state

SACRAMENTO — One of California’s most powerful labor unions declined to endorse a proposed state billionaires tax, a blow to its backers and a sign of simmering divisions on the left over the controversial ballot measure.

The executive board for Service Employees International Union California voted Wednesday to take a neutral position on the tax, which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 40. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

In a statement, the 750,000-member union noted revenue from the “one-time tax proposal [is] dedicated 90% to healthcare,” echoing concerns from other unions opposed to the measure. Teacher, police and firefighter unions argue the tax would largely benefit the healthcare sector and fear it would destabilize the state budget and, along with it, services such as education and public safety.

SEIU California is a parent organization of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the union that crafted the measure and moved to put it on the ballot before securing broad support from other labor groups.

SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said he pushed the tax to backfill an estimated $100 billion in cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs that California is expected to shoulder under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year.

“Trump’s ‘Big, Ugly Bill’ slashed funding for healthcare in California to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. Now, millions of Californians are losing their health coverage, and millions more are being forced to pay skyrocketing costs,” SEIU-UHW Press Secretary Renee Saldana wrote in a statement to The Times.

Saldana pointed to an internal poll showing 70% of union members in California would support the billionaire tax, adding: “We’re confident that SEIU members will be joining millions of their fellow Californians and voting YES on Prop. 40 this November to protect healthcare, keep hospitals and clinics open, and stand with California working families.”

In negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, Regan offered to pull the tax from the ballot in exchange for concessions for his union, including help securing contracts at several medical facilities around the state, two sources told The Times. Regan denies making the demand, and said the proposal is meant to solve an impending “catastrophe in California’s healthcare system.”

Several unions and Democratic allies, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, argue the one-time tax is the wrong solution for the cuts, which are unlikely to be reversed while Republicans hold power in Washington.

SEIU California said its members are focused on “a multi-year campaign to secure California’s fiscal foundation with ongoing revenue,” including an effort to tax large companies that pay wages low enough that their workers rely on public benefits.

Surrounded by members of the SEIU California executive board, Newsom this month signed a bill punting the “Fair Share” measure to next year, when a new governor will take office.

Some labor unions and elected Democrats worry that, in the long run, the proposed billionaire tax will hurt the state budget — which raises more money from wealthy people taxed at higher rates — by pushing rich Californians to move to other states.

Some already have. Google co-founder Sergey Brin last year moved to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to preemptively avoid the tax, and has pumped $82 million into a committee fighting Proposition 40.

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, has begun arguing for a federal wealth tax that the rich could not escape by moving to a new state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” he wrote on Substack in June. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

SEIU California on Wednesday also announced “strong opposition” to Proposition 39, a proposed voter ID measure; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

WASHINGTON — The American Dream may not be dead for many Black Americans, but it is further away than at any point since the Civil Rights Movement, warns a report by the National Urban League.

Released on Thursday, the annual “State of Black America” report grimly describes Black Americans ‘ economic and political prospects as having worsened due to policy changes from President Trump’s administration, according to a copy obtained by the Associated Press.

The report contends that the challenges it highlights for Black communities are warning signs for the prosperity of all Americans.

“It may be the focus is us, but the impact is not just us,” said Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League. “While they have targeted and focused on Black Americans, these attacks are going to impact broadly working Americans, poor Americans, aspirational middle-class Americans, and this is what this report points to.”

Tracing the arc of American history, the Urban League describes Black Americans’ struggle for emancipation from slavery and equal economic and political rights as a gruesome but optimistic part of the American story.

Now, the report says, the Trump administration is at odds with the goals and achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, citing the overhaul of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the president’s focus on overhauling voting laws through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, as examples of rollbacks of long-sought civil rights policies.

The report’s authors offer policy and strategy recommendations for civil rights groups aiming to combat the Trump administration.

“The civil rights community must consolidate its legal resistance and turn courtroom wins into durable policy,” the report says. “The movement must build economic infrastructure that doesn’t depend on the goodwill of any one administration.”

The AP reached out to the White House for comment on the report.

Report contributors include a potential Democratic presidential contender

This year’s report includes contributions from members of Congress, and policy and legal experts, as well as some media personalities.

U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Raphael Warnock all contributed to the report, as well as Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey contributed a video message to the report.

Moore, who is widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential contender, submitted an essay focused on closing the racial wealth gap and Black Americans’ history of economic advancement in the face of adversity.

“With wisdom and grit, my mom was able to lift me and my family to a higher rung on the economic ladder. But too often wisdom and grit aren’t enough,” Moore wrote.

He later called closing the racial wealth gap “a matter of moral clarity” but cautioned that “government alone cannot close the racial wealth gap. It’s going to take all of us,” referencing the private sector and civil society.

Report blasts ‘economic assault’ on Black Americans

Whether corporate America and major nonprofits are still willing to participate is an open question. The report condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back diversity initiatives and economic advancement projects in the private sector, and expresses frustration with companies that cooperated with an “economic assault” on Americans, especially Black Americans.

“This has been a campaign of coercion and oppression directed at these institutions who have been out here working hard to, if you will, change America,” Morial said. “The important thing about companies is that every company has not bent the knee. Some may have done some cosmetic changes. Some have been in full and complete retreat.”

The DEI rollbacks are a jarring reversal for the Urban League, which held sway in the Biden White House on economic and social policies. The report lauds President Biden’s administration for signing a sweeping COVID-19 stimulus package, as well as laws supporting minority small businesses and a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

“Not every promise was kept, and the current administration is pushing to roll our wins back, but these wins serve as a blueprint for what is possible through sustained advocacy and a clear vision,” the authors write. The agenda, the Urban League declares, was “the most consequential federal investments in Black America since the Great Society.”

The organization and its civil rights allies now find themselves in a strikingly different political environment under the Trump administration.

“Looking at our current political landscape, the calls for racial healing and righting of this nation’s wrongs in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd feel like a fever dream,” the report reads.

But the study also acknowledges that Black Americans have overcome more dire and discriminatory moments.

Latest Black America report is the Urban League’s 50th edition

The Urban League’s inaugural 1976 report on the state of Black America was described by the New York Times at the time as “a profoundly depressing document” that laid out the persistent disparities between the economic outlooks of Black and white Americans, a decade after the Civil Rights Movement’s crowning achievements were signed into law.

The report was established as a response to that year’s State of the Union address by President Ford and the Democratic response, neither of which mentioned the economic outlooks for Black Americans. The report offered policy recommendations on crime, education, housing, social services and general economic policy.

“It is a document that does not attempt to cover up the seriousness of the situation black people find themselves in,” the authors wrote at the time. Several of its recommendations were later taken up by President Carter, who was elected to the White House months after the report’s release.

This year’s 50th anniversary document echoes the frustration found in the inaugural report. While Morial acknowledged that the Urban League’s assessments may lead to pessimism, he urged Americans concerned about civil rights and economic progress to respond at the ballot box and with their pocketbooks.

“We cannot be dejected. We cannot be cynical. We must act,” Morial said. “We have to fight to make sure that those that are really trying to kill the essence of the American dream don’t win.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides with so-called “forever” chemicals from use on California’s farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agriculture community.

Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have phased out the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be lasting and harmful to humans.

Representatives for agricultural groups argued at committee hearings last month that banning the chemicals was an overreach that would result in higher numbers of imports of food from other states and stifle innovation in developing new pesticides.

The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, requires the state to list pesticides with PFAS in its public database.

“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to still push to phase out PFAS chemicals.

The bill marks the latest back-and-forth over PFAS, chemicals that are found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and are known as forever chemicals because some of their components don’t easily break down.

State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations or health risks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.

The governor, in his veto message, cited affordability concerns. At the same time, the state has passed various laws intended to protect people from PFAS, including banning them in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.

The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., released a study in March that found that nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables tested contained PFAS residues, including 90% of peaches and nectarines.

The EWG, one of the bill’s supporters, uses a broader criteria to define PFAS than the state and federal authorities.

A spokesperson for California’s Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at detections of the PFAS, but the state “looks at how the detections compare to federal tolerance levels.”

At a June Senate committee hearing on Schultz’s bill, EWG’s chief science officer, David Andrews, said that PFAS pesticides “fall into a regulatory blind spot.” He also said regulators, including the state, have “been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS.”

A spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.

Taylor Triffo, a representative for a coalition of California agricultural associations, said at a different Senate hearing in June that the bill’s original language to ban new PFAS chemicals “would deny California farmers access to [the] next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates and help address emerging pests and diseases.”

Representatives for agriculture groups said at hearings last month that they don’t object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals in the state database.

Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, called pesticide use a “balance” at the June hearing before voting for the amended version.

“Part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state,” she said. “We’ve got to do everything, I think, we can to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country.”

Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group objected to the original bill because it would have restricted products based on their chemical class rather than on a pesticide’s scientific evaluation of risk.

“We’re confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing reevaluations,” Quinonez said.

Schultz told The Times he hopes to work with the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation on oversight in the coming years. He rejected any premise that there is “absolutely nothing to worry about, nothing off [with PFAS], because that’s just inconsistent with the science.”

Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin voters who have already returned their absentee ballots for the state’s primary are not allowed to void those and request a new one, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling deals a blow to Democrats, who filed a lawsuit seeking to give voters a do-over because of a chaotic party primary in the governor’s race.

The ruling is almost certain to be appealed with voting already underway in the state’s primary for governor. It creates another level of uncertainty in the waning days of a primary season that saw Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who had been seen as a Democratic front-runner, drop out on July 17. A day later, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who had bowed out on July 8, reentered the race.

Rodriguez’s name remains on the ballot, along with former state economic development director Missy Hughes, who dropped out in June.

More than 117,000 absentee ballots had been returned by Wednesday. Democrats were concerned that many of those might have been cast for Rodriguez.

The attorney for voters who filed the lawsuit with support from the Wisconsin Democratic Party argued in a Tuesday hearing that state law allows voters who have submitted absentee ballots to change their mind before those ballots are counted on election day.

“Voters across Wisconsin will be disenfranchised” if not allowed to do that, attorney Eduardo Castro argued before Dane County Circuit Judge David Conway.

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted on July 9 to distribute guidance to clerks saying absentee voters cannot change their ballot after it has been returned. The rarely used process is known as ballot spoiling.

But Conway on Wednesday ruled that “the unambiguous language of the statute does not allow a voter to spoil an absentee ballot after it is returned.” He said the guidance issued by the elections commission to the roughly 2,000 clerks who run elections at the local level was consistent with the law.

The judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order sought by Democrats. They had wanted the judge to order the state elections commission to rescind its guidance.

Spokespeople for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the state elections commission did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the ruling.

Ballot spoiling was the subject of a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Republican group. In that case, a Waukesha County judge agreed that the elections commission must rescind its guidance that allowed voters to cast a second ballot. But the state appeals court earlier this year vacated that ruling on technical grounds and did not rule on the merits.

The winner of the Democratic primary will advance to November’s general election, most likely against Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who has only token opposition in his party’s primary. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is not seeking a third term.

Democrats hope to keep the governor’s office and flip both chambers of the Legislature to gain full control of state government for the first time since 2010.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

Roughly six weeks before the first midterm ballots are mailed out, the U.S. Postal Service is emerging as a pivotal player in an election season that will determine control of Congress.

President Trump is seeking greater control over mail balloting through an executive order while a change to how the agency processes mail is leading to criticism that it’s failing to deliver ballots on time.

Democratic officials have raised concerns over the past week about how quickly the Postal Service will process ballots after tens of thousands of them in California and hundreds in Wisconsin arrived at local election offices too late to be counted in elections earlier this year. The top election offices in Kansas and Michigan are urging voters who want to cast their ballots early to avoid the mail and instead drop them off in person.

The Postal Service replied to those concerns by saying it remains “committed to fulfilling our role in the electoral process.”

“We provide a secure, efficient, and effective way for citizens to participate when policymakers decide to use mail as part of their elections,” it said in a statement Tuesday.

Trump’s order puts more focus on mail ballots

The Postal Service faced similar questions about mail delivery in 2024, but the scrutiny this year is heightened because of an executive order Trump issued in March that seeks to create a national voter list to guide the Postal Service in deciding who gets a mail ballot.

The order has sparked multiple lawsuits and federal court orders, leading to a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the administration is asking the justices to allow it to impose its restrictions on mail balloting.

Trump has lied for years about voter fraud to try to explain away his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020, and mail balloting is a favorite target, even though he has used the method himself. During a recent stop in Michigan, he falsely characterized mail balloting as “inherently corrupt” and added, “Hopefully there will be no mail-in ballots.”

A 2025 report from the research group Brookings identified about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail ballots cast.

Despite Trump’s attacks, the method remains popular with voters of both major parties. In 2024, nearly 30% of U.S. voters cast their ballots by mail, according to federal data. In Michigan, where competitive U.S. House and Senate races could help determine the balance of power in Congress, the state said it has sent out more than 2 million absentee ballots for the state’s Aug. 4 primary.

“We want to keep vote by mail. We want to protect it. We want to expand it,” said Jonathan Smith, president of the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union, which launched a campaign in April promoting it and is opposed to turning the Postal Service into an election administrator. “Why? Because it works.”

Legal battles intensify over Trump’s order

The Postal Service proposed a rule in June in line with Trump’s executive order that would create a national list of eligible voters, based on databases kept by other federal agencies. Only those on the list would be eligible to receive mail ballots.

Democratic officials in nearly two dozen states filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts. A federal judge there blocked Trump’s order last month, and an appeals court upheld that ruling, prompting Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court. But the appeals court for the District of Columbia refused Tuesday to block the order in a separate case, calling a legal challenge premature.

Democratic senators and governors have written to the Postal Service urging it to abandon efforts to implement Trump’s order.

“Donald Trump has shown he’ll stop at nothing to meddle in our upcoming elections,” Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin said in a statement to The Associated Press. “At best, this new push will exacerbate already severe delays for mail-in voters and at worst, it will stop eligible Americans from casting their ballots.”

In a letter to Democratic senators earlier this month, the heads of the Postal Service said they were abiding by the court rulings that had halted the executive order. But Smith, of the postal workers union, told the AP on Tuesday that USPS information technology staffers who are union members are working on a planned portal for the list of eligible voters “behind the scenes.”

The Postal Service declined to respond to Smith’s statements and said it could not comment about whether it’s moving forward with work related to Trump’s order because of the litigation.

The postal workers’ union opposes the plan for a portal, a national list of eligible voters and using that list to determine who can receive a mail ballot. Smith said it shouldn’t be postal workers’ responsibility “to decide who can vote and who can’t vote.”

A plan to consolidate mail processing centers upsets officials

The Postal Service has been under financial stress for years and has been consolidating mail processing into fewer regional centers. Mail travels an average of 139 miles to reach one and sometimes 500 miles, according to a recent Brookings report.

In January, a group of mostly Democratic senators said it was concerned about a decision to end twice-daily mail dispatches from local post offices to regional processing centers. The result is that mail arriving after the only daily dispatch would go out the next day.

California officials said the change was a factor in the state rejecting more than 148,000 ballots from its June primary, with 63% of them arriving too late despite a seven-day grace period. Officials worried that some ballots were postmarked at processing facilities the day after they were dropped off at a post office, possibly invalidating them. Wisconsin officials also said hundreds of ballots from an election in April arrived late.

The Postal Service said postmarks generally are being applied with automated equipment at processing centers, “in the same manner and to the same extent as before.” It said someone who wants to make sure their ballot envelope gets a timely postmark can get a free one applied by a postal worker.

A report on the 2024 election by the USPS Office of Inspector General said the Postal Service handled more than 59 million pieces of ballot mail from Sept. 1 to Nov. 15 that year and that 97.3% arrived on time.

Some state election officials advise voters to avoid the mail

The Michigan secretary of state’s office is advising voters to hand-deliver ballots to their local clerk’s office or a drop box.

“We’ve seen these issues over a number of election cycles now — they’re always concerning, and that’s why we’ve put out that guidance,” said Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie.

The Postal Service said its Michigan centers are not seeing processing delays.

In Kansas, concerns about late ballot deliveries in the state’s 2024 primary election prompted a quip on the social platform X from Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican: “The Pony Express is more efficient at this point.” Asked his view now, spokesperson Whitney Tempel said Schwab still believes “keeping your ballot out of the hands of the federal government is best.”

Jamie Shew, a Democrat elected to oversee elections in Douglas County, home to the main University of Kansas campus, said his office is trying to change voters’ perceptions.

“I think voters are used to, you can drop it off on Friday and we’re going to receive it by Election Day,” Shew said Tuesday. “That’s just not the reality.”

California’s state budget includes $10 million for social media campaigns and other efforts to discourage last-minute ballot mailings.

And the Postal Service said it hasn’t changed its own longstanding advice for voters: They should get their ballots in the mail at least a week before their state’s deadline for receiving them.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., Michael R. Blood in Los Angeles, Michael Casey in Boston, and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Washington powerbroker Sen. Lindsey Graham returned home to South Carolina for the last time Wednesday for his funeral and burial.

After Graham was eulogized Tuesday in the nation’s capital as an indefatigable dealmaker by the president, vice president and others, mourners in Columbia prepared to remember him Wednesday as the son of pool hall owners who never forgot his roots.

Graham seemed to know every small-town mayor and police chief and the location of every Chick-fil-A across South Carolina. His PAC made sure Republicans had money to run in legislative and local elections across the state.

Graham died suddenly on July 11 at his home in Washington, likely of an aortic tear, according to preliminary findings. He had just returned from a whirlwind trip to a NATO summit in Turkey, where he celebrated his 71st birthday, and a visit to Ukraine as he negotiated punishing sanctions against Russia. Senators voted late Tuesday to advance the package as a final gesture for their colleague.

Wednesday’s funeral was at First Baptist, the giant downtown church where his predecessor Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond was honored 23 years ago.

Graham’s body was first brought to the South Carolina Statehouse, where he started his political career in 1993, for a law enforcement ceremony and a flyover by military jets. A horse-drawn caisson then carried his casket to the church, where his family followed members of his family carrying it inside.

Graham’s burial Wednesday near his home in Pickens County was planned as a private ceremony.

On Tuesday, Graham’s flag-draped casket was at the U.S. Capitol, where the Republican spent more than 30 years talking and laughing and badgering his colleagues into action.

President Trump then joined foreign leaders at the Washington National Cathedral, a testament to Graham’s stature on the global stage.

Trump called Graham “a giant of the United States Senate, a true American original who left us much too soon.”

Graham’s death has created opportunities for change in South Carolina. Graham had already won the Republican nomination as he ran for a fifth term. Gov. Henry McMaster named his younger sister Darline to hold his seat until January. Darline Graham then surprised many by deciding to run for the full six-year term herself.

State law has Republicans holding a special primary in two weeks to decide the new nominee. Eight others are competing, including former Gov. Mark Sanford and U.S. Reps. Ralph Norman and Russell Fry.

Kinnard and Collins write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to lift a judge’s order and clear the way for state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote by mail.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal and said judges in Boston had wrongly intervened too soon.

In March, Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to direct states to compile a list of citizens who are eligible to vote. This list would limit who may receive a mail ballot.

He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to “compile and transmit state-specific lists of individuals who are citizens and will be 18 years of age or older at the time of an upcoming election,” Sauer said.

Lawyers for California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued, arguing the states, not the federal government, have the constitutional authority to set the rules for voting and elections.

In June, they won before a federal judge in Boston who blocked Trump’s order from going forward, at least in the 23 states which had sued. Her decision was upheld over the weekend by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his appeal, Trump’s solicitor general focused on a procedural question, not the issue of whether the president has the legal authority to impose national rules on state-run elections.

Sauer said the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security had not issued final specific plans to comply with Trump’s directive.

“Courts cannot enjoin implementation of Executive Orders that leave open material issues that still need to be resolved by agencies,” he wrote.

He asked the court to lift or stay the “premature injunctions.”

Time is running short, he said.

“Absent a stay … there will not be sufficient time to obtain appellate relief before the November election,” Sauer said. “That is especially true because implementation efforts for any USPS rule or DHS policy will need to begin well before November … particularly given that absentee and mail-in voting begin (in some States) several weeks prior to Election Day.”

The justices asked for a response from the 23 Democratic states by Aug. 3.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” including California and 15 other states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

The statement, included in a court filing last week in a lawsuit over the canceled funding, contradicts repeated assertions by Energy Secretary Chris Wright and other officials that the projects were canceled because they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or had other problems that made them a poor investment of taxpayer dollars.

The Department of Energy said in the filing Wednesday that “DOE accepts that the inclusion of grants … was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State. DOE will not contend that it looked beyond the prime grantee(s) to consider the political identity or geographic distribution of downstream beneficiaries of the grant funds.”

The agency also said that it “accepts that the differential treatment resulting in the October 2025 termination of Blue State grants and the non-termination of non-Blue State grants was not based on a rational connection between the recipient’s location and/or place of performance and DOE’s past or current agency priorities.”

Democrats and environmental groups seized on the court filing, saying the administration had “weaponized” the federal government to kill good jobs and punish working families because of their political views.

A ‘corrupt abuse of power’

“This administration has now admitted in court what has long been obvious: it terminated nearly 300 cost-cutting energy projects for no reason other than the fact that the states they were in did not vote for the president in the 2024 election,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state said in a joint statement. Both are high-ranking Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively.

“Weaponizing the federal government like this is outright un-American, and it’s hardworking families already struggling with sky-high costs who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power,” Kaptur and Murray said.

They called on congressional Republicans to join them in holding the Trump administration “accountable for the President’s failure to look out for all Americans.”

The Energy Department announced in October that 321 funding awards across 223 projects were terminated, saying that after review, they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable.”

The cuts, part of broader attacks from President Trump on climate programs and clean energy funding, slashed federal support for projects to build battery plants, develop hydrogen technology, upgrade the electric grid and capture carbon dioxide emissions.

Russell Vought, the White House budget director, highlighted the cutbacks in a social media post, saying that money “to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled.”

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Projects from many states were cut

Projects that were cut were located in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. All 16 targeted states supported Harris, but Wright said the cuts were “business decisions” based on whether the projects were a good use of taxpayer money or not.

The cuts were immediately challenged in court, and more than two dozen Democratic members of Congress, led by California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, wrote a letter to the Energy Department’s acting inspector general requesting a formal investigation. The department’s internal watchdog launched an investigation in December.

Government lawyers had previously confirmed in a court filing late last year that the selection of grants in fact “was influenced by whether a grantee’s address was located in a State that tends to elect … Democratic candidates in state and national elections (so-called ‘Blue States’).”

That filing came in a separate suit filed by clean-energy groups and the city of St. Paul, Minn., over the canceled funding. The most recent admission came in a case called Thakur vs. Trump that’s been ongoing since spring 2025. Federal lawyers acknowledged that they used keywords related to diversity, gender and COVID-19 to screen for projects that ran afoul of the Trump administration’s priorities.

Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, said the latest court filing shows “the Trump administration is brazenly admitting to a vindictive approach to cancelling much-needed energy infrastructure that ignores the job losses, air pollution and increasing bills that people are experiencing everywhere.”

Instead of “building the energy projects we desperately need,” billions of American taxpayer dollars are “going to line the pockets of a small handful of fossil fuel company CEOs,” Bender said, citing nearly $3 billion pledged by the Trump administration to cancel offshore wind projects in favor of fossil fuel projects such as natural gas and coal.

Daly writes for the Associated Press.

Tehran, Iran – A public rift has emerged between Iran’s government and state television over how to portray the state of war and negotiations with the United States, as mediators try to nudge both countries towards diplomacy.

The Government Information Council on Friday accused state broadcaster IRIB of “censorship” after parts of a speech by President Masoud Pezeshkian earlier in the week were not shown to the public.

The broadcaster, whose head is appointed by the supreme leader, issued a response on Saturday rejecting the government’s “accusations and improper attributions”, and emphasised that it has a duty to prevent “an incorrect and unreal suggestion of duality in the country’s leadership pillars”.

In his speech, Pezeshkian had pointed out that after last year’s 12-day war with Israel, former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly said there would be no negotiations with Washington – but privately had given his approval.

“We went to the dear leader, explained the situation, and asked him what to do since he had said the ‘no war, no peace’ conditions are bad for the country,” the president said. “He ordered us to go negotiate. We started the talks based on his order.”

The government said in its statement the move to cut that section of the speech was part of a series of “unusual actions” taken by state television concerning recent comments made by the heads of the government, parliament and judiciary.

It pointed out that earlier this month, a part of the parliament speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf’s interview with state television dealing with negotiations had also been cut. The government council added that a part of a speech earlier this week by judiciary head Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei was not aired either, in which he expressed backing for the president.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has also separately criticised IRIB, saying during an interview with a state-linked outlet released on Saturday that he “fought with a sword” in wartime interviews with US media such as Fox, CNN and others. The chief diplomat said he expected state television to show how Iran’s case was being strongly presented to US audiences and policymakers, but only one or two subtitles from the interviews ended up going on air.

Araghchi also rejected a notion raised by hardliners that the now-suspended memorandum of understanding signed with the US last month was “imposed” on new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, as some hardliners have claimed. He characterised it as the best possible agreement under the circumstances.

In its own statement, the government blamed the actions on “a political faction within” state television, in an apparent reference to the Paydari Front of ultrahardliners, and said their actions could serve to undermine national security and social cohesion.

IRIB, in a statement published by its public relations department, countered that broadcasting the president’s segment would have propagated an appearance of division.

Both sides accused each other of undermining the decree issued last week by Mojtaba Khamenei to reach a “sacred unity” in face of military, economic and diplomatic pressure by the US.

Mohammad Mirzaei, a member of parliament and spokesperson of a committee tasked with exerting oversight on IRIB, said on Saturday that directors of the state broadcaster have been warned about the necessity to display different viewpoints and to act as a “sign of national unity”.

Conservative journalist Mohammad Mohajeri told local media that the broadcaster is now at its most expensive and least effective. Reformist activist Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hesar described the deeper problem as “one government being installed and another government called IRIB operating against it”.

Reformist Entekhab news outlet reported, citing an unnamed source, that Pezeshkian sharply reprimanded IRIB chief Peyman Jebeli at a cabinet meeting after the row over the negotiations. Jebeli, who was appointed by Ali Khamenei in 2021, was media deputy at the Supreme National Security Council when Saeed Jalili, the only council member said to have voted against an interim deal with the US last month, was its secretary.

Hardline lawmaker Meysam Zohourian said the president has threatened to cut state television’s budget, but the administration has not confirmed this.

As the public sparring unfolded, mediators from Oman were in Tehran on Friday to discuss the management of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway whose control has become a central point of contention between the US and Iran.

US President Donald Trump argued on Friday the war was going “extremely well” and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit Washington in the coming days.

He said the two sides continued to talk through mediators, but that he did not expect any agreement soon.

The US president also refused to answer whether realising his threat of systematically attacking power plants and bridges in Iran in case of a war escalation would constitute war crimes.

Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, on Saturday responded by saying missile and drone launches across the region will continue “until the full surrender of the enemy” and avenging the blood of civilians killed during the war.

Paramount Skydance has agreed to delay its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery to as late as next June as David Ellison’s media company mounts its defense to the antitrust challenge brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other state attorneys general.

The major concession comes as Paramount was facing an Aug. 3 hearing to try to convince U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín that its proposed $111-billion deal — which would reshape Hollywood with the combination of two historic studios — would not violate U.S. antitrust laws.

The judge appeared to be leaning toward the arguments of the state attorneys general, who have alleged the proposed union of two big film studios and television networks including HBO, CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and TBS, runs afoul of the 112-year-old Clayton Antitrust Act.

In a stipulation filed Friday, Paramount agreed to hold off on closing its blockbuster purchase until after the states’ antitrust case can be decided in a trial before the Oakland-based judge or by June 1, 2027, whichever date comes first.

The move came after Martínez-Olguín issued a temporary restraining order earlier in the week — requested by Bonta and the others — which paused the deal until next month’s preliminary injunction hearing when she was set to decide whether a lengthy moratorium should be imposed.

Privately, Paramount officials were worried they might lose that round before Martínez-Olguín, so, during negotiations with the states, Paramount stipulated that it would not close the deal on its preferred timetable.

Paramount had wanted to finalize the takeover this month — or at least have it wrapped up by Sept. 30.

In a statement, Bonta celebrated the delay as “great news for audiences, movie theaters, and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy.”

“Our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” Bonta said.

Now, Paramount will incur added deal costs and significant legal fees as it prepares the case for a full-blown trial. Paramount, in a statement, framed the delay as “a significant win” for the company.

“The result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence,” a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement. “This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached. We look forward to proving our case at trial.”

On Wednesday, the European Commission gave its blessing, allowing the Paramount-Warner merger to move forward in European countries. More than 40 jurisdictions have given their consent. The U.S. Justice Department last month signed off — an approval that had been expected because of President Trump’s desire to see the Ellison family own CNN.

Paramount shares slipped on the news, falling 3.3% to $8.21 — marking the year’s lowest trading day. Warner’s stock gains since Monday’s restraining order ruling were suddenly erased. Warner shares finished at $25.77 — 17% lower than Paramount’s deal offer.

Now Paramount will have to pay Warner Bros. Discovery investors more than the $31 a share it previously promised.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the company boasted it would quickly secure the necessary regulatory approvals to finalize the Warner purchase by late September. As an added incentive to win over investors, the company said it would pay so-called “ticking fees” should the deal encounter snags.

Those fees of $.25 a share per quarter begin Oct. 1, adding about $650 million to the pricetag each quarter until close. If Paramount is unable to close the deal by June 1, it would owe Warner Bros. Discovery a $7 billion breakup fee.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired the smaller Paramount in August.

The Democratic state attorneys general, including from New York, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, filed their lawsuit nearly two weeks ago.

The state attorneys general have alleged the deal would harm competition in three markets: films released widely (in more than 3,000 theaters); potential blockbuster films; and a concentration of cable TV channels.

Paramount insists that streaming marketshare be included in the market definition because a combined Paramount+ and HBO Max would still trail industry leaders, Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime and Disney+.

“Plaintiffs’ market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today’s marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny,” Paramount’s spokesperson said.

In her order earlier this week, Martínez-Olguín wrote that the plaintiff states presented “compelling evidence” that the merged company could wield too much control in theatrical distribution.

Friday’s agreement came after Martínez-Olguín on Thursday extended the restraining order for another 14 days — until Aug. 17 — in recognition the two sides needed time to hash out their scheduling requests. In addition, the Writers Guild of America has filed its own antitrust lawsuit, and the judge agreed to allow that case to move forward with the states’ case.

The Aug. 3 preliminary injunction hearing will be canceled as the two sides prepare for a trial.

“We are eager to continue to make our case in court …to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day,” Bonta said.

The months-long delay is expected to affect Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav’s proposed $887-million exit package.

As part of a pact earlier this year, Warner board members agreed to cover Zaslav’s expected $335 million in tax obligations tied to his enormous payout, according to regulatory filings. However, Warner is not on the hook to cover Zaslav’s tax bill should the deal extend into 2027.

The merger has faced stiff resistance in Hollywood and beyond. More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers have signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Britain’s culture minister has also signaled that she may open a full inquiry into the proposed media consolidation, which could also bring other delays.

“This victory in putting the merger on hold belongs to the people who refused to treat the merger as inevitable,” Norm Eisen, a former ambassador and Obama White House ethics lawyer who is helping lead the #BlocktheMerger campaign.

“Artists, journalists, filmmakers, and consumer advocates spoke out despite the risk of retaliation, more than 5,500 people signed our open letter,” Eisen said in a statement. “This collective resistance is turning the tide.”

Caracas, July 22, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan campesinos have urged authorities to halt efforts to evict them from productive lands in the northwestern state of Falcón.

The José Leonardo Chirino campesino council, which organizes around 120 families in the Barimisagua estate, located in the Iturriza municipality, has accused landowner Jacobo Salas Romer of  “intimidation” against campesinos.

Over the past two weeks, campesinos have denounced the use of heavy machinery to destroy their crops, while multiple families saw their houses set on fire.

“The Salas Romer family maintains a permanent harassment against more than 100 families in these lands,” campesino council spokesperson Gustavo Ladino told Venezuelanalysis. “They have bribed security forces, and some institutions have lent themselves to serve the interest of this fascist family.”

He added that the Barimisagua estate belongs to the Venezuelan state after it was abandoned by the former owners. Rural families began settling into the Barimisagua lands in 2000 and gradually expanded production in the estate. The campesinos have sown crops including corn, beans, and sweet potato, in addition to planting fruit trees and undertaking small-scale cattle rearing.

In a 2025 public statement, the rural collective criticized the National Land Institute (INTI) for not following the procedures established in the Venezuelan Land Law to assign idle estates to campesino organizations once they have developed productive activities for an extended period.

The campesino spokesman called on Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, Agriculture Minister Vladimir Padrino López, and Attorney General Larry Devoe to guarantee the rural families’ right to “contribute to the country’s food security.” 

“We are calling for support from the Venezuelan authorities,” Ladino said. “We urge the government to conduct an inspection and deliver the necessary title deeds so that we can produce while being free from intimidation.”

The local activist additionally condemned efforts to criminalize land struggles by charging local leaders with crimes such as trespassing and tying them down in legal proceedings.

In an assembly on July 18, the rural families ratified the campesino council’s spokespeople and issued a press statement vowing to “consolidate social justice in the countryside.”

Salas Romer belongs to a powerful Venezuelan oligarchic family. His brother, Henrique, was governor of Carabobo state and lost to Hugo Chávez in the 1998 presidential election. The family business appeared in the Panama Papers investigation into offshore capital flight.

The 648-hectare Barimisagua estate has been at the center of a protracted legal struggle for many years, with Salas Romer attempting to secure protection orders from local agrarian courts on environmental grounds as a means to evict the rural families. The campesino council has rejected offers to relocate to a different plot in Falcón state, arguing that the land is insufficient for the number of people involved.

In recent years, rural grassroots organizations have raised the alarm regarding the resurgence of landowner violence in the countryside as well as an expanding influence of agribusiness oligopolies. Rice producers have staged multiple protests demanding that authorities regulate imports during harvest season and bind agroindustrial corporations to established crop prices.

With the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government moved to liberalize agricultural policies, transferring state competencies to the private sector, including provisioning of seed and fertilizer inputs and access to tractors. Fuel subsidies were likewise phased out, with small-scale producers highlighting it as a major factor driving up production costs.

Campesino organizations have warned against efforts led by agribusiness and cattle rancher associations to reform or sideline the 2001 Land Law, which heavily favored access to land for small-scale producers. In June, the Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved a new Law to Protect Cattle Rearing.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Cali, Colombia.

Two Sacramento judges Friday ordered changes in the wording of ballot measures that would move California to an open primary system, change car insurance rate structures and charge lobbyists to fund campaigns for secretary of state candidates.

The changes resolved disputes over what is supposed to be neutral wording of the titles and summaries of the measures as well as the text of arguments to be published in the voter’s manual for the June 8 election. Monday is the deadline for getting the final versions to the printer.

On Proposition 14, the open primary measure, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other supporters said they beat back an effort by union officials and lawmakers to undermine the proposal that would allow Californians to vote in state primaries regardless of candidates’ or voters’ party affiliations.

The measure also would advance the top two vote-getters in each contest instead of the winner from each party. It would not apply to presidential elections.

Legislators grudgingly put the measure on the ballot as part of a budget deal last year. They had directed their attorneys not to fight the challenge by the California School Employees Assn., a major donor to many Democrats, to strip statements that the measure would encourage more voter participation and “reform” the election process.

The governor and state Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) intervened to stave off the changes. Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner ruled Friday that voters should see the measure very much as it was originally written. Sumner made minor changes to the wording regarding potential costs related to an open primary and made clear that voters would not have to state a party preference.

“I’m glad this sneaky attempt to derail the open primary failed,” Maldonado said.

Leaders of the Democrat-controlled Legislature said their attempt at a settlement was merely intended to fix flawed ballot language in danger of being stricken by a higher court.

“We’re pleased with the process and the clarity it provided,” said Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles).

Sumner also resolved disputes over the wording of Proposition 17. Backers of the measure, which would allow insurers to offer a continuous-coverage discount to new customers, were fighting even the official description written by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office.

Supporters of the measure, which was proposed by and is being bankrolled by Mercury Insurance, wanted to strike the phrase added by Brown that the measure “will allow insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”

“All Proposition 17 does is allow people to take it with them when they move to a new insurance company and get the lower rate,” argued Richard Martland, an attorney for the supporters.

But Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield said the measure is a thinly disguised attempt by Mercury to be allowed to charge higher rates for those it doesn’t want to insure. Rosenfield’s attorney, Fredric Woocher, said the proposition is being misleadingly cast as an opportunity for drivers to retain their loyalty discounts even if they switch insurers.

“You can’t take it with you,” Woocher said. “You are taking away the one thing that makes persistency persistent. It would be like taking a good student discount and extending it to people who fail.”

Sumner declined to change the official wording of the ballot summary and rejected most calls to alter the arguments. Such “political speech” is protected by the 1st Amendment, the judge said. He revised only the wording on the possible effects for some military personnel and a potential maximum surcharge.

In the challenge to Proposition 15, which would change the financing for future secretary of state races, Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette’s changes met with supporters’ approval, said campaign chairman Trent Lange.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which opposes the measure, had filed a lawsuit arguing that the ballot summary and title were inaccurate. The group wanted the title changed from “California Fair Elections Act” to “Public Financing of Campaigns.”

The judge rejected the proposed change, though he did add a line indicating that the measure repeals the state’s existing ban on public funding of campaigns.

carol.williams@latimes.com

Times staff writers Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento contributed to this report.

Trump-endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton formally launched his general election campaign Wednesday by pitching himself to California’s abundance of anti-Trump voters.

In a speech, Hilton said Democrats had “abandoned” working-class and Latino communities and crushed small businesses. He criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for leading the state into decline, pointing to low literacy rates and slow responses to crises such as the Boyle Heights warehouse fire.

Hilton, a British-born conservative political commentator and former Fox News host, faces an uphill battle in California, a Democratic stronghold. In June, Hilton clinched second place in California’s gubernatorial primary behind veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra.

In an effort to persuade voters who are dissatisfied with the status quo, Hilton bought a full-page ad in the Wednesday editions of the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle.

The ad read, “Can you be anti-Trump and still vote for me?,” followed by a checklist readers could use to “test” if they shared common ground with Hilton.

“I can’t stand Trump, but I’m not happy with the way things have been run in California lately,” reads one line in the ad.

“I want to fight climate change, but $6.00 gas is crazy!” reads another.

At a news conference Wednesday, Hilton said the ad is aimed at voters who “know that we need change in California.”

Trump’s unpopularity in the state “doesn’t matter because we’re not talking about national policies here,” he said. “This is about what we can do in our state to make life better for Californians.”

Hilton then framed himself as a “pragmatic, problem-solving change-maker” focused on affordability, promising to lower gas prices, electricity costs and taxes and the cost of homes.

“We may not agree about national politics, but I think we can agree that we need change in California, and I’m going to bring that change,” he said.

The news conference, which marked the formal launch of Hilton’s general election campaign, took place at a Boyle Heights auto body shop across the street from the Lineage cold storage facility that was destroyed by a fire last month.

The location was chosen because it is a “symbol of Democrat failure,” Hilton said. The nauseating stench of rotting food filled the surrounding neighborhood. Swarms of flies buzzed about, occasionally landing on top of Hilton’s head.

Hilton said he’s not expecting Trump to campaign on his behalf in California. But, he added, “I’m proud to be endorsed by the president and I think it’s a very good thing to have a governor who has a good relationship with the federal administration.”

No Republican has been elected to a statewide office since 2006. A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California published earlier this month showed Becerra with support from 61% of likely voters, compared with 36% for Hilton.

Hilton insists his campaign is different from previous Republican bids.

“We’ve got to the point in California where people are looking for a positive alternative,” Hilton told The Times. “We’re going to be fighting very hard … already in the last year and a half I’ve fought a campaign like no one’s seen in California for 20 years. I’ve been to nearly every single county in our state.”

In the latest salvo in the war between the Trump administration and California, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy jr. said Tuesday that his agency withheld $867.5 million in Medicaid payments to the state over concerns about fraud.

Kennedy also said his agency defered $199 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota over similar concerns.

“If Gov. Gavin Newsom or Gov. Tim Walz wants this funding released, all they have to do is provide basic documentation showing that these services are legitimate and not fraudulent,” Kennedy said at a news conference.

Just under half of the funds withheld from California were in connection with in-home health services.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said California’s spending on in-home health services went up by more than double the national average over the last two fiscal years.

“That doesn’t make sense,” he said.

About a quarter of the funds withheld involved care provided to individuals with “unsatisfactory immigration status,” whose eligibility to be in the country and receive these services is in question, which Oz characterized as an “ongoing massive problem for California.”

The announcement by Kennedy and Oz on Tuesday comes two months after Vice President JD Vance announced that the administration would be deferring $1.3 billion in Medicaid payments over fraud concerns, largely connected to hospice services and in-home healthcare.

Newsom’s office, in a social media post, called the announcement a “recycled political stunt.”

“California isn’t being targeted because Trump has evidence of fraud,” the post said. “We are being targeted for political reasons — and because Dr. Oz doesn’t understand that we are *SAVING* taxpayers money by keeping seniors and people with disabilities out of far more expensive nursing homes!”

Newsom’s office also said that the state stands “ready to collaborate” with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “in good faith efforts to combat fraud.”

The office of California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said it is reviewing the deferral of payments and allegations of fraud.

“We have not hesitated to challenge unlawful actions by the Trump administration, and we will continue to act whenever Californians’ rights or access to critical services are threatened,” Bonta’s office said.

Despite Newsom’s claims that the accusations are political, the California state auditor has repeatedly flagged Medi-Cal eligibility discrepancies that have exposed the state to billions of dollars in questionable payments.

California Department of Healthcare Services spokesperson Anthony Cava noted, however, that a 2020 state audit of in-home care found “no program integrity concerns” and encouraged expansion of the program to reduce spending on institutional care.

Cava also pointed out that the federal government had previously approved California’s approach to in-home care.

Newsom and Oz have clashed before.

Newsom filed a civil rights complaint in January against Oz, after Oz posted a video to social media from Van Nuys in which he accused the “Russian Armenian mafia” of being a leading driver of $3.5 billion in fraud in hospice and home-care services.

Newsom said that Oz’s claims were “baseless and racist.”

The announcement by Kennedy and Oz on Tuesday is the latest effort by the Trump administration to crack down on suspected Medicaid fraud in numerous states across the country.

Caracas, July 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – A US federal judge has issued a default ruling against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and several current and former state officials. US $314 million in damages was awarded to three US citizens who spent time imprisoned in Venezuela.

Venezuelan authorities have yet to comment on the case. Legal proceedings against Acting President Delcy Rodríguez continue. However, on Monday, the Trump administration sent a letter to the court arguing that, as a sitting head of state recognized by Washington, Rodríguez should be “entitled to immunity.”

Judge Darrin P. Gayles from the District Court for the Southern District of Florida published the verdict on July 14. US nationals Jerrel Kenemore, Jason Saad, and Edgar José Marval brought a civil lawsuit in August 2025 under Florida’s Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and the federal RICO statute against organized crime. 

The three US citizens were released from Venezuela in December 2023 as part of a prisoner swap agreement with the Biden administration that saw former Venezuelan government envoy Alex Saab returned to the South American country.

The plaintiffs sought damages after claiming to have suffered “physical and psychological torture” while imprisoned in Venezuela and to have been used as part of “hostage diplomacy” to secure Saab’s release. The judge claimed that Maduro and other officials were a “criminal enterprise” that acted against US interests.

“The Maduro Criminal Enterprise committed myriad predicate offenses through its drug trafficking and kidnapping actions in and against the United States and its citizens,” he wrote in the verdict. The court estimated compensation for “kidnapping and torture” and “solatium, pain and suffering” under ATA that totaled $312.5 million and added $1.5 million in RICO damages.

Gayles entered the default ruling against Maduro after he failed to enter a defense or plea before the court. The court clerk entered similar defaults against Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, former Defense and current Agriculture Minister Vladimir Padrino López, former Interior Minister Néstor Reverol, former Attorney General Tarek William Saab, former Supreme Court President Maikel Moreno, and former Industry Minister Alex Saab.

Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were kidnapped by US forces on January 3 and are facing charges including “narcoterrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy. Both have pleaded not guilty, with the next hearing scheduled for July 22.

The Florida judge also included the so-called Cartel de los Soles, an alleged drug trafficking outfit run by high-ranking Venezuelan officials, as a defaulting defendant. Crime researchers have cast doubt on the existence of the cartel, while the US Justice Department dropped all references to it in the formal indictment against Maduro and Flores.

Similarly, Gayles claimed that “for at least twenty years, Maduro intentionally inundated the United States with tons of cocaine.” However, US officials have never presented evidence tying Maduro to narcotics activities, while reports from the DEA have consistently found that a very small percentage of US-bound drugs flow through Venezuela.

The US Justice Department has since 2020 introduced $25 million and $15 million bounties, respectively, for the arrest of Cabello and Padrino in connection with alleged “narcoterrorism.”

According to the Associated Press, Saab’s legal representatives declined to comment on the case. The acting Rodríguez government turned over the Colombian-born businessman, who served as industry minister after his 2023 release, to US authorities in May. He is being held at the Federal Detention Center in Miami while facing trial on renewed money laundering charges.

In contrast to Maduro, Cabello, and others, Acting President Rodríguez responded to the lawsuit in April, with lawyers contending that, as Venezuelan head of state, she should be immune from civil action. Rodríguez received the backing of the Trump administration via a July 20 letter “suggesting” to the court that the acting president should enjoy immunity,

“The United States respectfully submits to the Court that President Delcy Rodríguez is immune in this action and all claims against her should be dismissed without prejudice,” the letter concluded. The US State Department also intervened in June, requesting that the Justice Department communicate Rodríguez’s immunity to the Florida district court in order to secure a “prompt dismissal of the proceedings.”

Rodríguez’s brother, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, filed a similar motion to set aside the lawsuit via a different legal team. The plaintiffs opposed the moves in another motion at the end of April.

The civil lawsuit likewise targeted state-owned companies Petróleos de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA) and Corporación Venezolana de Petróleo (CVP). The two firms have claimed immunity from civil litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The plaintiffs have not disclosed any strategy to collect the awarded damages. None of the defaulting defendants has any publicly known assets under US jurisdiction.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

[Updated on July 21 to include the Trump administration and State Department letters to the court endorsing immunity for Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.]

SACRAMENTO — California has spent millions of dollars to combat sex trafficking, and yet it can still be found in every city and town, hiding in plain sight.

Whether it’s online, on places such as Figueroa Street in L.A. or Stockton Boulevard in Sacramento, or even in the hotel rooms where our World Cup guests stayed, there are thousands of women and girls being sexually exploited in California right now, despite all that money and all the resources it has purchased.

“The reality is that few threats to a woman’s safety are as brutal or as overlooked as sex trafficking,” First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom said Monday, sitting with her husband, the governor, in a tiny second-floor dance studio built for survivors of trafficking.

Siebel Newsom was there to watch Newsom sign an executive order that was driven by her work as an advocate for survivors of trafficking. On its surface, the order may not sound like much and isn’t likely to make the news. It calls for most of the major state agencies to come up with a plan within 60 days to work together to curb trafficking and help survivors.

Hardly an earth-shattering demand. But believe it or not, one of the biggest barriers that our state faces, in this great age of technology and always-on connection, is that there is little collaboration between the folks fighting traffickers.

Yes, we have about 35 task forces statewide working on this issue and sometimes they run joint operations. But more often, those fighting trafficking live in their own silos, doing their own work, and often failing or refusing to share even scant details with other jurisdictions.

The same holds true for the many organizations that work with survivors, most of which have come on the scene only in the last few decades as sex trafficking morphed from a crime in which children were viewed as complicit to one in which we understand that they are victims.

Those organizations often do great work, but they too often do it alone. A survivor — or a girl being trafficked and looking for escape — has no easy way to find someone to help her. It’s largely luck, the right outreach person in the right place at the right time, or a cop who has taken the time and care to know what the resources are.

“We are so fragmented,” Sharmin Bock told the governor. She’s a former prosecutor in Alameda County who tried the first sex trafficking case in the U.S. Now, she’s advising the first partner on how California can do a better job fighting the predators — traffickers and buyers alike — who daily trade cash for the use of a human body, willing or not.

Bock points out that while those fighting against trafficking lack collaboration, the opposite is true of the criminals. Up and down the state, they are organized. A trafficker might pick up his victim in one city, only to transport her to another city to meet buyers. Victims are moved often, and even sold or traded to other traffickers.

Once a victim crosses a jurisdictional line, everything that happened on the other side of it too often gets lost in the nowhere land of bureaucracy and red tape. A move from Los Angeles to Riverside, and the girl might as well be in Taiwan, as Bock puts it.

“We need to stop asking whose case is this, and rather ask how do we solve this case together? How do we solve the problem together?” Bock said. “Collaboration recovers children sooner, links investigation, dismantles trafficking organizations and holds traffickers accountable. A trafficker should never escape accountability because critical information was sitting in another agency’s database.”

So while Newsom’s demand for a 60-day plan might not sound like much, it goes to the heart of what ails the system.

“Traffickers collaborate every day,” Bock said. “Traffickers have built networks to exploit children. We must build stronger networks to protect them.”

Newsom drew a parallel to the plague of retail theft that captivated the state not long ago, and which the state has successfully combated. Though careful to draw the obvious line that stealing a tube of toothpaste is a far cry from sexually exploiting a child, he pointed out similarities — online platforms that turned a blind eye, a lack of coordination between agencies, criminals that knew how to exploit not just victims, but systems.

Now he’s looking for that kind of “momentum,” to solve this most stubborn of abuses.

“For the last few years, I thought I could buy my way out of this,” Newsom said with a shocking bit of honesty, pointing to all that budget money that has been invested. But, he said, he’s clear now that it’s not a money problem. It’s a people problem.

“How is that possible? “ the governor wondered. The executive order, he said, is about saying “enough of just good intentions … we’re not delivering fundamental results.”

A report at the end of 60 days isn’t results. But it’s an acknowledgment that California needs to do better, and a road map to get there.

That’s crucial. Like Siebel Newsom and the governor, I’ve got two teenage daughters and I know just how vulnerable girls are, in the best of circumstances.

With all our resources and good intentions, California can’t continue to let predators win simply because they’re more organized.

Troy Jackson, a former Maine lawmaker and fifth-generation logger from the North Maine Woods, has emerged as the likely new replacement for the state’s Democratic Senate nominee after former candidate Graham Platner quit the high-stakes race less than two weeks ago.

Platner’s departure came after a sexual assault allegation that he denied but forced his exit anyway. It sparked a wave of potential candidates eager to prove to Mainers that they could take on longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

But by Sunday, the field had largely been cleared after Jackson supporters spent the weekend securing hundreds of delegates who promised to back him at the upcoming state convention.

Under a never-before-used system to replace Platner, delegates will vote Saturday in Bangor on a new Senate nominee. Out of the 601 delegates who will gather this weekend, Jackson’s campaign says it has 481 delegates committed to supporting him.

Top opponents — including Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Nirav Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention — have since dropped out, and Jackson announced Monday that he was focusing his attention on ousting Collins.

“I’m grateful to Democrats across Maine for putting their faith in me and in what we’re fighting for,” Jackson said in a statement.

“This didn’t happen because of one person,” he added. “It happened because hundreds of volunteers put in the hours, knocked on doors, made phone calls, and believed we could build something bigger than ourselves.”

Yet securing the nomination is only just the beginning of challenges facing Jackson. There’s little more than 100 days until the general election, meaning Jackson faces an uphill battle raising campaign funds when Collins already has millions. Jackson also must implement a statewide campaign network and woo over the state’s large independent base.

As former state Senate president, Jackson may be more politically vetted than Platner was running as a first-time candidate, but the logger’s backing of progressive policies will leave him open to plenty of attacks by Republicans, said Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College in Maine.

“The guy does have some pretty interesting positions,” Jacobs said. “Positions that are pretty far to the left of the median voter.”

Jackson supports ‘Medicare for All’ and eliminating ICE

Like Platner, Jackson has said he wants to “get rid of” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has become top of mind for many Mainers after an ICE officer fatally shot a driver last week. Democrats have rushed to connect Collins to the embattled federal agency, while Jackson has reiterated his support of dissolving ICE altogether.

Jackson has also called for “Medicare for All,” which would replace job-based and individual private health insurance with a government-run plan that guarantees coverage for all with no premiums, no deductibles and only minimal copays for certain services.

Republicans were already criticizing Jackson as a “socialist” Monday.

“This entire process is just as bad as Kamala’s rigged coronation,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Kristen Cianci, nodding to former President Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race in July 2024, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris to head up the Democratic ticket and ultimately lose to Republican Donald Trump.

“Maine voters have had their voices stolen by party insiders,” Cianci added.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican

However, unlike the scrutiny Platner faced from a series of controversies, Jackson’s background coming from “old Maine” and his decades of working in the logging industry will help him, Jacobs said.

“He’s the real deal,” Jacobs said.

In 1998, Jackson helped lead a weeklong blockade along the Quebec border in an effort to protest the hiring of Canadian loggers who were coming into Maine and driving down pay rates. The standoff ended with Jackson being escorted away by police, but resulted in Jackson fighting for better logger and wood hauler protections as a state lawmaker.

Jackson initially ran as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat inside Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004, and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by Sanders.

Democrats must net four Senate seats to gain control of the 100-member chamber, and party leaders viewed Maine as a crucial piece of the puzzle, along with Alaska, Ohio and North Carolina.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press.

Waving a Mexican flag with a vaquero sombrero on, El Malilla made history at Coachella last year as the first reggaeton Mexa act on the lineup.

To keep the momentum going, the rising Mexican star had planned for his first U.S. tour to take place last summer. After the Trump administration ramped up the ongoing ICE raids around the same time, El Malilla decided to put the safety of his fans first and postpone the tour.

“With what was happening with Mexicans and immigrants — the big problem being ICE — I decided to pause the tour, because I didn’t feel comfortable exposing my fans to that kind of situation,” El Malilla says over Zoom from his home in Valle de Chalco. “For me, it was important to bring this tour to the U.S., but in a safe way without putting anyone in harm’s way.”

After wrapping up the Mexican leg of his “Tu Maliante Bebé” Tour, El Malilla, who was born Fernando Hernández Flores, is now preparing to bring his show to the states. The 19-show trek will kick off July 24 in Palm Springs, followed by a concert at The Novo in Los Angeles the next day.

Mexican artist El Malilla.

(Joss Andreu)

“The Novo is very important for me because it’s going to be my biggest venue for this U.S. tour,” he admits. “To see how Los Angeles has adopted me, embraced me, and shown me love, I’m going to feel like I’m home.”

Following his Coachella debut, El Malilla has pushed reggaeton from Mexico into the mainstream. He imbues the genre with Mexican swagger, slang and sex appeal in his explosive hits such as “B de Bellako,” “Mami Tú” and “Balenciaga” featuring corrido singer Luis R. Conriquez.

Since then, El Malilla has expanded the scope of reggaeton Mexa following collaborations with Puerto Rican pioneers such as Jowell y Randy and Colombian superstar J Balvin. The perreo heartthrob is also tapping into new genres for his upcoming sophomore album. In an interview with The Times, El Malilla opened up about leading the reggaeton Mexa movement and what to expect from his tour.

How do you feel about representing Mexican culture and reggaeton Mexa with this tour in the U.S.?
I feel very happy to bring a bit of our culture, our slang, our sound and our essence to the U.S. for my fans that haven’t had a chance to see a show of mine. Something that’s very crazy for me is when I performed in Chicago last year, there were people with signs that said they were from different places in Mexico like the State of Mexico. It made me very nostalgic to know that I’m also from the State of Mexico and we’re here. It’s important for me to represent our roots. Get ready, because I’m coming with perreo sucio. [Laughs.]

What do you think when you fans always ask for you to take off your shirt at your concerts?
It makes me laugh because when I sing “Rodillas,” people start screaming for me to take off my shirt. My show lasts like two hours and that’s barely the first song. I enjoy it, because I consider El Malilla to be a showman. I love to be onstage and have fun with my fans. Though some people might see me as a sex symbol, I don’t see myself that way, but to each their own.

What does it mean for you to be breaking down barriers for reggaeton Mexa?
It makes me very happy. I’ve been thinking about that recently. When would you think that an iconic pop star like Danna would collaborate with an iconic chacalón [Mexican slang for “bad boy”] like myself? That never crossed my mind before, but now in 2026, our reggaeton, our essence and our sound has become important in Mexico and even more so on a Latino level. Now everything is possible. There [are] no longer barriers for reggaeton Mexa, or for Mexican singers. Today, your biggest dream is possible.

Who else would you love to collaborate with in the future?
Lately, I’ve spent more time in the U.S. and I’ve been soaking up more English music. I discovered that I really like The Weeknd. A collaboration with him would be crazy! I returned to Coachella this year to sing with Cachirula & Loojan … and to be able to see Justin Bieber live was incredible. I would love to collaborate with him. On the Latin side, I would love to collaborate with Nsqk, De La Ghetto, Ñengo Flow or a reggaeton pioneer like DJ Blass.

What’s the process been like working on your next album?
I spent a year and a half working on this album. I enjoyed that process so much. Music has given me so much that this album is my way of repaying music for all the blessings it’s given me. You’ll be surprised at what I’m capable of. This is a Malilla that’s now 26 and a little more mature. It’s a more experimental and professional Malilla. I had never made a bolero song and I dared to do that this time. I did my research by listening to Luis Miguel, José José and singers and genres that I wasn’t used to listening to. I found love for those genres and singers. It was a very fun and cool way for me to explore different genres.

Two weeks after suspending his bid for Wisconsin governor, David Crowley has reentered the state’s Democratic primary, with the Milwaukee County executive securing a last-minute endorsement from outgoing Gov. Tony Evers.

The moves appears to be a Democratic effort to best position the party for success in November.

Evers had initially declined to endorse in the race, but threw his weight behind Crowley and resuscitated his bid to lead the swing state known for razor-thin election margins, where appealing to moderate and independent voters is crucial.

It was the latest turn in a chaotic Democratic primary that has jeopardized the party’s chances this fall and comes after Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez said she was abandoning her campaign for the state’s top office after a campaign finance scandal.

Democrats are looking to November to secure full control of Wisconsin state government for the first time since 2010, and hope it will send a signal about where the country’s politics are headed by shaping a key political battleground that helps decide presidential elections.

In an event in Milwaukee on Saturday relaunching his campaign, Crowley referenced the stakes, saying that “winning this election will require building the broadest possible coalition,” and touting his ability to forge relationships across partisan divides. And Evers’ endorsement, he added, “reflects his confidence that I have the experience” to lead and to win.

Evers was on a trade visit to Africa and not in attendance at Crowley’s Saturday event, but acknowledged in a social media post that he was now “all in” for Crowley, touting his executive leadership on issues including job creation and balancing budgets.

“He’s not just a candidate who can win in November, but he’s the kind of person who cares about doing the job right,” Evers wrote.

Crowley, 40, is reemerging into a competitive primary for Wisconsin’s open governor’s race that was turned on its head Friday with the departure of Rodriguez, who earlier in the week fired her campaign manager after discovering her campaign had hundreds of thousands of dollars less on hand than expected.

Now, as they approach Wisconsin’s primary election Aug. 11, Democrats are hoping to hold on to the governor’s office as they also eye flipping majority control of the state Legislature, which Republicans have held since 2011.

The primary also comes after democratic socialists’ earlier victories in the liberal strongholds of New York City, Washington and Denver. Francesca Hong, a single mother who has worked as a dishwasher and line cook, is trying to do the same with her campaign for Wisconsin governor, with her candidacy turning the Democratic contest into a test of party voters’ growing embrace of leftist candidates heading in the November midterms.

Crowley, who would be the state’s first Black governor if elected, had ended his own bid two weeks ago to back Rodriguez. Now, he’s returning to a contest against Hong, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, state Sen. Kelda Roys and Joel Brennan, a former top aide to Evers. The Democratic nominee is expected to face Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who faces only token opposition and has the support of President Trump and other GOP leaders.

In an interview Saturday afternoon, Crowley told the Associated Press that voters would see “a much more aggressive campaign” from him in the primary’s closing weeks, buoyed in part by Evers’ backing and “a renewed, energized, volunteer base.”

“I wouldn’t have gotten into this race if I didn’t believe a pathway was there,” Crowley said. “We can not only get over the hump in winning on the Aug. 11 primary, but then we’ll be able to really focus on how we can make sure that Tom Tiffany doesn’t bring an extreme MAGA agenda to the state of Wisconsin,” Crowley said.

In the first iteration of his campaign, Crowley leaned into his background, highlighting how his family was once homeless in Milwaukee but he rose to become a community organizer and was elected to the state Assembly in 2016 at age 30. He served until the middle of 2020, when he was elected as executive of Milwaukee County, the state’s largest county. He was the first Black person to hold that job and also the youngest, at 33.

In a statement to AP, Tiffany portrayed Crowley as “asleep at the wheel” in his role as county executive and described his reemergence as Democrats’ “only shot at stopping the socialist who wants to abolish the police and prisons.”

In an email statement, the Republican Governors Assn. said that “watching Wisconsin Democrats is like watching a clown car crash into a parked semitruck.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

When Victor Marx was 3 years old, he was forced into a voodoo ritual involving a beheaded cat. At age 7, he killed a man.

Or so Marx says.

But he was not just a precocious child.

As an adult running a “high-risk” Christian ministry, Marx says he rescued 45,000 women and children from captivity and abuse. As a civilian, he supposedly called in a U.S. military airstrike that killed 70 ISIS fighters. He’s exorcised demons — and can do so over the telephone, he says, if need be.

True or, most likely, false, those woolly claims and epic tales of derring-do aren’t the weirdest thing about Marx.

The weirdest thing is that Marx is the Republican nominee for governor of Colorado, an actual part of these United States.

A political newcomer, Marx eked out his victory in a three-way race by less than 2,500 votes out of more than 520,000 cast. (It took almost nine days to declare a winner, but surely you knew that already, given the national outcry over how long it took Colorado to count its ballots. Oh, wait. Never mind.)

Although slender, Marx’s victory delivered a strong statement: about the grave condition of mainstream Republicanism; about the increasing embrace of oddity and extremism by a deeply disaffected slice of the American electorate; about the unsettled and unsettling nature of today’s politics.

“It’s almost cult-like,” Dick Wadhams, a former Colorado GOP chairman, said of Marx’s support. “You talk to some of these people, and there is no doubt in their mind he will be governor, because God has decided that he’s going to be governor.”

There’s fat chance of that. (Please don’t smite me.)

Colorado has elected only one Republican governor in the last 55 years, and that was back in 2002. It’s been 10 years since a Republican won any statewide office. The Democratic nominee, Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser, is as close to a November shoo-in — after stomping U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet in the primary — as it gets.

But Marx, 61, a former Marine and expert in martial arts, is nothing if not swaggering. His role model is, of course, the political disrupter and fabulist-in-chief currently occupying the White House.

Like President Trump, Marx relies heavily on personal charisma, a strong social media presence and the purposeful shunning of campaign norms which, to the politically alienated, speaks to his independence from the establishment and offers a welcome break from the same old, same old.

He casts himself as a problem-solver and negotiator par excellence. He skimps on policy and skipped most of the preprimary debates; at the one he did attend, Marx brought his dog, a Dutch shepherd, onstage. In lieu of a closing statement, Marx prayed.

When asked, he hasn’t backed off his fantastical claims. But Marx hasn’t done a very good job substantiating them.

As a young boy growing up in Louisiana, he says, his abusive stepfather — the one who supposedly involved him in a satanic feline decapitation — drove him to rural Mississippi, where Marx shot and killed a man. Police told Colorado Public Radio they had no record of any unsolved homicides from that time.

“How many people have you killed?” Kyle Clark, an anchorman on Denver’s 9News, asked the candidate in a persistent and revealing sit-down interview.

“I don’t think that’s important,” Marx replied. “It’s actually kind of — it’s an odd question to me.”

Actually, it’s not.

(Conceding the Republican race, state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer — the runner-up — conspicuously declined to endorse Marx, urging voters to “choose the path that is best for Colorado” in November. “For the record,” she added. “I still haven’t killed anyone.”)

In many ways, Marx is a mainstream conservative Republican. He founded All Things Possible Ministries, a Christian nonprofit that tends to refugees and other victims of trauma. His focus on law and order, tax relief, small government and deregulation are all standard GOP fare.

But his florid tales of youthful homicide, telephonic exorcisms, personally intercepting human smugglers on the U.S.-Mexico border — well, not so much.

Most voters will probably have a hard time getting past those autobiographical extravagances, which could spell trouble — depressed GOP turnout, guilt by association — for other Colorado Republicans, including freshman Rep. Gabe Evans, who’s fighting to hang onto a closely fought congressional seat in the north-central part of the state.

It’s a loss Republicans can ill afford as they desperately seek to preserve their bare House majority.

Despite its preference for Democratic governors, Colorado was, until not that long ago, a competitive two-party state. It was a presidential battleground as recently as 2012. Republicans held a majority in the state Senate as recently as 2018.

But the MAGA-fication of the state GOP has hastened Colorado’s evolution from political battleground to a solidly blue bastion.

“The Colorado Republican Party right now is impotent and irrelevant,” said Wadhams, who fought unsuccessfully against its takeover by Trump-worshiping zealots. “The ironic twist to this story is that polling has shown over the past several months that voters are getting restless about what they see as the decline of Colorado in terms of education, energy, roads and transportation.”

Just last week, the annual Colorado Health Foundation issued its annual Pulse Poll, a dour report card on the state of the state that found three-quarters of respondents were concerned they may not be able to live there in the future.

But don’t expect Democrats to lose their sovereignty anytime soon.

That’s what happens when a party and its voters stop seriously competing and instead indulge their passions and fever dreams. You get candidates, and political caricatures, like Victor Marx.

God help us.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office in charge of protecting California against terrorism has tracked demonstrations staged by political and antiwar groups, a practice that senior law enforcement officials say is an abuse of civil liberties.

The Times obtained reports prepared for the state Office of Homeland Security in recent months that contain details on the whereabouts and purpose of a number of political demonstrations throughout California.

The source of the information is listed in some cases as federal law enforcement agencies, including the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, an investigative arm of the U.S. Homeland Security department.

Political activities cited in the reports include:

* An animal rights rally outside a Canadian consulate office in San Francisco to protest the hunting of seals.

* A demonstration in Walnut Creek at which U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) and other officials spoke against the war in Iraq.

* A Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom gathering at a courthouse in Santa Barbara in support of an antiwar protester — a 56-year-old Salinas woman — facing federal trespassing charges.

California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer’s office learned of the monitoring activity more than two months ago. On Friday, a spokesman condemned the actions, saying they violated the groups’ constitutional right of free speech.

“When people exercise their 1st Amendment rights to rally, march and protest, they should not have to worry that intelligence officials are watching them or their activities are in any way being painted with the terrorism brush,” Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said in an interview.

“That kind of conduct by anti-terrorism intelligence agencies threatens civil liberties, runs counter to our values and violates this office’s policy regarding criminal intelligence gathering,” Dresslar said.

The Times obtained two of the reports, which were compiled daily. The state homeland security office declined to release others.

The office is a 53-person operation that grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks and is financed primarily by federal money. Officials there said the details about the rallies were reported by SRA International, a company hired to provide counter-terrorism analysis.

The officials said such information made it into only the two reports that The Times obtained, out of 60-some daily intelligence reports produced since March.

No reports were produced before March, said Chris Bertelli, spokesman for the state office. When officials in the agency learned of the practice, he said, they ordered it stopped.

Copies of the reports were shared with the California Highway Patrol and the attorney general’s office. Nothing else was done with the information about the demonstrations, Bertelli said.

The reports are on the letterhead of a California anti-terrorism partnership that includes the homeland security office, the attorney general and the Highway Patrol.

Dresslar said staffers in Lockyer’s office saw the reports and raised concerns with their superiors, who complained to the Office of Homeland Security.

“When we discovered their existence, we informed OHS officials that we had absolutely no use for that kind of information,” Dresslar said. “Collecting information on protests has no legitimate anti-terrorism intelligence function. None. No intelligence agency has any need to maintain this kind of information.”

The reports obtained by The Times contain summaries of news articles about the war in Iraq, animal rights activists and terrorism. One has a section titled “Upcoming California Protests,” followed by summaries of the demonstrations. Each includes an entry for “officer safety issues.” No issues are cited.

One group whose antiwar rally was in the reports criticized the state agency’s practice.

“It seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars and a creeping invasion of our 1st Amendment rights to demonstrate and speak,” said Devlin Donnelly, assistant coordinator for the Chico Peace and Justice Center, which held a rally in Chico in March calling for an end to the war in Iraq.

Schwarzenegger had “no information and no knowledge that this was happening,” said Adam Mendelsohn, the governor’s communications director. “The governor feels that this particular information gathering is totally inappropriate and unacceptable.”

Anti-terrorism ideas from the state homeland security office have stirred qualms before.

Past and present members of the attorney general’s office said they were troubled by a meeting at the security office last September in which federal and state officials discussed ways to prevent Islamic militants from recruiting prison inmates. In attendance were officials from the FBI, the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various local law enforcement agencies, according to documents obtained by The Times.

One account of the meeting is provided in a whistle-blower complaint filed by a former high-ranking official in the attorney general’s office, Edward Manavian.

The complaint says homeland security information analyst William Hipsley proposed monitoring private conversations in state prisons between inmates and Islamic clergymen and, citing a potential national security threat from Iran, getting a list of Iranians living in California.

State law makes it a felony to eavesdrop on conversations between a person in custody and his attorney, doctor or religious advisor.

Brian Parriott, a spokesman for the state prison system, said it is not the corrections department’s practice to listen in on private conversations between inmates and visitors from the clergy.

And Mark Schlosberg, a policy director for the ACLU’s San Francisco office, said it is discriminatory to compile databases on broad groups of people based on national origin without any specific link to criminal activity.

“It’s contrary to our constitutional protections and our systems, and it’s also ineffective in terms of law enforcement,” Schlosberg said.

The state homeland security office denied Manavian’s version of events and issued rebuttals from Hipsley and a staff member who also attended.

In a written statement, Hipsley said that he never suggested “Muslim clerics offices be ‘bugged’ ” and that the subject of Iran never came up.

George Aradi, an assistant deputy director for information analysis, concurred in a separate statement.

Manavian was demoted in February. In his complaint, he said that happened in part because he refused to cooperate with “attempts to violate the civil rights of citizens in this state.”

He resigned in April. His complaint is pending before the state Personnel Board, and a hearing is scheduled in late July.

Lockyer’s office publicly criticized the monitoring actions after an inquiry from The Times.

But Allen Benitez, assistant chief of the attorney general’s criminal intelligence bureau, had told one of his bosses in a memo April 18 that the security office was gathering information on “political groups” and protests. He voiced concerns that such tracking “may not be allowed under the law.”

Lockyer’s office handled the matter privately with the security office, Dresslar said.

Questions about the office come at a time when assessments by nonpartisan reviewers have concluded the state is unprepared for a terrorist attack or natural disaster.

Schwarzenegger casts himself as being immersed in efforts to prepare California for disaster, making repeated public visits to the state’s emergency command center outside Sacramento, where he has watched over exercises simulating what would happen in a disaster, such as an earthquake or flood.

But a report by the legislative analyst’s office last year said California lacks “a unified strategic approach to homeland security.”

And more recently, the state’s Little Hoover Commission watchdog agency issued a report saying it is unclear who would take charge in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack.