, will have a press conference at 8am (12:00 GMT) at the Pentagon, and I want to just thank everybody, and in particular, God.

I want to just say, “We love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them.” God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel, and God bless America.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Dan Keeler, the new captain of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, called up his football coaches from his days at Sherman Oaks Notre Dame High earlier this week, along with his English teacher, to give them a salute for the impact they made on a teenager now in charge of one of the Navy’s most powerful ships.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Capt. Dan Keeler recognizes his Sherman Oaks Notre Dame teaches and coaches during a changing of command ceremony for the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The speech by Keeler on Wednesday in Coronado at a changing of the command ceremony offered the real reason coaches coach and teachers teach — to make a difference in a student’s life.

“I learned more about hard work, grit, determination and how to handle pain, honestly, from this group,” he said.

He recalled when Notre Dame coach Kevin Rooney gave him a recommendation letter for the Naval Academy:
“Coach Rooney, when you handed me the letter, you said, ‘I think you’re going to be good at this,’ and you were right.”

Keeler added, “There were plenty of championships, but I don’t think that’s how these people measure success. I was a very mediocre backup quarterback and defensive back. If I was playing in a football game, we were winning by a lot.

“Those metrics of winning and losing weren’t the only things that mattered. They were important. These educators took all the time to get the best out of their students and I was one of them. They saw something in me and chose to make a positive impact, and I am forever grateful.”