state

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill that would give a financial boost to California’s struggling newsrooms.

Assembly Bill 2222 will create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ. It passed through both houses. It marks an innovative yet controversial attempt to slow the decline of local journalism.

The bill, called the Community Newsroom Employment and Workforce Sustainability Act, works by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions will be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist head counts.

Before signing the bill Wednesday morning, Newsom spoke about what he called the “assault on the free press and the First Amendment..coming from Washington D.C. and Donald Trump.”

“It’s journalists that need to report those stories and local journalists that need to uncover and sort of peel back the facade if democracy is going to survive, let alone thrive,” Newsom said.

The bill was supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member and a wide range of other community news boosters. Backers said it could be a lifeline to local news organizations, many of which have struggled to maintain staffing levels over the past two decades.

California has lost more than 12,000 of its local journalists since 2002, according to nonprofit advocacy group Rebuild Local News. And almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, according to an annual report on the state of local news put out by Northwestern University’s Medill journalism school.

To pay for the credits, the bill would amend California’s tax code to align with a little-discussed component of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that expanded taxes on some companies by eliminating a deduction for executive salaries of over $1 million annually.

It is common practice for the state to consider aligning its tax code with the federal structure to make filing taxes easier and administering them more cheaply. But California has not yet sought to adopt this federal tax change, a move which would increase tax revenues to the state.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill because it raises taxes on employers that they argue already face billions of dollars in new taxes.

They contend that the higher costs will be passed along to consumers.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for not including a cap on the tax credits, thus creating “unlimited fiscal liability to the state,” and argued the bill mainly subsidizes existing activity rather than encouraging the creation of new jobs.

While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Newsom acknowledged some of the concerns that have been raised about those who will receive benefits from the bill’s funds, specifically hedge funds and billionaire owners and outlets who he says spread propaganda.

“It does subsidize those that don’t need to be subsidized,” he said. “We have hedge funds in this space. We have billionaires in this space. We have people that are profiteering in this space by gutting the newsrooms and extracting value out of the space that also are the beneficiaries.”

Newsom said he chose not to veto the bill because he believes its benefits outweigh the liabilities. He added that he hopes the legislature and next governor can work to narrow down who benefits most from the legislation.

“We should not be subsidizing hedge funds,” he said. “We should be focused on where the need is the greatest, in my humble opinion, and I do think when you have no cap, the limitlessness of this…to some of the most well-heeled organizations, where now they simply could pull from this bill the benefits that they didn’t even ask for or need, is self-evident.”

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill, said the governor’s signature shows California’s commitment to the free press at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and misinformation is rampant.

“Local journalism is the backbone of an informed democracy, and today California made clear that the people doing this essential work are worth investing in,” Ward said in a statement. “This historic investment will help keep reporters in our communities, strengthen nonprofit and public media, and ensure Californians continue to have access to trusted, fact-based local news.”

In signing the bill, Newsom emphasized the role of journalism in uncovering scandal and wrongdoing.

“The L.A. Times to their credit did a big investigative piece on Bell, and people getting paid a million dollars in some cases, local government officials, a million damn dollars a year. No one would have known had it not been for local journalism. How many more Bells are out there, not just in this state, but all across the country?”

With gas prices topping $6 a gallon and an unpopular war continuing in Iran, President Trump’s approval has slipped with California Republicans — a falloff that could diminish the party’s chances in the state’s few competitive congressional races.

A new poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 76% of Republican voters in the state approve of the president’s performance, down from 83% last year.

The president’s approval has softened even among those who still support his performance. Only 44% of Republicans in California said they strongly support Trump’s performance, down from 57% who said the same in August 2025.

That could translate into lower Republican turnout in the state’s few competitive races, said the poll’s director, Mark DiCamillo.

“Republicans are losing some of their enthusiasm in terms of being motivated to vote,” he said.

In addition, the more Trump tries to make the midterm elections about himself — such as the pro-Trump ads recently sponsored and paid for by the government — the more Democrats might be inclined to show up, said G. Cristina Mora, the UC Berkeley institute’s co-director.

“That might actually have a galvanizing effect on voters,” she said.

Trump’s sinking support in California mirrors a national decline in the president’s approval, even among Republicans.

The congressional map in the state was already challenging for Republicans after voters last year approved a referendum championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw districts to be more favorable for Democrats — a response to similar efforts by Republicans in Texas and other states.

In the new map, only four of the state’s 52 districts are currently considered safe Republican districts, while three additional districts are seen as competitive, according to the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political handicapper.

The remaining 45 districts are seen as either likely or solidly Democratic in a state where Democrats hold a roughly 20% advantage in party registration.

Only one race is considered by Cook to be a true toss-up — California’s 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, which is held by Republican Rep. David Valadao.

“We’re looking at the best case scenario for Democrats at this point,” said Erin Covey, Cook’s U.S. House editor.

Valadao, one of only 10 Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, faces progressive Democrat Randy Villegas, a political science professor who has the backing of Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator is joining Villegas this weekend for a rally in Bakersfield.

Valadao first won a seat in Congress in 2012, but was ousted from office during the Democrats’ “blue wave” election in 2018, in which the party gained 40 seats in the House in the first election after Trump took office in 2016. Valadao was able to win back his seat in 2020 and has held it since.

There has been scant public polling in the race, but a poll conducted in June by a political committee backing Villegas showed the Democrat holding a 4-point lead over Valadao.

Two other congressional districts in the state are listed by Cook as leaning Democratic:

• California’s 48th Congressional District in Riverside and San Diego counties, now held by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who opted to retire rather than seek reelection in the redrawn district.
• California’s 13th Congressional District in the San Joaquin Valley, where Democratic Rep. Adam Gray is trying to fend off a challenge from Republican Kevin Lincoln, the former mayor of Stockton.

Trump’s approval also dipped among Black and Latino voters in the poll. Both groups were part of Trump’s winning coalition in the 2024 presidential election.

The poll also found broad disapproval of two signature Trump administration policies.

It found that 70% of California voters disapprove of Trump’s decision to go to war in Iran, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

Also, 70% of California voters believe that the president’s immigration policies are hurting California’s economy and local businesses, including 1 in 5 Republicans.

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20 and included the opinions of 6,989 registered California voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

California is set to bring back a program aimed at reducing conflict between wild animals and people, as the state’s rebounding wolf population continues to cause concern among ranchers.

Newsom signed a bill restoring the program Tuesday ahead of a “fireside chat” focused on biodiversity and natural resources, during which he described growing up with a father who was dedicated to protecting mountain lions, condors and other wildlife.

Protecting nature is “a moral issue,” Newsom said, describing a “relationship we have to what’s above us, and … how that connects us to our Creator.”

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife once employed 13 specialists dedicated to resolving human-wildlife conflicts, but it let all but one of them go after funding ran dry in 2024. The loss came as such clashes are increasing, with climate change and urban sprawl bringing people closer to bears, mountain lions and other animals.

State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, author of Senate Bill 1135, said she’s seen it play out with sea lions around La Jolla Cove. This year, someone kicked one of the marine mammals, she said, and in general there have been no government staffers “to provide the guardrails.”

When the program ended, “we weren’t doing the education, and we didn’t have staff at the state that could help intervene or provide guidance,” Blakespear (D-Encinitas) told The Times. “It was a clear lack.”

The legislation also codifies a program to compensate ranchers when they lose livestock to wolves or suffer indirect harm. The program also provides money for nonlethal equipment to deter wolves, such as electric fences with bright flags.

Part of the law is rebranding, adding “coexistence” to both programs’ names.

The California Cattlemen’s Assn. and the California Farm Bureau shifted from opposing the bill to an “enthusiastic neutral,” said Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs for the former trade group, noting his colleague coined the term.

Wilbur’s group was initially concerned about parts of the bill focused on livestock compensation, but he said they were amended in a way to avoid impeding how the program operates. However, the changes “didn’t quite get us to a support position because we didn’t necessarily view it as a significant improvement over the status quo.”

His group is in favor of the bill’s requirement to relaunch the Wildlife Coexistence Program, as it’s now called, saying it “does provide resources, for instance, for my members that are contending with mountain lion depredations of their livestock.”

The bill signing comes as California’s gray wolves had at least 42 pups this year — a record. The apex predators were extirpated in the state in the 1920s, beginning to naturally recolonize their native digs only 15 years ago.

“It’s a great sign for the conservation of the species that the population continues to reproduce, and that the number of individuals continues to reproduce,” said Axel Hunnicutt, gray wolf coordinator for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The animals’ success has delighted conservationists but frustrated some cattle ranchers, whose livelihood can become dinner for the endangered canids.

Hunnicutt spoke to The Times from Siskiyou County, where he was trying to get more GPS collars on wolves in the Whaleback pack, linked to 41 confirmed or probable livestock attacks this year, according to a recent report. That’s by far the most of any pack in the state.

Hunnicutt’s team consists of him and two other employees, along with temporary staffers. Collaring wolves in a pack that doesn’t already have the devices is challenging, he said. It involves setting up cameras, howling throughout the night to try to get the animals to respond and sometimes driving hundreds of miles looking for tracks.

Some members of the Whaleback pack are collared, providing a good starting point. While on the phone, he said he could see the tracks of two wolves on the road where he was walking.

Proponents of SB 1135 say it could lead to the expansion of Hunnicutt’s team or more resources for efforts such as collaring, which wildlife officials say helps reduce conflicts by enabling ranchers to know where wolves are.

However, the legislation does not guarantee funding for the programs it establishes.

Pamela Flick, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, a co-sponsor of the bill, said advocates asked state leaders for $18 million in one-time funding for the human-wildlife coexistence program, followed by $15 million annually. They also asked for around $30 million for wolf compensation and management.

What they got this year is $6 million, with $2.5 million earmarked for compensation, according to Flick.

“It’s really a drop in the bucket when we’re talking about statewide human-wildlife conflicts,” she said. “So we will be advocating for additional funds in out years for sure.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson plans to visit California on Wednesday to stump and fundraise for Republican candidates in a state that could determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives during President Trump’s final two years in office.

Johnson (R-La.) plans to visit the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, a sign of the importance of California congressional contests in the November midterm election.

David Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said that Johnson is attempting to mitigate the aftermath of Proposition 50, the redrawing of California’s congressional districts that voters approved in November in response to Trump’s efforts to tilt districts in his favor elsewhere in the nation, notably Texas.

“If it weren’t for Republican efforts to redraw Texas, Proposition 50 wouldn’t have seen the light of day,” said Wasserman, who predicts Democrats will win control of the House, and said that Republicans would have a better chance at holding more seats if they hadn’t prompted the redistricting fight.

Redrawing congressional districts typically happens once a decade after the U.S. Census, and in California, voters in 2010 decided to hand the power of crafting the state’s districts to an independent commission. After Trump pushed Texas to redraw its congressional boundaries to increase GOP representation in Congress last year, California Democrats responded by persuading voters to reshape its districts to favor Democrats, who already dominate the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

“California Republicans are on the verge of extinction because of the White House action,” Wasserman said.

In Chowchilla, Johnson is scheduled to hold a fundraiser and a rally in support of former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln, who is trying to topple Rep. Adam Gray (D-Merced) in one of the most competitive congressional races in the nation. He is expected to be joined by Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters, California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin and Congress members from Texas and Michigan.

He is also holding a get-out-the-vote event in support of Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford), a longtime Democratic target given the voter makeup of his Central Valley district. Johnson is also holding an evening fundraiser in Riverside for Jim Desmond, a member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors who is running in the district being vacated by longtime Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista).

Issa decided to retire after his congressional district was redrawn because of Proposition 50. He has endorsed Desmond to represent the new district, which spans San Diego and Riverside counties.

The California trip is part of Johnson’s plans to campaign in 22 states in an effort to help Republicans retain control of the House before the Nov. 3 election.

Despite California’s sapphire tilt — registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one — the state’s residents are often the largest donors to politicians on both sides of the aisle. Democrats headed here in coming days include gubernatorial candidates Amy Acton of Ohio, Deb Haaland of New Mexico and Gina Hinojosa of Texas.

Trump sent followers a fundraising appeal Tuesday focused on Democrats’ ability to win control of Congress, which would upend his agenda during his final two years in office.

“I’ve never asked for sympathy. I’ve never asked this country to feel sorry for me. I’ve never asked for anything,” he said in the email. “That changes today. With less than 45 days until midterm elections, the left is ready to put the final nail in my coffin.”

Christian Martinez, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, pointed to the pivotal role California will play in determining control of Congress.

“California’s House races will decide whether working families keep fighters like David Valadao, James Gallagher, Kevin Lincoln, and Jim Desmond or get more of the same from Democrats who raised costs, left the border wide open, and made communities less safe,” Martinez said. “Californians are done paying more, waiting longer, and living with less safety so corrupt Sacramento and Washington Democrats can protect their socialist agenda.”

Anna Elsasser, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, shot back that the policies and beliefs of Desmond, Lincoln and Valadao have deeply harmed California families, including high gas prices and the cost of living.

“That’s why Mike Johnson is swooping in to try and save their fledgling campaigns. Voters won’t forget who sold them out to hand massive tax breaks to billionaires and wealthy corporations by gutting health care and food assistance, championing chaotic tariffs, and refusing to rein in a costly war that has sent gas prices soaring,” she said. “Californians are ready for change, not another two years of Mike Johnson and DC Republicans’ status quo.”

After being securely held for nearly four decades by one of the most preeminent politicians in California history, the House seat to represent bright blue San Francisco in Congress is up for grabs in November — and dividing the Democratic Party.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), 86, the powerful former House Speaker who’s held the seat since 1987, announced last year that she would not run again. In May, she passed over state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) — a prolific California legislator long considered a potential successor — to endorse San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, a local progressive with less legislative experience but strong support from labor.

Pelosi’s endorsement sent Chan, who had been languishing in polls, surging past Democratic tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti in the June primary. Chan finished with nearly 30% of the vote and Chakrabarti took 18%. Wiener won, with nearly 41% of the vote.

Both Wiener, a gay man and staunch advocate for the city’s large LGBTQ+ community, and Chan, who immigrated to the city from Hong Kong at age 13 and has deep ties to its large Chinese and immigrant communities, would make history by winning. Wiener would be the first out LGBTQ+ person to represent the city in Congress, and Chan the first Asian American immigrant woman.

The race has sharply divided the state’s Democratic establishment as a rare intraparty showdown between a deft legislator who has driven liberal California policy for years and a rising progressive with the powerful imprimatur of the icon they seek to replace.

Both acknowledge they would take the same or similar positions on many issues, and fiercely oppose President Trump’s agenda. But they also say San Franciscans face a real choice between them that will help define the city for years.

“There is a clear cut between the two of us,” Chan said. “He has long enjoyed establishment support and industry support, and we’ve been grassroots, on the ground, [Asian American and Pacific Islander] community, working people and labor unions — in collaboration and coalition building.”

“We need Democrats who are willing to fight — to fight in a smart way, and to fight in an aggressive way, to defeat Donald Trump and to lower the cost of living,” Wiener said. “We are past the time where we need Democrats in office who were just going along to get along, or who, like Connie Chan, are just part of the status quo.”

Wiener is a MAGA target

Wiener, 56, has lived in the Castro neighborhood since 1997 and was a deputy city attorney and local Democratic Party chair before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2010. He was elected in 2016 to the state Senate, where he’s had a massive influence, authoring more than 100 bills that have been signed into law. Allies and critics say he is a workhorse, and at times both effective and divisive.

Wiener has been endorsed by the state and local Democratic parties; a slew of state leaders including California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister); various queer and labor groups including AFSCME; more than half the city’s supervisors; and various members of Congress.

Wiener has passed some of the state’s most progressive laws on LGBTQ+ rights, including protections for gender-affirming care, and challenged federal immigration agents in California. He has also pushed progressive laws — backing safe injection sites, extending bar hours until 4 a.m., decriminalizing psychedelic drugs — that have put some of his fellow Democrats in uncomfortable spots when forced to vote on the controversial issues.

Some in San Francisco label him a moderate, though that designation would draw laughs elsewhere in the country and even in Sacramento. Wiener is one of the most reviled state politicians on the conservative right nationally, and has received scores of death threats for his work, particularly on transgender issues. His website touts a laundry list of profane and homophobic attacks from MAGA loyalists — Elon Musk called him a “scumbag,” former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called him a “communist groomer” — that he wears as a badge of honor.

On housing, Wiener has pushed for deregulation and development near transit hubs statewide to solve the housing and affordability crises, riling some homeowners averse to increased density and some progressives who say his plan favors developers and threatens existing rent-controlled housing. On tech, Wiener has pushed for artificial intelligence regulation but also been criticized for taking a technocratic approach with buy-in from wealthy tech leaders.

Wiener has passed laws protecting net neutrality, capping prescription costs and mandating mental health parity, ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, and requiring corporations disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. He has received substantial financial support from tech leaders and opposes Proposition 40, the ballot measure that seeks to impose a one-time tax on the state’s billionaires.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), also gay and a former Long Beach mayor, said he considers Wiener a friend but also a generational legislator who has “led the country” on LGBTQ+ rights and housing policy. “I don’t think there’s a better legislator in the United States on housing,” Garcia said.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who worked with Wiener for years in the state Legislature, said he has been a champion for many issues important to Californians — including the environment — while holding big industry accountable and backing labor. She said while many politicians decide to either rack up easy wins with legislation that barely moves the needle or focus on “progressive value signaling” without accomplishing much of anything, Wiener “takes on some of the most difficult and controversial progressive issues and really gets them done.”

Nancy Tung, the local Democratic Party chair, said many San Francisco politicians “recede” from the city’s raucous local policy debate once they reach higher office, but Wiener is “still is in the knife fight,” especially on housing and affordability issues — showing he cares about the city and making him “such a good fit” for Congress.

Tung said she understands the appeal of sending a fellow Asian American woman to Congress in this political moment, but that Chan “just does not have the legislative record that Scott has.”

Chan for ‘working people’

Chan, 47, who lived in a rent-controlled Chinatown apartment after immigrating with her mother and younger brother, now lives with her firefighter husband and son in the Richmond neighborhood. She was a community and legislative aide for years — including for then-Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris — before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2020. She has served as budget chair since 2023 and has centered her campaign, largely funded by Pelosi’s network, around what she calls her “career fighting for working people.”

Chan has been endorsed by a host of Congress members, including Pelosi and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); major labor groups including the California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Teachers Assn.; various progressive organizations and fellow and former supervisors; former mayor and S.F. power broker Willie Brown; and Chakrabarti, who since the primary has shared his campaign staff and funding with her.

Chan, who supports Proposition 40, has helped create a $400-million reserve fund in San Francisco to make up for federal cuts to Medicaid and housing subsidies. She also passed a supplemental budget to fund immigration defense services for people targeted by the Trump administration and passed various labor-friendly measures, including a minimum wage increase for in-home workers and cost-of-living adjustments for city service workers.

Pelosi said Chan “understands that budgets are statements of our values,” has “championed justice and progress for working families” and “brings an important lived experience to this moment” as an immigrant woman. Schiff said Chan has impressed him as “a very powerful voice for those who are disenfranchised” and someone with “the potential of growing into” a leader like Pelosi.

Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, said she encouraged Pelosi to endorse Chan because Chan “supports San Francisco values,” listens to labor and is a great strategist.

Cleve Jones, the San Francisco activist who has fought for gay political representation since Harvey Milk’s historic 1977 election to the Board of Supervisors, said Wiener “has done some very good things, particularly around LGBTQ issues and HIV/AIDS,” but also angered some in the LGBTQ+ community by repeatedly showing up to an annual Trans March that organizers ask politicians not to attend.

Wiener, who is Jewish, was aggressively heckled at this year’s march, namely for his stance on the Israeli war in Gaza, which he was slower than other progressives to label a genocide. Conservatives mocked him for being targeted by his base, and Wiener ended up fundraising off the incident — which Jones said was “so cynical.”

He said Wiener’s “loyalty is to big developers, big tech and big real estate,” and that he “doesn’t really see the urgency of yet another white man elected to Congress” when San Francisco can send a stronger message by electing Chan, an immigrant woman of color.

Affordability and Trump

Chan said she is a “pragmatic” progressive who has balanced the city’s budget while protecting “healthcare, education, immigration resources” and other working-class priorities. She said Wiener is focused on deregulation for market-rate housing development, whereas she has prioritized tenants’ rights and protecting existing rent-controlled housing in her push for affordable units.

Chan said she will “walk and chew gum at the same time” in Washington by working for affordability while battling Trump, including by reversing his healthcare cuts, expanding Medicaid, providing affordable childcare, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and finally figuring out meaningful immigration reform.

“I’m not sugarcoating it as if it’s easy. But we gotta be able to find ways to work together to push those things forward,” she said.

Wiener said he and Chan share the goal “of getting Trump and MAGA out of office, and then making sure that people never feel tempted to flirt with authoritarianism again.”

But he said the way to do that is to advance policies that will “lower people’s cost of living and make people’s lives more sustainable” — including by passing universal healthcare, building millions of new homes, creating low-cost child care and leading a clean energy transition — and that he is the only candidate in the race with a proven ability to do that.

“This is a race to succeed the most effective and operational member of Congress in modern American history,” Wiener said. “San Francisco should send someone who actually has a track record, a proven track record, of being able to deliver.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a raft of bills designed to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in California, including bans on electric shock gloves and a revamped ban on law enforcement face coverings after a previous law was blocked by a federal judge.

The more than 20 bills approved by the governor Tuesday were crafted to thwart tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including the use of facial coverings and making arrests outside immigration hearings. Other bills are meant to boost state oversight of federal detention centers in the state.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families. California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state,” Newsom said in a statement. “This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities. We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable.”

The governor signed legislation to ban the use of electric shock gloves by any law enforcement in the state, which was hastily written and passed after reports that the Department of Homeland Security planned to spend $20 million to outfit agents with the gloves.

One bill, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for residents to sue federal agents for alleged civil rights violations, such as racial profiling, unlawful searches or interfering with the right to free speech.

Its author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said the law already applies to state and local officials and that his bill, SB 747, closes a loophole that exempts federal officials.

Newsom signed another bill by Wiener that bans ICE agents and other law enforcement from wearing face coverings or masks while on duty. After a federal judge blocked his prior bill, which applied to federal agents but not state police, Wiener passed legislation that applies to both.

Many of the bills Newsom signed Tuesday aim to improve state oversight at immigration detention centers within the state and slowroll the development of new facilities.

Among them is AB 1801, which requires municipalities to wait at least 180 days and hold public hearings before approving any plans to build or convert facilities into immigration detention centers.

Newsom signed a 25% tax on companies that operate immigration detention centers in the state. Most of the detention centers in California are run by the private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic, under contracts with the federal government. AB 1633 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) would raise an estimated $177 million, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.

Another new law requires local agencies to disclose 911 calls made from immigration detention centers. It stems from a CalMatters investigation which found alleged sexual assaults at Otay Mesa, a detention center in San Diego, were being investigated by CoreCivic, the company that operates the facility, rather than local law enforcement.

“Our communities deserve safety, and no person in detention should have to resort to throwing notes over the walls of a detention facility to have their needs met and their voice heard,” Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Legislative Latino Caucus and the bill’s author, said in a statement after lawmakers passed her legislation.

Activists and Democratic lawmakers have raised alarms about the rising number of in-custody deaths and poor conditions inside ICE detention facilities. The federal government has reported 57 in-custody deaths during Trump’s second term, up from the 26 deaths reported during the previous four years.

During reviews of detention centers around the state last year, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office found substandard conditions including overcrowding, delays in medical care and poor quality food and drinking water. At one center, detainees were not given clothing warm enough to protect against extremely low temperatures in the facility, Justice Department staff reported.

Newsom signed legislation indefinitely extending the attorney general’s duty to review private detention centers, which had been set to expire next year.

For Dylan Feierabend, there are few things more life-affirming than fishing for redtail surfperch and smelt at Centerville Beach in rural Humboldt County.

His favorite spot, where the Eel River meets the Pacific Ocean, is a few miles from the main road — too far to walk with fishing poles and an ice chest in tow. He instead gets there by driving a side-by-side, a small off-road vehicle, right onto the sand.

He might not be able to do so much longer.

If the California Coastal Commission has its way, vehicular access will soon be nixed at Centerville Beach County Park outside Ferndale — one of just a handful of beaches along the state’s 840-mile coastline where driving is allowed.

This month, the Coastal Commission approved a request from Humboldt County for a coastal development permit to rebuild a 0.17-mile segment of a storm-battered road adjacent to the fast-eroding beach — but only if the county stops people from driving on the sand.

Coastal Commission staff, in a 78-page report, said motorized vehicles threaten both sensitive vegetation and critical habitat for the federally threatened western snowy plover, a small, white-bellied shorebird.

“California’s dune habitats are particularly rare and important, so where driving could damage these sensitive areas, the Coastal Act requires that we protect them,” commission spokesman Joshua Smith said in a statement to The Times.

However, he said, the agency does not “have a one-size-fits-all policy on driving on the beach.”

But Humboldt County residents and officials decry the move as just the latest example of overregulation and government overreach in liberal California — and of the disconnect between its rural and urban places.

“What you see in Southern California isn’t what we see up here,” resident Joey Sancho told the Coastal Commission during its meeting in Eureka this month. “The beaches aren’t overly populated. They’re not being torn up by ATVs and so forth. But yet, [it’s] just one more thing just to take away from us up here in the North Coast.”

Humboldt County wants to make improvements to Centerville Road.

(Google street view)

Feierabend, a 36-year-old loan officer, told The Times: “It’s about slowly choking out the individuals that utilize the beach and gaining control under the ruse, or the guise, of conservation.”

The discord in Humboldt County comes as the Trump administration is taking aim at what it calls “environmental extremism” in California, with federal officials trying — largely over state objections — to open the treasured coastline to more offshore oil drilling, expanded rocket launches and floating nuclear reactors.

Amid this wider debate, beach driving has emerged as an unexpected flashpoint.

Last month, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton called coastal commissioners “idiots” for their years-long effort to end off-road driving at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, the only state park that allows recreational driving on the beach.

Cars, bikes and pedestrians share the sand at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area near Pismo Beach in February 2021.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Oceano Dunes, near Pismo Beach in San Luis Obispo County, temporarily closed to off-roaders this spring amid long-running legal battles between recreation advocates and environmentalists who say all-terrain vehicles are tearing through western snowy plover habitat and sending clouds of unhealthy dust into nearby neighborhoods.

“Surprise, the Coastal Commission are trying to shut it down because they’re joyless bureaucrats who don’t want anyone to have fun,” Hilton said in a social media video as he leaned on a bright yellow dune buggy on the sand. “And it’s not just about fun. This is a real economic engine for this community.”

If elected, he said, he would create a state “Office of Fun and Freedom.” Its first task? Protecting off-roading at Oceano Dunes.

The campaign for Xavier Becerra, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, did not return requests for comment.

In Humboldt County, residents have stressed that rural Centerville Beach is nothing like Oceano Dunes, where thousands of pickup trucks, ATVs and dirt bikes may carve through the sand on a given day.

Centerville Beach’s nearest town, Ferndale, the childhood home of celebrity chef Guy Fieri, has a population of just 1,500. Residents say the beach typically sees a handful of four-wheelers and side-by-sides — with most heading out to fish, not joy-riding.

“Centerville is not a beach anyone can just drive on — you’ve got to know what you’re doing,” said Shawn Griggs, a painter who surfs there most mornings. “It’s a very volatile beach with coarse sand. It’s steep right off the shore; the sand bars are transient.”

A view of Centerville Beach, near where Humboldt County is looking to repair a stretch of Centerville Road.

(Beau Sanders / For The Times)

Griggs, 57, described himself as “an environmentalist at heart” who appreciates efforts to protect threatened species. But he doubts vehicles are doing much harm at Centerville.

“With the amount of sand that is pushed off that beach every year and moved around, it’s hard for me to imagine that beach would be a super stable beach for the snowy plover,” he said.

The Coastal Commission staff report says the area is “moderately suitable for plovers,” but that “heavy human use” has degraded the habitat.

In Humboldt County, driving is allowed on a handful of county-maintained beaches, as well as portions of the Samoa Dunes Recreation Area, which is managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management.

Feierabend, who grew up next to Centerville Beach, said vehicles are not destroying the beach — the ocean is.

“No one’s going too fast,” he told the Coastal Commission. “No one’s driving through dunes. In fact, there are no dunes.”

Centerville Beach, home to some of the state’s fastest-eroding cliffs, has been shrinking for decades. The rising and warming sea has accelerated that process in recent years, and powerful El Niño-charged storms this fall and winter could wreak further havoc on the coastline.

A beach parking lot that once accommodated up to 100 vehicles has already washed away. And Centerville Road — a narrow county thoroughfare that provides access to the beach, a few rural homes and the federally managed Lost Coast Headlands — is so regularly slammed by powerful storm waves that it is often covered with sand and made impassable.

The road is what initially brought Centerville Beach to the Coastal Commission’s attention.

The Humboldt County Department of Public Works applied for a required coastal development permit to repair a short stretch of storm-damaged roadway, a project for which it had already secured federal and state funding.

The county has proposed elevating the road 10 feet and adding a new parking area. It also is looking to build a revetment — a sloping layer of rocks on the sand meant to protect the road from waves, at least for a few decades.

Humboldt County initially pushed to move the roadway farther inland, but faced resistance from private landowners.

According to the Coastal Commission staff report, beach erosion puts Centerville Road at “severe risk of being destroyed” within the next five years.

Given the urgency of the needed repairs, the decision to tie the development permit to beach driving felt like “a backroom deal stuck into the project,” Humboldt County Planning Commissioner Iver Skavdal said at the Coastal Commission meeting.

The commission is “holding the project, the residents and the county hostage,” said Skavdal, noting that seven generations of his family had enjoyed the beach.

Though the commission approved the permit on the condition beach driving will be stopped, it added an amendment after locals pushed back — giving Humboldt County an opportunity to write a plan to allow restricted driving, provided it would not harm sensitive habitats. That plan would have to come back to the commission for approval.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors still must decide whether to accept the stipulations of the coastal development permit before any construction begins.

The potential loss of driving on Centerville Beach — a unique attraction in California’s sparsely populated, economically depressed northwest corner — struck a chord with residents, about two dozen of whom sat through several hours of a Coastal Commission meeting on a Wednesday morning to speak about it.

“Families here don’t have a lot to do,” Sue Long, former mayor of the nearby city of Fortuna, told the commission. “There’s not a lot of the kind of entertainment you guys have, with waterslides and Disneyland and all of those things. … We count on nature.”

Mike Astry, who runs a small off-road recovery business pulling out vehicles stuck in sand or mud throughout the region, told the commission most people towed off Centerville Beach are out-of-town tourists who traveled just to drive on the beach.

Stopping vehicular access is “a big deal to a lot of people,” Astry, 49, said in an interview. “People driving from out of town that want to come drive on that beach are not going to come to our town and spend money on hotels and food.”

Astry, who also is an automotive maintenance supervisor for Humboldt County, started the towing business with his souped-up Jeep during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people flocked to outdoor spaces during lockdowns. Now, he typically gets one or two calls a week.

At Centerville Beach, he said, “I’ve had some pretty gnarly tows,” including some “little old ladies who thought, ‘Oh, I thought my Prius could go here,’ and it can’t.”

A few years ago, he yanked a Tesla out of the ocean. Powerful waves ripped off its bumper. The driver was from the Bay Area.

“People are just sick of California, their mandates, and this is just one more thing to add to it,” he said of the coastal commission decision. “It’s just a power trip. We pay our frickin taxes.”

Jennifer Savage — California policy associate director for the Surfrider Foundation, a coastal protection nonprofit — was one of the few speakers at the Coastal Commission meeting who focused on a different aspect of the county’s Centerville Beach proposal: the rock revetment next to the old, crumbling road.

Revetments and sea walls, which generally are not allowed for developments built after the Coastal Act took effect in 1977, “make a beach erode significantly faster,” she told The Times.

Erosion has been a known problem for a long time, she said, and “the failure to prepare doesn’t justify sacrificing the public beach.”

A proposal to tax California’s billionaires has fractured Democratic politics, repelled some of the state’s richest residents and exploded into a costly battle that’s overshadowing even the gubernatorial election.

Known as Proposition 40, the ballot measure is also dividing the very industry it’s supposed to help. The healthcare workers union behind the initiative, which would authorize a wealth tax on billionaires, says the levy would raise sorely needed funds to shore up health coverage.

By contrast, leading California hospital and doctor groups are opposing the measure ahead of the November vote. They say the one-time 5% levy on the state’s wealthiest is a risky gambit with an uncertain path to victory — as well as a distraction from other proposals to shore up healthcare.

“This is an experiment on a taxation scheme that’s not been done before, and it puts healthcare in a more vulnerable position as a result,” California Medical Assn. Chief Executive Dustin Corcoran said at a recent briefing in Sacramento. “It’s not a healthcare ballot measure.”

Less than six weeks before election day, polls show a divided electorate. But whatever the outcome, the fight is exposing a broader problem confronting California: how to preserve one of the nation’s largest expansions of publicly funded healthcare as a big chunk of the money that helped pay for it disappears.

Over the last decade, California increased access to publicly funded healthcare by broadening eligibility for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, and other types of insurance, allowing millions more residents to gain coverage. The number of people without insurance fell to 2.4 million in 2024 from about 6.5 million in 2011.

Now, that trend is expected to reverse. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Trump’s budget bill last year will lead to $1 trillion in healthcare-related cuts over a decade. Earlier this week, the Trump administration said it recently removed 760,000 people from Obamacare plans across the nation, alleging that some were enrolled improperly and others don’t exist.

Combined with strict work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and a pullback in state spending pushed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, the changes are projected to push California’s uninsured population under the age of 65 to 4.6 million by 2030, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

“Without trying to be melodramatic, when millions of people lose coverage, it is entirely predictable that thousands will die unnecessarily because of foregone treatment,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, the healthcare-workers union pushing the billionaire tax.

“There is an absolute consensus on what the problem is, and there’s a consensus that there’s no other solution on the table,” he said in an interview at Bloomberg’s San Francisco offices.

Even before the budget cuts start to bite, financial strains are mounting at institutions such as Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in South Los Angeles.

MLKCH’s waiting room is now mostly used for treating patients, with 16 wooden cubicles functioning as care rooms. Sick or injured people are also cared for in the hospital’s front hallways and in what used to be the meditation chapel and the gift shop.

The hospital opened in 2015 with an emergency department built for 25,000 visits annually. In 2024, it handled 130,000. Dr. Elaine Batchlor, its CEO, said further funding reductions “would threaten the sustainability of the hospital.”

Batchlor isn’t taking a position on Proposition 40 and has been looking for other sources of revenue. SEIU-UHW’s Regan argues there’s no other way to raise the money needed to fill the massive gap.

The California Budget & Policy Center estimates the state stands to lose roughly $30 billion in federal Medi-Cal funding each year. Asking California lawmakers for that amount is a “fool’s errand,” Regan said. “And on top of that, the only people the legislature will tax are ordinary people.”

The union estimates the levy would raise $100 billion over five years, with 90% earmarked to shore up health coverage amid impending budget cuts.

Critics dispute the projection. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the tax would probably raise tens of billions of dollars, but potentially reduce income-tax revenue in the long run, as some ultrawealthy residents depart the state.

Recent polls show an increasingly contested path for Proposition 40. A recent UC Berkeley-Politico poll found 45% of likely voters in favor, but opposition has increased since early this year and now stands at 43%. A separate Public Policy Institute of California survey put support at 52% and opposition at 46%.

Led by Sergey Brin, wealthy opponents have poured almost $230 million into funding Building a Better California, according to a filing late Thursday. That’s helping them flood the airwaves with anti tax advertising. There are also two competing ballot measures designed to torpedo Proposition 40 if they pass.

Billionaires aren’t the only detractors. Critics have also assailed Proposition 40 for carving out an exception to California’s constitutional funding rules to steer most proceeds to healthcare. While the state generally earmarks at least 40% of General Fund revenue to public schools and community colleges, the billionaire-tax proposal excludes the new levy from that calculation.

Corcoran, the medical association chief, argues that even if Proposition 40 passes in November, legal challenges would potentially delay its implementation for years.

“There’s a lot that we can do looking ahead to 2028 when these cuts start taking greater effect that frankly would provide more immediate relief than Proposition 40 would,” he said. His group and others are pushing instead for large corporations to help cover the cost of public insurance for their workers.

Regan called that proposal “the worst public policy on planet Earth,” saying costs will be passed on to consumers and that it essentially acts as a payroll tax on low-wage workers.

He also disputed the notion the billionaire tax would lead the ultrawealthy to leave the state, pointing to Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang, who earlier this year said he would be “perfectly fine” with the levy. As for legal challenges to the billionaire tax, Regan said he believes they can be resolved in 12 months.

The uncertain funding picture has many hospitals bracing for cuts.

James Suver, CEO of Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, about 150 miles north of Los Angeles, said he’s not betting on proceeds from the billionaire tax. He’s weighing options that include pausing maternity care again, cutting physician recruitment and reducing emergency-room service.

“Our future under the most likely scenario is not looking very good,” Suver said. “We’re beyond doing minor nips and tucks to be able to offset some of the changes that I suspect may be happening in the future.”

Clanton writes for Bloomberg. Kara Wetzel of Bloomberg contributed.

The California attorney general will help oversee healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente’s medical arbitration system to ensure it operates fairly under legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed late Sunday.

Patients, their families and lawyers have complained that Kaiser’s private and confidential system of handling medical malpractice complaints is designed to favor the health plan over those bringing the claims.

Under legislation known as Assembly Bill 1770, the attorney general will decide what actions justice officials should take to ensure private arbitrations required by any health plan are handled fairly and in line with state law.

To do that work, the state plans to add as many as four deputy attorneys general, a legal analyst and three legal secretaries, according to a legislative analyst’s report.

“We look forward to continuing to resolve claims through an independently administered system that provides a fair and efficient process for members and patients,” Kaiser Permanente said in a statement Monday.

Roughly 1 of every 4 Californians get healthcare from Kaiser. To join the plan, each one had to check a box, agreeing to use arbitration to settle any dispute.

Many companies and other organizations, including some hospitals and physician groups, require customers or patients to take their complaints to private arbitration rather than to court.

But unlike most other companies, which send claims to large arbitration firms, Kaiser created its own system.

Under Kaiser’s system, once a neutral arbitrator is selected, either party can opt to disqualify that person without cause. There is no limit on the number of disqualifications.

While the health plan designed the system to be fair, patients and their lawyers have alleged that Kaiser’s greater knowledge of arbitrators’ past rulings and its ability to veto arbitrators gives it an advantage to pick favorable judges.

Critics also say the hourly fees paid to arbitrators provide them with a financial incentive to rule in Kaiser’s favor so they will be selected for future cases. Most of the arbitrators are retired judges.

Kaiser has previously defended its arbitration system, saying it was fair for both patients and for the nonprofit.

The bill was authored by Assemblyman Robert Garcia (D-Rancho Cucamonga), a longtime Kaiser member.

Support for it was led by Stephen Martinez, a retired aerospace engineer from Bellflower, who with his wife, Lindalee Iverson, spent $350,000 to bring two arbitration cases against Kaiser. The arbitrator ruled against the couple in both cases.

Iverson died of cancer in 2023.

Martinez told legislators at a hearing this year how his wife had found a lump in her breast and asked for an appointment with her longtime caregiver at Kaiser to examine it. Instead she was sent to a physician assistant, who dismissed it, he said. Later, it was found to be cancer that had spread.

A chief breast surgeon at Kaiser and another surgeon who had retired from that job both testified that the Kaiser physician assistant failed to follow the health system’s guidelines.

Kaiser’s expert argued that the physician assistant did an appropriate exam and that his low suspicion of breast cancer was reasonable. The neutral arbitrator sided with the health plan’s expert.

Martinez has spent years trying to get legislation to make the system more fair.

“I’m elated,” Martinez said of Newsom’s signing of the bill, which was named Lindalee’s Law. “It’s been a long road.”

According to the annual report prepared by the independent administrator of Kaiser’s system, the “most common” complaint the office heard last year was about the neutral arbitrator.

“Most complained that the arbitrator was biased, partisan, unjust, and in Kaiser’s favor,” the report said.

Nearly half a million people are displaced in Rakhine as a result of the conflict between the military and rebel groups.

An air strike carried out by Myanmar’s military has killed at least 33 people in territory controlled by rebel factions.

The attack near a market in the north of the Rakhine state in the west of the country on Monday also wounded 36 people, rescue and rebel group officials reported. The strikes are the latest in a series of assaults against pro-democracy and ethnic armed groups by the military government, which took power in a coup in 2021, sparking armed opposition.

The Arakan army said a fighter jet dropped two bombs near a local market in the town of Kyauktaw at noon local time (0530 GMT), killing 33 people, including vendors, shoppers, and pedestrians. It said the death toll “may continue to increase”.

Wai Hun Aung, a senior rescue official in Rakhine, confirmed the details to the Associated Press news agency. He said the market was the region’s main wholesale centre, drawing traders and shoppers from across the state.

“This is one of the most severe airstrikes in Rakhine,” he said. Photos and videos posted on social media showed buildings on fire, damaged vehicles and parts of a nearby bridge destroyed.

Myanmar’s military did not immediately comment, but it has previously said it strikes only legitimate military targets and accused resistance groups of “terrorism”.

Myanmar has been gripped by ⁠conflict since the elected ⁠government led by Aung San Suu Kyi was ousted in the 2021 coup. A nationwide resistance movement has since evolved into a civil war between the ‌military government and an array of armed ethnic and pro-democracy groups.

President Min Aung Hlaing, Myanmar’s former military government chief, was elected by ‌a military-backed Parliament in April, formalising his grip on power after five years of army rule.

The Arakan army is a well-trained and well-armed military group seeking autonomy for Rakhine’s ethnic minority. It launched an offensive in November 2023 and has since captured strategically important military headquarters and 14 of the state’s 17 townships.

The military has imposed severe restrictions on trade routes to Rakhine since the fighting there intensified, worsening food shortages.

In December, a military airstrike on a hospital in Rakhine’s Mrauk U township killed at least 33 people and wounded 70 others.

Nearly half a million people are displaced in Rakhine as a result of the conflict, according to United Nations data. The UN added in August that the human rights situation in Myanmar has plummeted “to a new low”, citing “brutal abuse” against the Rohingya minority and the devastating impact of illicit economic activity, including illegal mining for rare earth minerals.

Rebel groups and Myanmar’s military are now both using drones in the protracted conflict, which has killed more than 100,000 people, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) project.

JUNEAU, Alaska — One of the most biting insults in Alaska politics is to be accused of being aligned with the “Lower 48,” code for candidates taking marching orders from powerful forces in the contiguous United States rather than sticking up for Alaskans.

It’s a central theme of the Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, one of a handful expected to determine control of the chamber in the November elections.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan’s campaign has made it a key attack line against Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman. He lumps her in with “Lower 48 liberals” who have opposed expanded oil and gas drilling in a state that has relied heavily on that industry for decades.

Peltola, an Alaska Native, has countered that she “took on” then-President Biden, a fellow Democrat, to help win approval in 2023 of the huge Willow oil project, which environmentalists strongly opposed. She also says she will “take on anyone, including Democrats — anyone in the Lower 48 who doesn’t understand what Alaska needs.”

The pejorative label reflects a mystique about Alaska, which outsiders often refer to as “The Last Frontier.” A state for less than 70 years, Alaska is renowned for its natural beauty, wildlife and vast landscapes. Its rural nature — isolated from the rest of the country and with many of its communities accessible only by air or water — breeds a self-reliance. It’s a place where many residents hunt and fish to fill their freezers for winter and take pride in their independence.

The two major Senate campaigns and some third-party groups have leaned into that sentiment — that Alaska is different — and cast their candidates as authentic voices for Alaskans.

“We love the persona Alaska is a tough place to live,” said Republican Andrew Halcro, a political podcast host and former state lawmaker who has lived in the state nearly all his life.

Abundance of oil and other resources has created friction with federal government

Alaska, rich in natural resources, has long had a love-hate relationship with the federal government, which owns about 60% of the state’s land. That relationship has been especially strained under Democratic presidential administrations that have sought to restrict logging, mining and the availability of areas for oil and gas development over environmental concerns.

Policies can shift dramatically from one administration to the next.

The Democratic Obama and Biden administrations banned leasing on roughly half the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is home to wildlife such as caribou and polar bears and provides habitat for millions of migrating birds. Republican President Trump’s administration has rolled back those and other restrictions as part of a broader push for expanded oil and gas development in Alaska. The administration also is supporting lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The state also has bristled at Democratic efforts to stifle road building and logging in areas such as the Tongass National Forest, a temperate rainforest in southeast Alaska. That dispute dates to the Clinton administration.

Alaska’s share of royalty revenue from oil and minerals on federal land has been another ongoing source of tension. Some lawmakers say the state was promised a larger share at statehood and that the federal government has failed to uphold its end of the deal.

While oil production is a fraction of what it was at its peak in the late 1980s and has fallen in recent years, political leaders have pointed to signs of a turnaround. They cite in part the strong interest from major companies that snatched up leases in a sale earlier this year for the petroleum reserve, home to the Willow project.

Alaska communities have been hit hard by spikes in fuel prices caused by the Iran war. That is especially true for remote communities that must have their fuel flown in or delivered by barge before the rivers ice over.

Oil development is the top issue in this year’s election for Darryl Hugo, who lives in the small North Slope community of Anaktuvuk Pass. He is backing Sullivan and notes that revenue from oil development is largely responsible for his town’s health clinic, school, police and fire departments and water system.

“My region’s economy depends on oil,” he said via a messaging app.

Candidates are seen as trying to stake claim as ‘the real spokesperson for the real Alaska’

Robert Sewell, an independent from the Juneau area, said he sees the “Lower 48” taunts and Peltola trying to distance herself from national Democrats as examples of the candidates “fighting to establish who is the real spokesperson for the real Alaska.”

He also likens it a bit to the schoolyard jeer, “I know you are, but what am I?”

Peltola, during her unsuccessful 2024 congressional reelection campaign, refused to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and said she would not vote for Trump. This year, before Alaska’s August primary, Harris sent a fundraising appeal that offered support of Peltola.

In response, Peltola’s campaign told reporters that she “isn’t seeking endorsements from anyone from the Lower 48.”

In videos highlighting her backing of the Willow oil project, Peltola said she will work with Trump, who handily carried Alaska each of the three times he has run, to advance more oil and gas projects.

“I took on Joe Biden to secure the largest development project in decades,” she said in one video on social media. “And I’ll work with Donald Trump on more.”

Sewell, a Peltola supporter, said he does not begrudge that position. He said he does not think “for one moment that she likes Trump or Trump’s agendas” on other issues.

‘Lower 48’ jabs fill social media and airwaves, but do voters care?

Peltola, who is Yup’ik, is among the roughly 43% of Alaskans born in the state. She grew up fishing on the Kuskokwim River in western Alaska and prominently displays fishing photos on her website. Her campaign slogan, “Fish, Family, Freedom,” is intended to appeal to what she believes are Alaskans’ shared values.

Sullivan, originally from Ohio, came to Alaska in the late 1990s when he was in his early 30s. Now a retired Marine, he served as Alaska attorney general and natural resources commissioner, and was an assistant secretary of state in President George W. Bush’s administration.

Sullivan spokesperson Nate Adams said that for the senator, “being an Alaskan means loving this state, fighting everyday for his fellow Alaskans and making sure Alaskans, not Lower 48 liberals, decide our future.”

The SLF PAC, which supports a Republican Senate majority, has been keying in on that theme. In one of its ads, a speaker says of Peltola, “They dress her up, throw her out on a stream somewhere, make her look like an Alaskan.” Another says: “Mary Peltola sounds like Alaska, but toes a different line in Washington, D.C.”

Peltola’s campaign said Alaskans “won’t be fooled by mudslinging ads.” In a statement, her campaign sought to link Sullivan with “Lower 48 special interest donors.”

Halcro, the former lawmaker and podcaster, said Alaskans have been inundated with such ads and flyers, but he is not sure the messaging over which candidate aligns less with the “Lower 48” is one voters want to hear this year.

“It’s all of this stuff just to make us angry at a time where we really genuinely, genuinely just need stability,” he said. “We just need to elect somebody who’s not going to break anything.”

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

Opponents of the billionaire tax on the November ballot have vastly outraised the proposal’s supporters, with the anti-Proposition 40 effort and the backers of two other ballot measures crafted to nullify it raising $187 million compared to the $32 million raised by boosters of the wealth tax, according to campaign finance documents filed with the state.

The reports, filed Thursday, account for donations through Sept. 19 and do not include several million dollars that have poured into campaign coffers in recent days. The numbers are expected to vastly increase before the Nov. 3 election.

The bulk of the money raised by the proponents of Proposition 40, which would enact a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires’ assets, appears to have been spent on gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. The campaign had only $207,000 in the bank, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

A leader of the union that crafted the proposal accused wealthy Californians who are spending heavily against the measure of lying to voters. The measure is designed to offset $100 billion in impending federal healthcare funding cuts expected to impacts millions of Californians.

“The billionaires take and take — tax break after tax break — and now they’re spending that money to deceive voters and avoid paying their fair share,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. “Voters want their money back from the billionaires and want local emergency rooms to stay open. California does not need more tax breaks for billionaires. California needs emergency rooms for patients, hospitals that stay open, and healthcare people can access and afford.”

Opponents of the billionaire tax argue that it would do more harm than good.

“The more Californians learn, the more they see Proposition 40 for what it is — a harmful tax scheme that permanently damages the state’s budget and economy with zero accountability or safeguards to ensure funding actually improves care or lowers costs for patients,” said California Medical Assn. President Dr. René Bravo, the leader of one of the groups opposing the billionaire tax.

Proposition 41 would nullify the billionaire tax if, in the event that both measures are approved, it receives more “yes” votes. Proposition 41 would prohibit any new state tax from being excluded from a voter-approved cap that restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend each year.

“Californians deserve better results for their hard-earned tax dollars,” said Molly Weedn, a spokesperson for the Proposition 41 campaign.

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets, and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of Proposition 40. If both measures pass and Proposition 42 receives more “yes” votes, it would nullify the wealth tax.

The proposed billionaire tax has divided California Democrats, with Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing it while the state Democratic party supports it.

In recent polling, a majority of likely voters did not support any of the three proposals.

While 45% of likely voters supported the billionaire tax, 42% opposed it, according to a poll released Friday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. Voters also are torn about the two ballot measures designed to nullify it.

The other measure receiving great attention, Proposition 39, which would require voters to show government-issued ID to cast ballots, faces a similar financial disparity. Opponents to the measure have raised $39.3 million compared to $15.6 million garnered by supporters.

Fifty-two percent of likely California voters oppose the voter ID proposal, while 39% support it and 9% are undecided, according to the Berkeley poll.

In the race to replace Newsom, Democratic former Biden cabinet member Xavier Becerra has raised $35.8 million, while his GOP rival, conservative strategist and television commentator Steve Hilton, has raised $22.3 million.

Becerra remains the front-runner in the governor’s race, which is not surprising since Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. In last week’s Berkeley poll, the Democrat had the support of 58% of likely voters, while 33% backed the Republican.

More state money to pay for arts teachers will reach local schools if legislation signed Sunday by Gov. Gavin Newsom works out as intended, but the new law will not resolve a lawsuit accusing the Los Angeles school district of misspending as much as $77 million in its share of the funding.

The aim of Assembly Bill 2440 is to encourage more school systems to use arts funding made available through Proposition 28, which voters passed in November 2022.

“The clear message we heard was that many school districts have been struggling to navigate legal ambiguity regarding compliance with Proposition 28,” said bill author Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) in a recent statement to The Times. He said his goal was to provide “statewide guidance” so that all or most school systems could use the money without concern over violations of spending rules that could result in financial penalties.

Proposition 28 sets aside an amount equal to 1% of the state’s base education funding — close to $1 billion per year — to increase arts education. This extra funding is drawn down from the state’s general fund — so it adds to the total allotted for education.

The initial funding, nearly a billion dollars statewide, went out for the 2023-24 school year and has continued annually. But millions of dollars have not yet been spent, according to early reviews of the data.

Some local officials said they were holding back over concerns that they would inadvertently violate the rules for spending the money — and would then have to pay it back, creating significant financial risk.

This bill had backing from arts organizations, education and school district officials and the California Teachers Assn. No opposition was recorded in the legislative record; nor were there any opposing votes as the bill worked its way through the legislative process.

But then Austin Beutner — the author of Proposition 28 — learned of the measure and stepped forward with concerns. He contendedthe bill would make using the arts money easier, but in wrong ways. He said the bill would undermine the guarantee that new arts funding would reach every school. Also it would in effect eliminate the provision that campuses serving low-income communities receive higher levels of new funding. Moreover — and of key importance — the legislation would allow districts to use the new arts money to replace existing arts funding, leaving students no better off than before, he said.

Beutner had structured Proposition 28 precisely to prevent this supplanting of funds. Districts not willing to provide the required increased instruction at every school would, by design, lose access to the new arts money.

Beutner began to rally opposition, including United Teachers Los Angeles, L.A. mayoral candidate Nithya Raman and San Diego school board President Richard Barrera, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction — and who has the endorsement of the California Teachers Assn.

Beutner also announced his attention to file litigation against the bill.

Muratsuchi said he had no intent to undermine the goals of Proposition 28 — and a compromise soon emerged.

The final version — which has Beutner’s approval — clarifies that small schools or small school districts can pool their money to share an arts teacher, provided that every school gets the additional arts instruction. The bill also gives some legal protection for school districts against financial penalties if their arts funding decreases as a result of factors beyond their control, such as the expiration of a grant.

An LAUSD lawsuit continues

Beutner alleges that L.A. Unified has intentionally misused the new arts money.

Beutner pursued passage of Proposition 28 after serving as superintendent of L.A. Unified. His stint ended in mid-2021 with the expiration of a three-year contract.

“LAUSD has done exactly what the law prohibits,” Beutner alleged in an ongoing lawsuit filed in February 2025. “It has eliminated existing funding sources for existing art teachers, and replaced those funds with Proposition 28 funds, thereby violating the requirement that the funds supplement rather than supplant existing sources.”

The lawsuit lists 37 elementary schools with the same or reduced money for arts instruction from 2022-23 to 2023-24 — when the new funding first arrived — and alleges that most L.A. Unified schools faced a similar funding situation.

Before the lawsuit, but in response to growing criticism, L.A. Unified officials quietly added $30 million to the elementary school arts budget for the 2024-25 school year amid ongoing accusations from Beutner, union leaders and parents.

The district has defended its actions.

“We continue to follow implementation guidance as provided by the state of California to ensure that we are fully complying with the requirements of Prop. 28,” the district said in a statement at the time of the lawsuit, a contention that it has made repeatedly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of bills Saturday that increases protections for LGBTQ people in California, saying the legislation was needed because of recent moves by the Trump administration that threaten that support.

One of the six bills would provide housing, employment and other help to service members discharged from the U.S. military as a result of President Donald Trump’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving.

“I’m grateful to Governor Newsom for signing this legislation and proud that California is standing with the veterans who were unjustly forced out of uniform,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), the author of Assembly Bill 1775.

Other bills Newsom signed create stronger privacy protections by limiting the sharing of sexual orientation and gender identity, while also requiring healthcare providers to notify the California Attorney General when they receive a subpoena regarding healthcare activities the state protects.

Another new law will enhance access to drugs known as PrEP and PEP, which are aimed at preventing HIV.

“The Trump administration has launched an all-out assault on the LGBTQ community, using medical records to target U.S. servicemembers and civilians alike, hurting countless people and betraying hard-won trust,” Newsom’s office said in a press release. “California will not stand for it.”

The bills Newsom signed Saturday were priority bills of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus.

Since taking office in 2019, Newsom has signed dozens of bills adding protections for LGBTQ people.

The governor’s office noted that this year’s state budget included $66 million to help people get access to gender-affirming care and abortion.

“I’m proud of the work our Caucus has done to advance legislation that meets the real needs of our community, and I thank Governor Newsom for signing these important bills,” said state Senator Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside), who is chair-elect of the LGBTQ Caucus.

“This progress reflects what we can accomplish when we work together to build a California where LGBTQ+ people and their families can live with greater safety, opportunity, and dignity,” Cervantes said.

WASHINGTON — After two years of struggling to slow down the Trump administration agenda under a Republican governing trifecta, Democrats are hoping to capture both chambers of Congress in the upcoming midterms.

All 435 House of Representatives seats are up for election, with 37 considered competitive, 21 of them toss-ups, by the Cook Political Report — a respected polling analysis site. Republicans currently hold a 218-214 edge over Democrats, with two seats vacant and one independent in the chamber.

To control the House, Democrats need a net gain of four seats.

Recent polls have shown Democrats creeping up on or surpassing their Republican opponents as President Trump’s approval rating hovers under 40%, which may offer an opening in unexpected places. But still, in a time when a more progressive wing has risen in popularity on the left, even some moderate Democrats are suffering from associations with the current administration.

Here is a look at five competitive races:

Ohio 7th: Miller vs. Poindexter

Incumbent Republican Max Miller, mired in controversy, will face union ironworker Brian Poindexter in a 7th Congressional District race that went from solidly Republican to a toss-up in the matter of weeks.

Miller, a second-term congressman, is facing a House Ethics Committee investigation after his ex-wife, Emily Moreno — daughter of Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno — accused Miller of extreme physical abuse, which he has denied.

Miller also faced accusations from former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham that Miller had abused her during their relationship. An Ohio judge recently ordered both parties to remove social media posts about each other that were considered disparaging.

Brian Poindexter, Democratic nominee for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, speaks at the Strongsville Democratic Club meeting on Aug. 5 in Strongsville, Ohio.

(Nate Manley / Associated Press)

Poindexter, a relative unknown, has surged in the meantime. According to a Co/efficient poll last month, Poindexter was leading Miller by 14 points, with 86% of respondents claiming they were aware of allegations against Miller.

Poindexter has centered his campaign on strengthening unions, retaining healthcare benefits for retirees and injured workers and raising wages.

Miller has attacked his opponent for a 1998 arrest in which Poindexter, a teenager at the time, allegedly tried to swallow a rock of crack cocaine during a traffic stop. Miller also homed in on an instance of alleged assault at a baseball game in 2013 by Poindexter.

Texas 34th: Gonzalez vs. Flores

Incumbent Democrat Vicente Gonzalez Jr. is attempting to retain his seat against challenger Eric Flores, an Army veteran endorsed by Trump.

Elected in 2016, Gonzalez held the 15th Congressional District for three terms until 2021, when a Texas redistricting shift absorbed his McAllen home into the 34th district. He is currently serving his second term under a new map, which favors Republicans and has shed many of his Latino constituents.

Flores, a political newcomer, made his first national appearance at the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention in Dallas, touting his commitment to border security and accusing Gonzalez of allowing migrants to make the community unsafe.

Immigration looms as an issue in the race. Gonzalez has introduced bills to prevent federal and state immigration enforcement officers from entering homes without an official warrant, and to force agents to wear clear identification. He has publicly criticized raids targeting hospitality, medical and construction workers.

Gonzalez has scored endorsements from several progressive organizations in the state, including LUPE Votes — a subsidiary of La Unión del Pueblo Entero.

In a Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center poll from August, Gonzalez was leading Flores, 45% to 42%, with 8% undecided.

North Carolina 1st: Davis vs. Buckhout

Incumbent Democrat Rep. Donald Davis will have to contend with a district that has grown more conservative to retain his seat against Republican challenger Laurie Buckhout.

North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District was the state’s only swing seat held by a Democrat before last year’s redistricting, which made the area lean Republican. This will be a rematch of the 2024 race, which Davis won by less than 2 points, or around 6,000 total votes.

Laurie Buckhout speaks as President Trump and North Carolina Rep. Jennifer Balkcom look on during a campaign rally at the Gastonia Municipal Airport on Sept. 16 in Gastonia, N.C.

(Matt Kelley / Associated Press)

Cook Political Report ranked this race as leaning Republican, calling Davis “the most vulnerable House Democrat in the country.”

It is unclear whether the gerrymandering effort will have been effective enough to make the district flip to Republican. Trump endorsed Buckhout in March and reiterated his support last week.

New York 17th: Lawler vs. Conley

New York Republican incumbent Rep. Mike Lawler is attempting to fend off a challenge from Democrat Cait Conley, a former White House director of counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Cook Political Report rankings showed that early this year, the 17th Congressional District race went from likely Republican to a toss-up.

Pete Buttigieg went on the campaign trail last week with Conley to promote the candidate’s bid to unseat Lawler.

“Cait is as serious as it gets about keeping our country safe,” Buttigieg said on a rally stage in Tarrytown, “just like she is serious about bringing down the cost of housing, healthcare and energy.”

Lawler has presented a bipartisan image in Congress, but has come under fire in his purple district for aligning himself with the Trump administration on several issues, including his support for the Iran war.

At the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention, Lawler focused much of his speech on lambasting “socialist” Democrats and attempting to appeal to the more “common sense” wing of the opposition party.

“Radical socialists are winning Democratic primaries,” he said. “They claim to be well-meaning, but there is nothing kind-hearted about protecting criminals at the expense of American families … nothing compassionate about prioritizing illegal immigrants.”

Conley, however, has publicly refused to campaign with New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — without condemning either figure — to avoid the open conflict between establishment figures and the more progressive wing of the party.

A July poll from co/efficient showed Lawler leading Conley 50% to 45%, with a nearly 3% margin of error.

Dr. Amish Shah, shown in July, is a Democrat running in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District.

(Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

Arizona 1st: Shah vs. Feely

A Democratic PAC plans to invest nearly $1 million to support Democrat state Rep. Amish Shah against Republican Jay Feely, a former NFL player with close ties to the president.

The 314 Action Fund — which seeks to elect Democrats with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics — has made a big bet on the Democrat running in the 1st Congressional District, Arizona’s wealthiest, according to the Arizona Mirror.

Former professional football player Jay Feely, shown in April, is the Republican nominee in Arizona’s 1st District.

(Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

Subsequent ads have brought attention to Feely’s close association with Trump and his recent attendance at the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention in Dallas. Trump won the state by five points in 2024.

Elon Musk has also figured in this race, with his America PAC giving $24,000 to Republican candidates Feely in the 1st District and Juan Ciscomani in the 6th District, according to the Copper Courier.

The Cook Political Report called the 1st District “one of the most competitive … in the country.”

Sept. 25, 2026 12:31 PM PT

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey ’s Democratic lieutenant governor has resigned after the governor demanded he step down over sexual harassment allegations and ethical lapses involving his relationships with women.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill had given Lt. Gov. Dale Caldwell an ultimatum that he resign by Friday, though she lacked the power to remove him if he said no. Sherrill announced the resignation at a news conference that afternoon.

“His decision will allow us to move forward with important work serving the people of our state,” she said. “In my administration we are committed to doing what is right, not what is politically expedient.”

Sherrill picked Caldwell, a Methodist pastor and former president of Centenary University, to be her running mate last year. They were elected together and took office in January, but within four months, Caldwell had become the subject of an anonymous complaint about his behavior with women.

In New Jersey, a governor can’t fire the lieutenant governor, as the post is independently elected. But lieutenant governors can be impeached and removed from office by the Legislature. A governor can strip a lieutenant governor of nearly all duties and responsibilities, effectively sidelining them from the administration.

Sherrill hired the law firm of a former New Jersey attorney general, Christopher Porrino, to investigate.

In a report released Thursday, the lawyers said Caldwell had committed several violations of state policy. It said Caldwell, 66, had made an advance toward a staff member’s friend and when he was rebuffed told the staffer, “you young women are looking for young sperm.”

The report also said Caldwell had tried to get a promotion for a state employee he was dating and brought personal guests to the opera and other ticketed events without paying for them, as required by ethics rules.

Caldwell denied any misconduct and said in a letter included in the report that he suspected his relationships with women were being subjected to extra scrutiny because he was a single Black man.

His lawyer, Thomas Calcagni, said Caldwell never made the sperm statement or used his position to further his romantic life. Caldwell did recommend a female friend for a promotion, Calcagni said, but only because he thought she would be a good candidate for the job. Caldwell denied ordering anyone to promote her or knowingly violating ethics rules by failing to disclose their personal relationship when he recommended her.

Sherrill had said Caldwell needed to resign because he committed “serious, repeated violations of state policy,” despite multiple warnings and trainings.

Besides being the first in line to become governor if Sherrill were to die, be removed from office or become incapacitated, Caldwell also had served as New Jersey’s appointed secretary of state. In that role, he had a supervisory role over the state’s elections.

In neighboring New York, a similar impasse has played out over the last year between Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and her estranged Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, who launched a caustic primary challenge to unseat her only to withdraw from the race as the election neared.

Hochul is running for reelection in November with Adrienne Adams, the former speaker of the New York City Council, as her replacement lieutenant governor nominee.

Catalini and Marcelo write for the Associated Press. Marcelo reported from New York.

WASHINGTON — For the third time this month, the Supreme Court has rejected Missouri’s bid for one more Republican-leaning congressional district.

With no dissents, the justices upheld a state court order requiring the use of a 2022 election map, which favors Republicans in six of the eight districts.

“At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos,” the justices wrote.

The GOP, with the backing of conservative federal judges, wanted to use a new 2025 election map that redrew the district in Kansas City that had elected a Black Democrat.

That would have given Republicans a 7-1 advantage, but the Supreme Court stood in the way.

“As a matter of state law, the 2022 map — not the 2025 map — must be used in the 2026 congressional election,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion. “This Court has repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not ‘alter the election rules of a state on the eve of an election.”

Each side in this messy dispute accused the other of seeking to change the voting districts on the eve of the election.

On Tuesday, the opponents of the newly drawn GOP-friendly map appealed to the Supreme Court for the third time. They said it is too late to switch the districts because ballots had gone out based on the existing map.

They said the Republicans “demand a new map after votes have already been cast. Ballots using the 2022 map have been printed and mailed, and absentee voting, both by mail and in-person, began today.”

But the state’s Republican attorneys said the primary elections took place under the new 2025 map, and that argues for keeping those districts in place for the general election in November.

Last September, the Missouri General Assembly, following President Trump’s lead, voted to redraw its eight congressional districts. In recent years, the state had sent six Republicans and two Democrats to Congress.

The Legislature’s goal was to flip one more seat in favor of Republicans. The new map would do that by breaking up the Kansas City district that had elected Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Black Democrat, with a new district that favored a Republican.

But a group called People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, gathered more than 300,000 signatures for a referendum to challenge the new law before it took effect.

After waiting nine months to respond, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, denied the referendum in early August on the same day the primary elections got underway.

Von Glahn and his group of voters sued and won a unanimous decision from the Missouri Supreme Court on Sept. 3. Its judges said the state Constitution authorizes such a referendum and a new election map cannot take effect until the voters have spoken.

Hoskins filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court and cited the “chaotic fallout” from the state court “irresponsible decision.”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who oversees appeals from the 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis, denied the appeal without comment on Sept. 8.

But shortly after his decision was issued, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited the state from using the any voting map other than the new one.

People not Politicians appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

On Sept. 10, Kavanaugh and the full court granted the appeal and blocked the judge’s order from taking effect.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, but the meaning of the order was clear. The state Supreme Court ruling meant the new map could not be used for this year’s election.

But that did not stop the 8th Circuit Court from ruling the state must use the new map.

Siding with several Republican candidates, a 2-1 majority said the use of 2022 map was unconstitutional because the primary elections were held under the new map. Its decision ordered the elections to be held using the new map.

This was a surprising ruling, since the Supreme Court’s order on Sept. 10 barred judges in Missouri from intervening further in the dispute over the voting maps.

But after a third trip to the court, the justices said the state must use the 2022 map.

NEW YORK — The nation’s cybersecurity agency on Thursday released an election infrastructure security plan 40 days before November’s midterms, laying out potential threats to election systems and listing services it would offer to election officials to protect the vote.

Election officials said the plan is both inadequate and belated after the administration gutted the agency’s election security work last year, prompting the officials to pay for private services to ensure they were prepared for the upcoming elections.

“For them to come in five weeks before the election, yeah, nice effort,” said Nevada’s Democratic Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who added that he would have liked to see the federal government provide more funding for cybersecurity, rather than Nevada taxpayers having to pay for it.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin had originally promised to release the plan by mid-August as part of the Trump administration’s move to kickstart election security assistance after a hiatus. He announced the plan at the same time he threatened election officials for not cooperating with the administration’s preferred methods to hunt down noncitizen voting, a phenomenon that research shows is extremely rare.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is housed under the Department of Homeland Security, has since its founding in 2018 helped warn state and local election officials about potential threats from foreign governments.

But CISA, as it’s known, was largely absent from that role in last year’s elections after the Trump administration dismantled much of its role in election security. The administration cut some 1,000 employees from CISA and slashed $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials.

CISA has also gone the entirety of Trump’s second term without a Senate-confirmed director, instead cycling through a series of acting leaders.

Plan refers to ‘consistent’ support that many election officials say has been lacking

The 13-page document released Thursday warns of various threats to election security, including software vulnerabilities, hacks of voter registration databases, insider threats and physical security incidents, such as bomb threats that targeted several polling locations in the 2024 elections.

But it affirms that many longstanding election practices can address such threats and says the agency’s goal is “to ensure the American people can trust voting systems and know that physical safety measures will be in place when they go to their assigned polling locations to cast their votes.”

It states that DHS has “consistently supported CISA’s delivery of cybersecurity and physical security services to election officials,” something numerous election officials around the country have said isn’t true.

Multiple secretaries of state told the Associated Press that services previously provided by CISA, such as live tabletop exercises and penetration tests to evaluate security of their systems, were not available in the lead-up to this year’s midterms.

Minnesota Secretary of State Scott Simon, a Democrat, said in August that his office expects to spend roughly $250,000 on private vendors to conduct penetration testing, which can expose security vulnerabilities and recommend actionable fixes.

Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state in Maine, told the AP the same month that communications with CISA had been “sporadic and irregular, to say the least.” She said it would be helpful if the Trump administration could restore intelligence briefings that used to be granted to election officials about threats from foreign adversaries, but noted that trust with federal officials had been broken with the cuts to the agency.

Thursday’s plan doesn’t mention any specific 2026 threats from adversaries like Russia, Iran or China, all of whom have sought to meddle in U.S. elections — either directly through hacking or indirectly through influence campaigns.

Kris Warner, the Republican secretary of state in West Virginia, said Thursday that some of CISA’s assistance to his state had been continual throughout the Trump administration, including no-cost reviews of its public-facing websites for cybersecurity issues.

Warner acknowledged CISA had cut back under the Trump administration but said he views the agency “as a resource and not as a service provider” and said his office had last year hired a departing CISA election security advisor who has helped fill any gaps that may exist.

Report follows August call between CISA and election officials

In early August, two CISA officials — acting director Nick Anderson and assistant director for integrated operations Jim Harrell — joined a National Assn. of Secretaries of State call attended by a bipartisan group of secretaries of state, according to several election administrators.

The call grew tense when Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes voiced his concerns about the withdrawal of federal resources.

Fontes told the AP at the time that he told the CISA officials he didn’t trust them. He said it seemed to him the officials were there “to cover their butts.”

“They even acknowledged on the call that it was too late for them to do anything for 2026,” he said.

Simon said the officials appeared interested in rebuilding relationships and previewing their future plans, which he appreciated. But he said the effort at goodwill came later than election officials needed.

“Secretaries of state have already moved on and sought other partners and other resources for the services that CISA has retreated from over the last year and a half,” Simon said.

In Michigan, a voting rights group has tried to fill the gap

In Michigan, where mail ballots have already been sent out for the Nov. 3 elections, Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said the state’s relationship with CISA has been “nonexistent” this year despite working together closely in previous election cycles.

“If the federal government wants to be helpful, they can’t do so at the 11th hour,” the Democrat said.

Ashiya Brown, the Michigan state director of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local, agreed. She noted the new plan says CISA has 10 regional directors to support election administrators but still doesn’t answer her biggest question.

“Does CISA still have the people and capacity to provide that support when clerks need it?” she asked. “I’m glad CISA has put forward a plan, but what matters now is whether the support described in it reaches local election officials before November.”

CISA has been hiring on its website for new positions, Brown said, but it’s unclear whether they are all staffed yet.

Meanwhile, Brown, a former security official with the Michigan Department of State, said her group has hired former CISA employees to help provide training and other support to election clerks and fill the gap.

Edevbie said even without collaboration with CISA, he is confident the state’s elections are secure.

“We are always prepared to defend our elections and to ensure that every voter who is eligible to cast a ballot can do so here in Michigan,” he said.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld President Trump’s expanded use of government data to spot non-citizens who are registered to vote.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked use of this data on the grounds it was error-prone, particularly for naturalized citizens.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The decision will aid states that seek to scrub their voter rolls and remove those who are not citizens.

Several Republican-led states including Texas and Florida supported the administration’s appeal.

The use of the new database “allowed Texas to more efficiently, promptly, and economically ensure the accuracy of its voter rolls,” the state said. It was “able to run its entire list of 18 million voters” through the expanded system of checks “in bulk and for no cost.”

It’s not clear the decision will have much impact in California and other Democratic-led states. It is likely to have a limited impact in the month ahead because the law forbids states from purging their voter rolls in the 90 days prior to an election.

The court, in an unsigned opinion, said the law supported use of the data.

“The federal Government has an obligation to respond to requests from state and local election officials seeking to verify the citizenship of voters,” the court said. “The order below prevents the federal government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”

The administration said the Department of Homeland Security can respond to more than 1 million requests per day to check if a person appears to be a citizen or not based on Social Security records and other data files.

If not, state or county election officials may require these suspect voters to furnish proof of their citizenship.

However, states and local election boards are not required to conduct these searches. The administration also said its data reports are not final proof of citizenship.

Upholding these data searches “would not require states, candidates, parties, or voters to do anything,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. “It would simply make available to states additional information. … States that wish to use that information in the course of ensuring that only eligible citizens cast ballots this November should be free to do so.”

In dissent, Jackson said the court’s order creates the “risk that states might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting.”

The new system of voter checks is based on the 40-year-old Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, that was created by Congress. Then, the goal was to check if applicants were entitled to receive federal benefits.

Last year, Trump issued an executive order directing Homeland Security to expand the reach of SAVE to provide states “access to appropriate systems for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of individuals registering to vote or who are already registered to vote.”

It is a federal crime for non-citizens to register and vote.

Trump has long maintained that non-citizens are voting, but he has had little evidence to support that claim.

Voting rights advocates sued, contending the new “mass verification” system was not authorized by Congress and relied on data that is protected as private under the law.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, agreed and blocked use of the expanded searches. The administration has “trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” she said.

On Sept. 4, the U.S. court of appeals by a 2-1 vote refused to overturn her ruling, prompting the administration’s fast-track appeal.

The voting rights advocates, led by the League of Women Voters, had urged the court to stand aside.

“The government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans’ privacy and voting rights,” they said.

The data searches are flawed, they argued, because they “only reflect a person’s citizenship status when they applied for a Social Security number. That status does not automatically update if the person later naturalizes.”

Texas admitted that the mass checks yield “some inaccurate information.” It said 2,724 people were cited as “potential non-citizens” among its 18 million registered voters.

In response, county officials had to check further to confirm the citizenship of these voters, the state said.

Last week, the Supreme Court dealt Trump a defeat when it blocked use of his proposed postal rules that could have prevented millions of voters from casting ballots by mail.

In a brief order, the court said Trump’s claims of power over states and their voting were “unlikely to succeed.”

But in the case of the expanded data files, the court said the law appears to favor the administration.

Coach DJ Gay started 120 games during his playing days at San Diego State, so when his star guard at Windward High, Davey Harris, announced he had committed to San Diego State, Gay couldn’t have been more pleased.

“That’s the least I could do for everything the school has done for me,” Gay said. “I think San Diego State is going to be a great place playing in the new Pac-12.”

Harris has grown to 6 feet 6 and is only scratching the surface of his ability because he missed his first two years of high school with an injury.

“I truly believe the sky is the limit,” Gay said.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.