state

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that forbid transgender athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams.

In a 6-3 decision, the court said the federal Title IX law envisioned separate teams for girls and boys based on their biological sex at birth.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Kavanaugh, who has coached girls’ teams for many years, said 27 states have adopted laws prohibiting transgender athletes on girls’ teams.

But his opinion does not say states such as California must change their laws that forbid schools from discriminating based on gender. Instead, he stressed states are free to make their own decision.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the states may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. She said the state should have considered transgender students on a case-by-case basis to decide whether they had an unfair advantage. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented as well.

The court’s decision is likely to bolster the Trump administration’s drive to pressure states, schools and universities that permit transgender athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

Because the Education Department provides federal funds to these states and schools, it can require them to comply with Title IX.

The sole plaintiff in the court case was Becky Pepper-Jackson. Now 15, she has carried on a lonely legal fight to compete on her school’s track team in Bridgeport, W.Va.

Designated male at birth, she says she is the only transgender girl competing in her state and has been the target of complaints and protests.

Her case drew strong reactions on both sides of the issue.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey hailed Tuesday’s decision as “one of the most important victories for women’s athletics” since the passage of Title IX in 1972.

“We defended a simple principle most Americans instinctively understand — that women’s sports exist to provide women and girls a fair opportunity to compete and succeed,” he said.

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said “it is self-evident that males and females are biologically different, and the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this truth. It is fundamentally unfair for a male who feels like a female to demand that biological categories be ignored to accommodate his desire to compete among females.”

Joshua Block, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, called it “a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” he said.

“The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney with Lambda Legal. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports.”

The sports career of Becky Pepper-Jackson reflects some of the difficulty of the issue.

In sixth grade, she participated in cross country and described herself as slow. She “routinely placed near the back of the pack,” her attorneys told the court.

Her court appeals focused on a wish to participate in sports, not to win. But upon reaching high school, she has been winning.

In 2024, she “placed in the top three in every track event in which B.P.J. competed, winning most,” the state’s attorneys said. In the spring of 2025, “focusing on strength events, B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the state in discus and eighth in shot put while competing against much older female athletes,” they told the court.

Her ACLU attorney explained she has been winning in the shot put and discus “through hard work and practice,” not because of an advantage based on biology.

He said she “received puberty-delaying medication and gender-affirming estrogen that allowed her to undergo a hormonal puberty typical of a girl.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the gun laws in Connecticut and Cook County, Ill., that ban most semiautomatic assault weapons.

Before leaving for the summer recess, the justices issued orders on new cases that will be heard in the fall. The new 2nd Amendment case figures to be a major test of what kinds of firearms and ammunition are off-limits to state or federal regulation.

The outcome will affect California and all the states led by Democrats that strictly regulate or prohibit semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15.

Gun-rights advocates say these are among the most common and popular weapons in the country, and they should not banned in some states.

In response, Connecticut state attorneys said only about 2% of Americans own assault weapons, and they rarely use them for self-defense.

Since 1989, California has prohibited the sale and possession of most semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can fire more than 10 shots before reloading. Nine other states led by Democrats have similar laws.

State lawmakers said these rapid-fire guns are not needed for self-defense but can be a weapon of mass murder. All of the blue-state bans could be struck down next year if the court’s conservatives rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment claim.

Gun-rights advocates say firearms in “common use” by law-abiding owners cannot be prohibited by the government.

Four of the court’s conservatives have said in past dissents they believe the state bans on assault weapons run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. They are Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

That suggests the fate of those state laws depends on Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Joining in support of the gun-rights challenge were the state attorneys for Montana, Idaho and 25 other Republican-led states.

They urged the court to prevent liberal judges and states led by Democrats from “rewriting the 2nd Amendment … to allow hostile jurisdictions to continue infringing on their citizens’ core constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2016, California’s voters approved a ballot measure that makes possession of large-capacity magazines illegal. At least 10 states have similar laws, but they apply only to the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines.

Gun-rights advocates sued in San Diego, leading to nearly a decade of back-and-forth litigation. A federal judge struck down these restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, but the state appealed. They were eventually upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in an en banc ruling.

Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago has upheld an Illinois law and the Cook County ordinance prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Its opinion said rapid-fire guns do not differ significantly “from machine guns and military-grade weaponry,” which can be banned under the 2nd Amendment.

Before Tuesday, the justices had repeatedly refused to weigh in on whether the 2nd Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” includes the right to semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines.

Since 2015, the court has turned down gun-rights appeals from blue states like Illinois and Maryland over their bans on “assault weapons,” despite dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

As an appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., Kavanaugh voted to strike down the city’s ban on assault weapons.

Three years after John Roberts became chief justice, the court ruled for the first time in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment protected individual gun rights, not just state militias. But the 5-4 decision simply struck down a city’s ban on having a hand gun at home for self-defense.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller said the Constitution gives law-abiding persons a right to have weapons in “common use” for self-defense, but not “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Ever since, advocates for gun rights and gun control have been arguing over whether semiautomatic guns with large-capacity magazines can be regulated because they are uniquely dangerous or are protected because they are very common.

In the past two years, the Supreme Court has a mixed record on gun regulation.

Last year, the justices in a 6-3 decision struck down a federal regulation that banned “bump stocks,” which allow rapid-fire shooting with a semiautomatic rifle.

That regulation was adopted in the first Trump administration in response to the mass shooting at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas where a lone gunman fired as many as 1,000 shots from a hotel window.

The conservative majority ruled the bump stock devices did not fit the definition of a prohibited machine gun.

Earlier this year, however, the court in a 7-2 decision upheld a regulation prohibiting unregistered “ghost guns” that were made by parts kits.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would freeze federal funding for New York’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, a state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting fraud in the safety-net government healthcare program.

In a letter sent to New York officials, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General Thomas March Bell accused the state of not securing enough criminal indictments and said millions of dollars in funding would be suspended through at least Sept. 30.

The move is the second suspension of a state Medicaid fraud unit this year by the Republican Trump administration, and part of a barrage of anti-fraud actions it has aggressively promoted in the healthcare sector. They have included the creation of a new task force, targeted investigations, funding deferrals and demands for revalidation of healthcare providers that have touched all states but are focused largely on Democratic ones.

The pulled funding also comes after the administration admitted a glaring error in figures meant to help justify a fraud inquiry into New York’s Medicaid program this year, a mistake critics said revealed a Trumpian tendency to attack first and verify the facts later.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, a Democrat, immediately vowed to fight Tuesday’s funding freeze.

“During my time as Attorney General, my office has recovered over $627 million for Medicaid and was recognized by this very administration for leading the nation in anti-fraud efforts,” she wrote. “We are considering all legal options to stop this outrageous action.”

Letter accuses New York of low performance compared to other states

Bell’s letter to James and New York Medicare Fraud Control Unit Director Amy Held argues that the unit is moving too slowly on cases and amassing too few indictments and convictions for wrongdoing in the Medicaid system. It notes that compared with four similarly sized units in other states, it secured the lowest number of criminal fraud convictions between 2023 and 2025.

The letter acknowledges that one reason the state has fewer criminal convictions than others is that it made a deliberate choice to focus on “high impact, complex fraud cases” rather than smaller-scale individual cases, but says that trade-off didn’t produce sufficient results.

“Enough is enough,” Bell wrote. “The New York MFCU has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of its MFCU grant award.”

Bell said in the letter that the funding suspension could be lifted before Sept. 30 if New York takes corrective action, “showing it has remediated concerns that formed the basis for this suspension.” He said if the state doesn’t fix the problems, the freeze will continue.

New York officials dispute the Trump administration’s claims

New York’s attorney general’s office said in a statement that it has “long been recognized as a national leader in effectively investigating and prosecuting Medicaid fraud schemes,” including by the Health and Human Services inspector general’s office. A 2025 report from the office notes that New York is one of four states that made up half the total civil recoveries in that year.

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said most of the unit’s criminal convictions focus on company owners, executives and corporations that would return large amounts to Medicaid.

“This administration’s unprecedented attack on New York is another political distraction,” James said in a statement.

The funding cutoff follows a similar move in Hawaii. In early June, Bell told Hawaii officials that Medicaid fraud funding would be cut off there, saying that it had a three-year stretch without a Medicaid fraud indictment or conviction.

Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said there’s an irony in the federal government cutting off money intended for prosecuting fraud when its stated goal is to do just that.

“If you want to fight fraud, don’t take away money from states’ fraud control units,” she said. “I chalk this up to more political theater to distract voters from historic Medicaid cuts before the midterms.”

Move follows months of federal warnings and deferrals

For months, the Trump administration has contended that states — especially some Democratic-led ones — have been lax about fraud in social safety-net programs, including Medicaid.

It has demanded that at least five states, four of them governed by Democrats, share information about how they identify, prevent and address Medicaid fraud.

The federal government has also withheld some Medicaid funding from Minnesota and California over fraud concerns. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who was Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, accused President Trump of making cuts because of retribution.

The fraud-busting efforts have also targeted Medicare programs. Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, announced a six-month moratorium on new enrollments for providers of hospice and home care nationally.

Swenson and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J. AP writer Anthony Izaguirre contributed to this report.

ATLANTA — President Trump has tried many ways to tighten his grip on U.S. elections, from signing executive orders to pushing restrictive legislation in Congress. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling siding with states that accept late-arriving mail ballots was the latest example showing the limits of his reach.

It followed back-to-back rulings last week that barred his two sweeping executive orders seeking to change national election rules, more court rulings preventing his Department of Justice from obtaining detailed state voter data and his stalled attempts to get the Senate to pass the SAVE Act. That measure would eliminate nearly all absentee voting, require citizenship documents to register to vote and impose photo identification requirements nationwide right before the midterm elections.

“It’s been a mixed bag for Republicans,” said University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. But the president, he added, “has come up mostly empty-handed.”

Trump’s efforts have not been entirely fruitless. Republican-run states have satisfied his demands to redraw congressional district lines, efforts buoyed by the Supreme Court striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, and he has been directing his Department of Justice to investigate voting and election operations, which Democrats see as a possible prelude to their involvement in November.

All the activity around how the nation votes and runs its elections is a reflection of the Republican president’s long fixation on his false claim that his 2020 election defeat was rigged. He has been so frustrated by the inability of the Senate to pass the SAVE Act that he has refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill.

He weighed in again Monday after the Supreme Court’s decision in the mail ballot deadline case, saying on his social media account that he is trying to “save America from crooked elections.” Voting rights groups and Democrats see him abusing power and attempting to suppress legal voters to gain an advantage in the midterms, when control of Congress is at stake.

Regardless, Muller said Trump faces legal and political realities: The Constitution gives the states and Congress authority over elections while providing no such role for the president.

“That’s how federalism works,” Muller said.

Here’s a look at Trump’s efforts to reshape election rules and what options he might have left for the November midterms.

Focus on noncitizens and voter data has met roadblocks

The president has repeatedly said U.S. elections are riddled with fraud in part because of noncitizen voting. Research shows the problem to be rare, accounting for a minuscule percentage of fraud cases. Convictions are measured in the hundreds over periods in which tens of millions of ballots are cast.

Trump’s view resulted in a multiagency push to nationalize voter data and use federal resources to help states remove voters from the rolls. The Department of Justice has sought detailed voter files from multiple states, data that would include dates of birth and partial Social Security numbers. Democratic and some Republican secretaries of state balked, and federal lawsuits followed. The administration has lost every case so far.

Homeland Security citizenship check rejected in court

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, with help from the DOGE effort led by Elon Musk, revamped a government tool called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). The program has been a key pillar of his efforts to cull potentially ineligible voters from state rolls.

Last week, a federal judge blocked its use as a mass citizenship check.

The administration, according to its own news releases, had allowed local election administrators to search users by the thousands, using a wider range of metrics rather than DHS-issued identification numbers. At least 67 million registrations, primarily in Republican-controlled states, were analyzed. Tens of thousands were flagged as potential noncitizens or people who have died, but some voters were wrongly identified as ineligible.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled that Trump’s changes aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from the rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in her order.

Executive orders used in place of legislation

As presidents before him, Trump signed executive orders when Congress would not enact his policy preferences.

Trump’s first order reflected his emphasis on noncitizens. Like the SAVE Act pending on Capitol Hill, it sought to require would-be voters to document their citizenship to be able to register to vote.

U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper put a temporary block on the order last year as she considered the case and last week made her decision permanent. The Constitution, Casper wrote, “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

Trump issued a second order in March, as the SAVE Act’s rough path in Congress became obvious. He called for a national voter list using data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration. Further, the order would have empowered the U.S. Postal Service to determine who gets an absentee ballot and threatened local elections officials with prosecution.

Absentee voting is a staple of U.S. elections, but Trump describes the practice, incorrectly, as allowing fraud — even as he has used it himself. A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found that mail voting fraud occurred in only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast.

Democratic secretaries of state sued, and U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani made the same legal assessment as Casper. The provisions, she wrote last week, “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

The White House has indicated it will appeal.

Even Trump says the SAVE Act has long odds

Trump on Monday called the Senate logjam “crazy” and one of the holdouts, Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Trump-deranged.”

It’s the latest legislative tussle that prompted Trump to demand Republicans scrap the filibuster, which requires most major legislation to get support from 60 of the 100 senators. But that likely wouldn’t matter in this case, with four of the Senate’s 53 Republicans declaring their opposition to the bill itself: Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

The president acknowledged Monday that the SAVE Act is “probably not going to happen.”

Trump still has options for the November elections

Both major parties have national operations to monitor elections, including legal teams ready to file challenges.

Despite the Republican National Committee losing the mail ballot case, Chairman Joe Gruters on Monday alluded to those efforts: “We are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day,” he said.

Meanwhile, Trump has been developing a possible roadmap for more aggressive actions.

His U.S. attorney in Los Angeles said in June that he had opened multiple election fraud investigations, and he sent a prosecutor to the county’s vote-tabulation center after California’s June primary. Six months earlier, FBI agents executed a warrant and seized ballots and other records from the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.

Muller, the law professor, said local elections officials “already are having conversations about chain of custody disputes” for ballots as they are cast, collected, counted and stored.

He and UCLA law professor Rick Hasen noted that judicial warrants are required for the kinds of actions that happened in Fulton County. Muller predicted “the bar would be even higher” for any warrant the administration requests during a live election.

Hasen added that he’s working to educate judges around the country on the importance of chain of custody for ballots.

“Republicans believe him when he says the election is rigged. And then when Republicans try to change voting rules to tighten things up, that causes Democrats to also think that the election system is being rigged,” Hasen said. “So, if what he’s trying to achieve is undermine voters’ confidence in the election process, he seems to have succeeded spectacularly.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — He’s a prize-winning presidential historian who wrote an entire biography of Thomas Jefferson. But even Jon Meacham needs to think for a moment before defining what it means to be a “Jeffersonian.”

“Well for a long time, before the civil rights movement, it meant to be more inclined toward states’ rights and limited government,” says Meacham, the National Constitution Center’s Semiquincentennial Scholar. He then pauses, and asks to start over, recalling how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt evoked Jefferson as an “apostle of liberty” who would have supported the U.S. fighting the Nazis in World War II.

You could define it in so many ways. Historians may argue over the “greatness” of individual founders, but as the country’s 250th anniversary approaches many agree that no one’s life and work resonates like Jefferson’s. He embodied the “very best and the very worst” of the United States, Meacham says.

And a great deal in between.

America’s birth is rooted in his most profound contradiction — the man who proclaimed that “all men are created equal” while being a slaveholder to the end of his life. But Jefferson advanced and explored both sides of so many issues and world views that have defined the country’s path: agrarian self-sufficiency and worldly innovation, pluralism and separatism, limited government and dreams of an “empire of liberty.”

“There is no more malleable figure in early America than Jefferson,” says Andrew Burstein, a professor of history at Louisiana State University who has summed up Jefferson’s legacy in a book he published a decade ago: “Democracy’s Muse: How Thomas Jefferson became an FDR Liberal, a Reagan Republican, and a Tea Party Fanatic, All the While Being Dead.”

“There have been times in American history when just about everyone would have considered themselves ‘Jeffersonian,’” says historian Peter S. Onuf, author of numerous works on Jefferson. “Yet even at those moments, he was a controversial figure.”

It’s an argument without end

Jefferson’s legacy is debated even in settings that owe their existence to him.

On the campus of the University of Virginia, the college he founded and regarded as a signature achievement, stands a memorial to thousands of enslaved people who lived and worked there.

At Monticello, the mountaintop estate and plantation outside of Charlottesville where Jefferson lived when not in public office, a banner near the entrance features the Declaration and the caption, “After all, our guy wrote it.” But once on the grounds, reminders of his enslavement of hundreds are found throughout, from its “Burial Ground for Enslaved People” that includes dozens of graves to an exhibit dedicated to Sally Hemings, the enslaved woman with whom Jefferson is widely believed to have had six children.

Monticello’s director of historic interpretation and audience engagement, Brandon Dillard, cites the staff’s mission “to tell unflinching stories of America’s complex origins and fitful progress toward the ideals Jefferson articulated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Jefferson regarded Monticello as a refuge from the times, but the times inevitably find their way here. A guide on the gardens and grounds tour points out that a foldable plant Jefferson tried and failed to grow — the “Mimosa Pudica,” or “sensitive plant” — now thrives because of climate change. The visitors’ center is LEED Gold-certified for green energy, Dillard says, and geothermal systems have been installed in other buildings for temperature control.

Monticello raises questions old and new about race. Virtually all of the guides are white, an issue Dillard notes is prevalent nationwide. A recent survey released by the American Association for State and Local History found that around just 10% of workers at museums, historic sites and historical societies were nonwhite and that many “Latino/a/x, and multiracial respondents reported higher rates of discrimination and harassment.” (Dillard declined to answer in detail the experience of guides of color at Monticello.)

There is a Jefferson for every occasion

Jefferson’s contradictions date back through much of American history; he was claimed by both sides of the Civil War and both sides of the civil rights movement.

Nineteenth-century Confederates and 20th-century segregationists cited his defense of states’ rights, while Abraham Lincoln and civil rights leaders emphasized Jefferson as the author of the Declaration of Independence. In the space of a few months in 1963, he would be invoked in the inaugural speech of Alabama Gov. George Wallace as he vowed defiance of federal efforts to integrate the state’s schools and by the Rev. Martin Luther King as he delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech during the March on Washington.

Roosevelt enlisted Jefferson as an ideological ally for the New Deal (the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., began as a New Deal project) and a former New Dealer-turned conservative, President Reagan, held up Jefferson decades later as a foe of wasteful spending. Jefferson has been cited often by free-speech advocates for his crucial support for the Bill of Rights, while President Trump has quoted Jefferson’s 1807 lament that “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper” as an implicit endorsement of his modern war against “fake news.”

Jefferson has also been placed on either side of today’s divide over immigration. Ibram X. Kendi, author of “How to Be an Anti-Racist,” cites his well-documented belief in colonization for Black people as inspiration for contemporary scapegoating and xenophobia. Meanwhile, at a time when the Trump administration is aggressively trying to restrict immigration and even denaturalize some citizens, Monticello continues its decades-old July 4 naturalization ceremonies, with Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger scheduled as this year’s keynote speaker.

“As new citizens share their personal stories every Fourth of July,” Dillard says, “we are reminded that the values uplifted in that Declaration are values toward which people from all backgrounds aspire.”

Many Monticello visitors, many reasons to visit

Monticello attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. They come for many reasons.

Erin Porter is a Virginia native in her 40s who until recently had never been to Monticello and wanted to cross it off her bucket list, while Nathan Jaycox of Connecticut is a former nuclear engineer now seeking to absorb history for a class he hopes to teach. Duane Cromwell, a longtime resident of Vancouver, was here on a very personal mission.

Cromwell, 70, grew up in Greenville, S.C., where she was taught that slavery was “an economic necessity” and learned nothing about Jefferson’s history of enslavement. In town last month for a family reunion, she arrived at Monticello anxious to get past the “whitewashed Southern version” and the myths of evil “yankees” and the victimized rebels who defied them.

“Did you (ever) notice kudzu growing up over trees and buildings while in the South? It is an invasive plant brought to the region to control erosion. Well, it is like racism. It is pervasive, part of the horizon, always there but soon you don’t notice it,” she says.

“Having said that, I do think that people do go along better, there is more interactions, relationships than when I was growing up. Everyone needs each other and in the South, there is a great sense of humor and friendliness that help people navigate the awkward moments.”

For Cromwell, Monticello was a chance to educate herself, to become a better person — and, like countless others before her, using Thomas Jefferson as a prism.

“Isn’t that what it’s all about?”

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed his final state budget as governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that seeks to uplift the poorest Californians through a tax system reliant on the stock market gains of the wealthy.

In a video message, Newsom extolled free school meals, universal transitional kindergarten, 130,000 subsidized childcare slots and other accomplishments in his tenure at the state Capitol, a period in state history marked by a dramatic expansion of state government and over $100 billion in increased spending.

“Over the past eight years, we built great things for the people of California — some of the boldest actions any government in this country has taken in a generation,” Newsom said. “And we did this without breaking the bank. We did this by design.”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Economists have warned that the revenue bump is potentially temporary and analysts say the growth in state spending could leave California in a challenging position if the economy declines.

Assemblymember David Tangipa (R-Fresno) agreed with Democrats that the budget is “compassionate.”

“My fear is that it’s not too much of a competent budget, and the budget continues a pattern that Californians know all too well: Spend now, justify it later, and hope somebody else pays the bill,” he said during a floor debate Monday.

Here’s what you need to know about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1.

Who decides the state budget?

The simplest answer is: Democrats. California voters have elected Democrats to represent 30 of the 40 seats in the Senate and 60 seats of the 80 seats in the Assembly. The budget was passed through a majority vote in each house of the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat.

A more complex answer is that the budget is a product of dozens of legislative hearings, millions of dollars spent on lobbying by outside interests, talks among lawmakers and the governor and ultimately subject to the same political dynamics that rule the Democratic party.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), in consultation with the chairs of the budget committees, represent their Democratic caucuses and reach a final agreement on the details of the spending plan with Newsom. In reality, staff members for the three parties handle most, if not all, of the back of forth negotiations to get there.

Union leaders seeking better pay, working conditions, benefits for workers and opportunities to expand their ranks are often brought in to consult or hammer out thorny deals as business groups try to fight off more regulations, taxes and costs, and support policies that increase their financial performance.

Democrats are spending more than ever before. How is that possible?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, recently examined the increase in state spending since 2019-20, Newsom’s first full year in office.

Between the budget approved that year and the spending proposal Newsom unveiled in January, spending from the state’s main operating fund had grown by over $100 billion, or 70%. That was largely by a 60% increase in revenue during that time. California typically operates with a spending deficit because Democrats spend more money than the state brings in.

The LAO found that the increase in spending stemmed from the growing cost of sustaining programs and services that were already in place when Newsom took office. About 30% of the remaining spending growth was categorized as new, either by newly created programs or the expansion of existing services.

Among the report’s conclusions: California could not afford the programs that predated Newsom and the ones he and the Legislature adopted.

To balance the budget over the last few years, Newsom and lawmakers have dipped into the state’s reserves at a time when California is experiencing strong revenue growth, which the LAO has cautioned against. Democrats have also increased taxes on businesses, paid for programs out of other funds and suspended reserve deposits among other solutions.

This year, the state budget places $6.4 billion in higher than expected revenue into a temporary holding account to knock down a deficit and balance the budget through 2027-28.

Democrats are pursuing a change to the state constitution on the November ballot that would allow them to set aside more money in years of good revenue growth to prevent cuts in future downturns.

Where is the money going?

Education and Medi-Cal are the two largest costs for the state.

Medi-Cal is the state’s version of subsidized health insurance for low-income Californians and provides medical, dental and vision care for an estimated 14.5 million people, or about one-third of the state population.

The federal government pays for more than half of the cost of the program. California is expected to spend about $50 billion from the general fund next year out of a total estimated at more than $220 billion in costs shared between the state and federal government, according to the LAO. State taxes and fees on providers also help fund Medi-Cal.

Overall, Medi-Cal costs more than any other state program and takes up about 40% of total spending, including federal funds the state receives, according to the LAO.

Spending on Medi-Cal has more than doubled over the last 10 years, which the LAO attributes to an increase in costs per enrollee, more enrollees and a greater share of seniors seeking care, among other factors.

Under Newsom, California has expanded Medi-Cal, including offering coverage to include all immigrants regardless of their immigration status, which the governor said has dropped the state’s uninsured rate down to 5.9%

The cost of Medi-Cal has grown beyond what Democrats expected and resulted in Newsom suggesting spending cuts.

The final budget agreement rejects a call by Newsom to lower the asset limit to $2,000 now and instead lowers it to $21,000 in 2027-28 to be eligible for Medi-Cal. The Legislature also delayed the governor’s proposal to reduce dental coverage and shift asylum seekers and other immigrants to restricted scope Medi-Cal, according to Jason Sisney, the lead budget advisor for the Assembly who posts about the budget on Substack.

The budget includes Newsom’s proposal to shift enrollees with unsatisfactory immigration status, a term that includes undocumented immigrants and others, from managed care to fee-for-service to save costs.

Under Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, California has a minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges and dedicates roughly 40% of general fund revenue to education.

Sisney said the budget increases the Local Control Funding Formula by $2.2 billion and provides historic general fund per pupil spending of $21,148. Support for special education also grew by $1.8 billion.

The California Community Schools Partnership Program received a $1-billion boost and Democrats directed $2.8 million in additional funding to the program that provides free meals for school children.

The budget also establishes 22,770 new slots for free or reduced childcare, which Newsom had proposed decreasing.

California officials cheered a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday that allows states to continue counting mail ballots postmarked by election day but received in the days after — calling it a win for voter participation and access, including in the upcoming November midterm.

They also acknowledged delays in recent vote counting have spurred frustration, and promised to speed the process through other solutions — including by investing millions into new election infrastructure and vote processing capabilities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom — who called the court ruling a “win for voters, plain and simple” — has previously said the state should be able to count ballots faster, and his latest budget includes $29 million for “increased staffing, technology and equipment upgrades and purchases for counties,” $10 million for voter education and outreach at the state and county levels and $750,000 for combating election misinformation.

The court decision, a loss for President Trump and other critics who contend such policies contribute to unacceptable delays in vote counting, specifically upheld a Mississippi policy to accept mail ballots received within five business days of an election.

But it also lets stand similar policies in other states — including California, which counts ballots postmarked by and received within seven days of an election.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who has long prioritized voter participation over a speedy count, called the high court’s ruling a “win for voters, for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy.”

She said that she will “keep working to ensure every eligible Californian has the opportunity to be heard, because our democracy is strongest when every voice and vote count.”

Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that the ruling “affirms what Los Angeles County voters deserve: the assurance that a ballot cast by Election Day will be counted if received within the legal timeframe established in State Law.”

“Our office will continue to provide voter education, multilingual outreach, and leverage available resources to ensure voting access for our 5.8 million registered voters,” Logan said.

Many voting rights experts agree California’s vote counting should and could be faster, but disagree with the Trump administration’s efforts to step in with policies such as election day deadlines.

In 2024, California counted more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots, but they represented only about 2.5% of the statewide total. Experts say California’s delayed results have far more to do with the massive influx of mail ballots that are placed in ballot drop boxes or arrive at processing facilities on or just before election day.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said the court’s decision was a “symbolic loss” for Trump, in that the court rejected his preferred policy on mail ballots, but “doesn’t appreciably change how long it takes to count ballots” because late-arriving ballots were never the problem.

In a report published Thursday, the California Voter Foundation recommended statewide adoption of “sign, scan, and go” programs that allow elections officials to immediately process mail ballots that voters submit in person at polling centers or drop boxes.

The foundation recommended ballot curing programs that speed up the process by utilizing a secure text platform when double checking whether a ballot is legitimate when a voter’s signature doesn’t match state records.

It also urged the state to invest $35 million in a voter education campaign to encourage early ballot returns, and more than $55 million in improving counting capacity and efficiency in county elections facilities.

Trump and other conservatives had called for an end to state policies allowing late-arriving mail ballots to be counted as an overdue fix to a voting system that often can’t produce election results in close races for days after polls close, as was the case in California’s recent primary races for governor and L.A. mayor.

Trump has pointed to California’s time-consuming count as proof of widespread fraud to undermine Republican candidates, though he has never produced evidence to support that claim and Democrats have fiercely denied it.

On Monday, Trump called the high court’s decision to uphold such state policies a “tremendous loss,” and more reason to pass the Save America Act — a bill he has backed that would enforce new voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements and ban mail ballots except for military personnel, individuals suffering from illness, disability, and in other rare circumstances.

He said politicians have “no excuse” other than “CHEATING!” to oppose such measures, especially at “a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th.”

But California leaders rejected that — saying the criticisms of mail ballots are baseless and an attempt by Trump and his allies to undermine elections in which they are poised to lose, particularly in big blue states such as California, by attempting to wrest control over voting processes that have always been the purview of states, not the federal government.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that states have been “primarily responsible for regulating elections” since the nation’s founding, and his office was “pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has respected that authority.”

“Today’s decision recognizes a basic reality: Mail delays happen. When people vote by election day, their ballots should not be discarded because of those delays,” he said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight over federal elections, praised the high court Monday for acknowledging that nothing in federal law precludes states from counting mail ballots in the days after an election.

“Today’s decision is a victory for voting rights and a rejection of Trump’s attacks on mail and absentee voters,” Padilla said.

Liberal groups and many voting rights experts also hailed the ruling as a win for voters.

Moving up deadlines for mail ballots is just one effort in a much broader political war over voting and the rules that govern it. The U.S. Constitution generally gives states the authority to run their own elections, but the Trump administration has been trying to assert greater federal control — especially around mail ballots.

Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to assert control over mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that would allow the federal government to ensure ballots only go to and get returned by eligible voters. The order prompted the Postal Service to propose new rules requiring states to hand over their voter mailing lists so it could implement Trump’s directive.

In a letter to U.S. Postmaster ‌General David Steiner on Wednesday, Democratic senators denounced the proposed rule as an “unconstitutional and illegal attempt to transform [USPS] into an election administration agency controlled by the White House and President Trump.”

In a Senate hearing the same day, Steiner said that under the new rule, the USPS would not mail the ballots of a state that refused to turn over its voter lists, but also that his agency would adhere to any court orders curtailing its implementation.

On Thursday, just such an order came down in a federal case in which California and other Democrat-led states challenged Trump’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the Constitution does not grant the president “any specific powers over elections,” and blocked his order as unlawful.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who is chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said states such as California were right to focus on increasing investment in their own election infrastructure rather than accepting the Trump administration’s “bad policy ideas” for speeding things up.

Newsom’s office on Monday said that is exactly what California has been doing. It pointed to laws passed by the state Legislature last year that allow election officials to begin processing mail ballots earlier and require them to finish counting ballots sooner.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later.

The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the three liberals to form the majority.

The decision is a mild surprise and should bolster Democrats in the fall election.

While California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has contributed to slow tabulations, it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts.

Election law experts blame slow tallies on the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court said federal law since 1845 has set election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and voters were required to cast their ballots that day.

Citing that fact, the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration joined a challenge to a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late.

Trump’s lawyers said federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

“From the dawn of America, election day has meant the day the ballot box closes — and when election officials must be in receipt of all ballots,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

Democrats said the Constitution says the “time, place and manner of holding elections” for Congress “shall be prescribed in each state” by its legislature. However, Congress was given the power to override those state rules and set its own regulations for federal elections.

Barrett said the federal election day requires only that the voter must decide by then.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi,” she wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

While Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots, it had not done so. That may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late.

Last year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down Mississippi’s law that allowed for counting ballots that were cast by election day but arrived up to five days later.

The opinion by three judges, all Trump appointees, concluded that the election day set by Congress “is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

In its appeal, Mississippi stuck with a states’ rights view and argued that the federal election-day statutes mean that ballots must be cast — not received — by election day.

“This is a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves,” said Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón. “Eligible Americans shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”

NEW YORK — President Trump said he is nominating Lance Schroyer, a former Oklahoma state trooper, as the next director of Immigration and Customs and Enforcement.

On his social media platform Saturday, Trump described Schroyer, a former Marine, as “a proven leader” with “real operational experience.”

Schroyer hails from the same state as the new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, a former congressman. Earlier this month, Mullin brought Schroyer on stage at a National Sheriffs’ Assn. event, calling him a “good friend of mine” and noting the department had recently hired him.

Mullin quickly praised Schroyer in a statement highlighting the former trooper’s 29-year career and his work with federal and state partners on a U.S. immigration enforcement program.

“President Trump made a great pick, and I’m confident Lance’s strong leadership and firsthand experience will empower the men and women of ICE to deport criminal illegal aliens, secure the homeland, and protect the American people,” Mullin said Saturday.

If confirmed, Schroyer will lead ICE at a time when the public mood has soured on Trump’s immigration crackdown, which sent surges of federal immigration officers into many U.S. cities. Those raids sent tensions soaring and prompted clashes between protesters and federal agents, including the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis this year.

Trump returned to the White House on a promise of mass deportations, and ICE has been a central executor of that vision. The agency is undergoing massive growth from a onetime injection of $75 billion last year, which has allowed for the hiring of 12,000 officers and increased detention capacity.

Mullin, who started in his role in March, has promised to keep his department out of the headlines and has indicated a softer tone on immigration, although he aligns with the president’s priorities on mass deportations.

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former senior ICE official, said prior confirmed ICE directors have often been attorneys, though some state and local law enforcement officials have also been nominated. She said his background in Oklahoma suggests Mullin probably influenced the pick.

“I think probably given the attention on ICE, he wants to feel like he has somebody he can trust in there,” she said in an interview.

John Torres, another senior ICE official, said Schroyer faces an uphill climb toward Senate confirmation, but his experience being at the state and local level instead of the federal level might help.

“He won’t have any of that baggage, where they’re going to turn around and say, ‘Oh, well, he worked for this administration or that,’” Torres said.

Schroyer’s nomination comes after former ICE Director Todd Lyons resigned at the end of May. David Venturella, a former executive at a private prison operator, has been serving as the acting head of the agency. Venturella is expected to stay on as the acting director until Schroyer is confirmed, according to a Homeland Security official speaking on condition of anonymity.

ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since the Obama administration, a result of polarizing politics around the agency and immigration policy.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Elliot Spagat and Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

June 27 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday announced that he nominated former Oklahoma state trooper Lance Schroyer to be director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Schroyer, a senior advisor at the Department of Homeland Security and retired U.S. Marine, will replace former acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, who announced in April that he would leave the agency on May 31.

Trump announced that he is nominating Schroyer for the position in a post on Truth Social, touting his 29 years in law enforcement, including in previous partnership roles with ICE.

“He is a PATRIOT with real operational experience, and proven leader with DECADES of experience locking up the worst of the worst,” Trump said in the post.

“Lance has firsthand experience getting Illegal Aliens OFF our streets and, just like ME and our Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, he LOVES the men and women of ICE!” Trump said.

DHS said in a press release endorsing the nomination that Schroyer’s role as senior advisor to Mullin has included overseeing coordination of immigration enforcement and serving as a liaison between involved law enforcement agencies.

Before his position at DHS, Schroyer was a major in the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety with responsibility for its Emergency Services Unit and a longtime Oklahoma state trooper.

In a statement, Mullin noted that ICE has not had a Senate confirmed director in more than a decade and, echoing Trump’s post, said the Senate needs to quickly confirm Schroyer.

“Lance will play a vital role in helping deliver on the President’s mandate from the American people to target, arrest and deport illegal aliens,” Mullin said.

“Lance is coming straight from the operational field where he ran large scale operations and worked alongside state and federal partners to remove illegal aliens from Oklahoma under the 287g program,” he said.

Lyons was appointed by Trump in March 2025 after his predecessor, Caleb Vitello, did not start removing people from the United States who allegedly were illegally in the country.

In his roughly one year in the job, Lyons oversaw more than 475,000 removals of people from the country and nearly 379,000 arrests.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.

The judge ruled that the Division of Elections decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.

“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday’s ruling. Jeffrey Robinson, Dan J. Sullivan’s attorney, said in an email he expects the division to appeal the ruling and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.

The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to regain the majority.

The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.

The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.

Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican.

She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.

In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state disputed suggestions that the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” Rachel Witty, an attorney with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate — age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.

The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.

He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

Twenty-four days after the polls closed on election day, Los Angeles County officials have certified the results from the 2,227,461 ballots cast. Despite questions raised about the pace of the vote count, a Times analysis found ballots this June were tallied faster than in previous cycles.

California is known to have a slow vote count, partially because of the state’s grace period for mail-in ballots. This year, counties were required to report most of the ballots by June 15, with some exceptions, including for mail-in ballots received within seven days of election day and ballots requiring additional verification such as signature curing. The process has spurred baseless claims of fraud from President Trump and others, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case on whether mail-in ballots must be received by election day to count.

The state has reported 9.4 million processed ballots. Officials estimate about 5 ballots remain to be counted and 17,650 are waiting to cure a missing or mismatched signature.

Compared with the last time both governor and Los Angeles mayor were on the ballot, county election officials counted more ballots, and tallied them faster than in 2022, The Times found.

In Los Angeles County, turnout jumped from 28% of eligible voters in the 2022 primary to 38% this June, according to the county registrar. Meanwhile, the share of vote-by-mail ballots dropped about 3 percentage points to 82%, indicating a rise in in-person voting.

Statewide, early results show 41% of registered voters turned up for the June election, up from 33% in 2022, according to the secretary of state. County elections officials must report their final results by July 3, giving state officials a week to certify all election results.

The Los Angeles Times reports election results from the county clerk as well as from the Associated Press. The AP provides ballot counts, a calculation of the expected vote and race calls for statewide and national races.

The expected vote percentage, or EEVP, is an estimate of the total number of votes that will eventually be certified. That number can be adjusted based on new information over time.

“Before counting begins in California, our estimates are primarily informed by turnout in past similar elections plus pre-election data on ballot returns, with projections based on what percentage of ballots had already been received at the same point in past elections,” AP director of election analytics Emily Swanson said in an email.

In the gubernatorial and mayoral races, more than half of the votes were counted by the end of election day, EEVP data show.

Swanson’s team also observed a faster vote count this year than in the 2022 and 2024 primaries.

In January 2024, L.A. County consolidated its election operations into a new ballot processing center in the City of Industry. Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, told The Times earlier this month that the facility, which is open to observers, is designed for transparency, security and efficiency.

“It doesn’t take long to count. The counting process is very fast,” Logan said ahead of election day. “What extends the time period is those options that are provided under California law for voters — to allow everyone the opportunity to vote up until election day, and then allowing us the time to process those with the same level of security and integrity that we did the ballots that were received two weeks before the election.”

Despite the faster count, the Associated Press took longer to call winners, suggesting these races were more competitive. The AP makes such declarations by determining whether there is an opportunity for a trailing candidate to catch up to the race leader. It has been calling races for nearly 180 years.

Both the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral race saw a 30% increase in votes from 2022. The governor’s race received more than 9.2 million votes compared with 7 million in 2022. The Los Angeles mayor’s race received more than 850,000 votes, an increase from nearly 650,000 in 2022.

The vote counting process for California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska may change for the November midterm election, depending on which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

Data and graphics assistant editor Sean Greene contributed to this report.

Venezuela woke up this morning to scenes of destruction and grief that not even three decades of political and economic collapse could have prepared us for. On June 24, two of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded in Venezuelan history struck the country’s northern coastline.

At the time of writing, over 39,000 people have been reported missing, and the interim government of Delcy Rodríguez has confirmed at least 164 deaths. Yet images of flattened residential buildings across Caracas and La Guaira suggest that this number will continue to rise in the days ahead.

The aftermath is even more devastating when one considers how profoundly unprepared Venezuela is to respond to a disaster of this magnitude. Natural disasters are catastrophic by definition, posing immense challenges even for wealthy countries with competent institutions. For the battered nation that is post-Maduro Venezuela, responding to a crisis of this scale may prove overwhelming.

Venezuela has faced what the United Nations defines as a complex humanitarian emergency, a prolonged and multidimensional collapse of the state’s ability to perform its core functions. This has been the status since at least 2016. Few sectors have suffered more than healthcare. Years of mismanagement, systemic corruption, and chronic underinvestment have devastated the country’s health system, compounding the deterioration of the electrical grid and other essential public services.

Since at least 2022, the Venezuelan state has increasingly adopted a hands-off approach to governance. This shift, shaped by a post-socialist form of laissez-faire economic policy, reduced state control over large parts of the economy and contributed to a modest but visible revival in business activity. In many ways, the tate appeared to retreat from major areas of public administration while preserving absolute control over others, particularly the security apparatus and the machinery of censorship and political repression.

The corruption and mismanagement that destroyed Venezuela’s health system, combined with the dangerous belief that the state could simply step aside, help explain why the country now lacks even minimally functional search-and-rescue capacity.

These dynamics, though somewhat altered, have largely persisted after January 3. Following Operation Absolute Resolve, which culminated in the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, the interim administration of Delcy Rodríguez (with the backing of the United States) introduced reforms aimed at attracting American investment in the oil and mining sectors, fueling cautious optimism about eventual economic recovery.

From a public health perspective, however, the economic liberalization first embraced under Maduro and now continued by Rodríguez marks the culmination of a much longer process: the gradual withdrawal of the state from its responsibility to protect the health and welfare of Venezuelans.

The liberalization of recent years also triggered a rapid expansion of private health insurance. For those able to afford plans, often costing thousands of dollars, private coverage has offered an attractive alternative to Venezuela’s chronically underfunded and dysfunctional public hospitals. This produced a deeply unequal arrangement: those with resources could secure healthcare privately, while most Venezuelans remained dependent on a system that had largely ceased to function.

But this model can only take a country so far.

The private sector (particularly one as small and fragile as Venezuela’s) cannot replace the functions of a public health system. Private clinics in Caracas, however modern, cannot conduct nationwide vaccination campaigns, build epidemiological surveillance networks, or address child malnutrition at scale.

Nor can private healthcare alone care for the thousands of victims created by disasters such as these earthquakes. It cannot train sufficient first responders, coordinate nationwide rescue efforts, or provide the ambulances, heavy equipment, and emergency infrastructure required in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe.

This may become the clearest test yet of how committed the Trump administration truly is to supporting Venezuelans, not merely safeguarding its economic interests in the country.

The corruption and mismanagement that destroyed Venezuela’s health system, combined with the dangerous belief that the state could simply step aside, help explain why the country now lacks even minimally functional search-and-rescue capacity. They also explain its overwhelming dependence on foreign aid.

For that reason, many Venezuelans are watching statements from Marco Rubio as closely as those from Rodríguez. All signs suggest that meaningful large-scale assistance will need to come from Washington rather than Miraflores. Rubio has already promised a “big, fast, and effective whole-of-government response,” offering a measure of hope to an exhausted and grieving population.

This disaster may become the clearest test yet of how committed the Trump administration truly is to supporting Venezuelans, not merely safeguarding its economic interests in the country. Recovery without explicit and substantial American support appears highly unlikely.

Other countries across the globe and the ideological spectrum—including Mexico, El Salvador, Cuba, Iran, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain—have also offered assistance. All such support is welcome. In these first critical hours, every resource matters if lives are to be saved.

The images circulating on social media, people trapped beneath rubble in La Guaira, surrounded by exhausted neighbors refusing to abandon them, or volunteers searching debris with only the flashlights of their mobile phones, amount to a testimony of the solidarity of the Venezuelan people and an urgent plea for help, one that both Venezuelan authorities and the international community must answer.

They also serve as a painful reminder that public health and disaster preparedness are responsibilities that governments simply cannot outsource.

If you want to know more about ways to help, or need information on missing people, please visit the following link.

For decades, Californians have generally said immigrants, who make up more than a quarter of the state’s population and a third of its labor force, are beneficial to the state and its economy. But budget instability and concerns about rising costs are spilling into a debate over the controversial and expensive policy of allowing low-income immigrants without legal status to receive state-funded health coverage.

Now, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present a stark choice to voters in the race to be the next governor at a moment when public support for the state’s generous safety net is starting to fray.

Both frame the choice as an economic one.

Becerra, former secretary of Health and Human Services under President Biden, has said it would be “foolish” to exclude the poorest immigrants from routine care and push them into expensive emergency rooms on the taxpayer’s dime. Hilton, a conservative commentator backed by President Trump, has promised to eliminate their coverage and has echoed national Republicans who have skewered California’s expansions to bolster their claims of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.

With voters nationwide worried about inflation and the rising cost of living, some Californians might feel less inclined to provide full healthcare coverage to those lacking legal status. What the state does next could have profound implications for its healthcare system and sprawling economy.

Over the past decade, California lawmakers used state dollars to expand Medi-Cal, offering all low-income residents comprehensive coverage regardless of immigration status. But enrollment surpassed initial projections, as did the cost. Medi-Cal coverage of immigrants without legal status costs the state roughly $10 billion a year, according to California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, more than double the initial estimates.

California lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who championed the program, have approved major rollbacks of benefits for those residents. They said the state can’t afford ballooning healthcare costs amid massive federal cuts from the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the California Health and Human Services Agency projected up to 3.4 million Medi-Cal enrollees could lose coverage and the state could lose more than $30 billion a year in federal funding under the law, causing major disruptions in the safety net health program.Medi-Cal’s budget for fiscal year 2026-27 is $217 billion, and the program serves more than 14 million Californians.

Meanwhile, many legal U.S. residents and citizens have seen their health premium payments skyrocket this year after Congress let enhanced federal Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of December.

As the state grappled with a deficit last year, a majority of likely voters in California said — for the first time in nearly a decade — they opposed providing health insurance to immigrants without legal status, according to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The state faces major challenges, and healthcare is one of the major expenditures,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s survey director. “People have become more selective about how they want to see those limited healthcare dollars spent.”

Hilton, running on a platform of affordability and lowering taxes, has seized on the sentiment, casting health coverage for immigrants without legal status as deeply unfair and a direct threat to the state’s ability to help citizens.

“Stop taking money from California taxpayers who can barely afford their healthcare to give free healthcare to citizens of other countries who shouldn’t even be here,” Hilton said in a Facebook video the morning of the June 2 primary.

In campaign stump speeches, Hilton promised to use the savings to lower healthcare costs for other Californians without detailing how. Hilton did not respond to requests from KFF Health News for comment.

“Their messaging is very, very simple: It’s an us vs. them,” said Roger Salazar, a Democratic political consultant who represents a coalition of healthcare advocates who argue providing coverage to people who can’t afford it strengthens the workforce and, as a result, the economy. “It’s just a question of convincing the average voter that it’s much better economically.”

A son of immigrants, Becerra for decades pushed to extend safety net benefits in Congress and has made a similar pitch in his campaign for governor. He did not respond to requests for comment.

“Immigrants, whether documented or not, work hard. They pay taxes, and sometimes they get injured on the job or their children get sick,” Becerra said during a debate last month. “It would be foolish to tell a family that they don’t have access to the pediatrician or the family doc.”

Becerra, who could become California’s first elected Latino governor, objected last year when Newsom and legislative leaders decided to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for adults without legal status, cut benefits, and impose monthly premiums.

“Stop treating coverage as a budget variable that expands in good years and contracts when revenue dips,” Becerra wrote last month in response to an Orange County Register candidate questionnaire. He has vowed to pursue new, steady revenue to fund basic services, such as by upping taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Californians.

In 2023, California was home to about 2.3 million people without legal status, representing roughly 8% of the state’s labor force, according to the Pew Research Center. And 1 in 5 California children live in a family that includes at least one member without legal status, according to the California Department of Education. Healthcare economists say giving people access to preventive healthcare saves taxpayers money in the long run by keeping the workforce healthy and relieving pressure on an overburdened system.

That, Baldassare said, wasn’t a hard argument to make during the COVID-19 pandemic, when immigrants were celebrated as essential workers and the link between individual well-being and public health was more obvious.

But Medi-Cal costs to cover roughly 1.4 million immigrants have ballooned, according to the latest estimates from the Department of Health Care Services. Because only some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for federal Medicaid benefits, states like California that cover other populations must do so exclusively with state funding.

California’s budget experts have warned that maintaining full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without seeking additional revenue would destabilize the state’s long-term fiscal outlook.

In a legislative hearing last year, Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio questioned whether California taxpayers would prioritize the expansions, saying he doubted “illegal immigrant healthcare in the general fund would be at the top of their list.”

After lawmakers approved the spending reductions, support for immigrant health coverage dropped, Baldassare said. Now lawmakers and Newsom are negotiating further cuts.

David Hayes-Bautista, who has spent his career studying the economic contributions of Latinos and immigrants, said Californians without legal status have higher labor force participation and tend to work in industries and occupations that don’t offer employer-based health insurance. As a result, many resort to Medi-Cal, saddling the state with the healthcare costs instead of employers.

“California, as a state, has the world’s fourth-largest GDP, which is true thanks to Latinos,” Hayes-Bautista, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at UCLA, said. Without contributions from Latinos, many without legal status, it drops to eighth place, about the size of Italy’s economy, he added.

Immigrant advocates hope to have a more vocal champion in Becerra, the favorite to become governor in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1.

“He will fight, he will push back, he will do all that he can,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, a former labor leader who has championed the immigrant healthcare expansions. “That’s the most we could expect.”

Mai-Duc writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Thursday to crack down on inflated profits stemming from car crash lawsuits, blessing a hard-fought compromise between Uber and the state’s trial attorneys that averts a November showdown between two of California’s most powerful and moneyed lobbying forces.

The deal, the fruit of months of negotiations, takes aim at the lucrative way doctors can charge for procedures on patients referred to them by personal injury lawyers.

If a law firm has a client who was hurt in a car accident, the lawyer will often send them to a doctor who will perform surgery on a “lien” basis, meaning the doctor will be paid from money that comes from a lawsuit settlement rather than through insurance.

Uber contends this arrangement has created an incentive for doctors and attorneys to collude to dramatically inflate medical bills. The more expensive the bill, they say, the bigger the resulting payout.

The law, SB 623, caps how much these doctors can charge when their patient is involved in a lawsuit against a ride-share company, which are frequent targets of litigation due to their top-of-the-line insurance policies. The new law will also require Uber to ramp up background checks of its drivers.

“We’re going to have a much safer state both for medical patients and passengers in Ubers,” said Nicholas Rowley, a prominent Texas attorney who helped bankroll the fight and took a leading role in the negotiations.

The law only applies to cases that involve ride-share accidents that take place after Jan. 1, 2027.

“This legislation puts meaningful guardrails in place to better protect accident victims, increase transparency and accountability in the medical lien system and strengthen safety,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for the Western U.S., in a statement.

For months, Uber and lawyers from across the state poured tens of millions into dueling ballot measures that threatened to devastate the profits of whichever side lost.

Uber fired the first shot with a ballot measure that sought to cap how much attorneys can earn in lawsuits involving auto accidents. The company argued attorneys were swindling their own clients, inflating medical bills of car crash victims to increase the value of the settlement and then pocketing a hefty chunk of the payouts.

The state’s trial attorneys countered that the fee cap would make small or difficult cases a money-losing endeavor and block scores of accident victims from the courts. They shot back with their own ballot measure that would increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger or driver is sexually assaulted while on a ride, seizing on investigative reporting that highlighted assaults in Ubers.

“They were waiting for us to blink and we didn’t,” said Douglas Saeltzer, the head of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the lawyer trade group that pushed for the measure against Uber. “Their starting place, I don’t believe, was in the interest of protecting victims — it was in the interest of protecting Uber.”

With the passage of Thursday’s law, both sides have agreed to pull their respective measures from the November ballot, halting campaigns that had both parties amassing tens of millions in funding and blanketing the airwaves with ads.

“Now we can stop seeing all the commercials,” said Assemblymember Blanca Pancheo (D-Downey) at a Tuesday hearing.

The law, put forward by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) and Sen. Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana), also caps the amount that can be earned by third-party investors who buy out a doctor’s lien in a personal injury case. These companies will purchase a doctor’s stake in the case at a reduced rate, then pocket a share of the payout if the case settles.

“Private equity and hedge funds buy them at a steep discount, then turn around and collect the full inflated amount,” Saeltzer said at a Tuesday hearing on the bill. “That’s money flowing to Wall Street investors, not patients.”

The law will require annual background checks for ride-share drivers and expand the list of offenses that disqualify someone from the job.

In addition to the ballot battle, has Uber sued two of LA’s most well-known personal injury firms — the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group — accusing them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to inflate the value of the claim. The firms asked the judge to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing Uber had failed to prove fraud. Both firms have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, filed last year, has put the plaintiff lawyers in the unusual position of playing defense. Listening in the audience at Wednesday’s hearings were the partners of Downtown L.A. Law Group and Jacob Emrani.

“Let’s be clear about what this Uber case really is,” said John Hueston, outside counsel for Emrani. “It’s brought by a $150 billion dollar company … to intimidate the plaintiff’s bar, exhaust its resources and chill the suits that hold Uber accountable.”

Michael Huston, one of the lawyers who represents Uber, countered that the case is “not an attack on the plaintiff’s bar.”

“We have brought suit against the two in this state … that are engaged in naked fraud,” he said.

Proponents of a tax on California billionaires vowed on Thursday to move forward with their November ballot measure despite mounting opposition from many of the state’s most powerful political forces.

A labor union spent $31 million gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot in an effort to offset federal healthcare funding cuts that will affect millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. A representative for the campaign supporting the ballot measure pushed back at opposition to the effort as self-entitled wealthy Californians and entrenched Sacramento interests.

“While a few morally bankrupt billionaires and their buddies in Sacramento want to see California’s hospitals close, and tax breaks for billionaires protected — I assure you, the vast majority of voters do not,” said Debru Carthan, a spokesperson for the Billionaire Tax Now Coalition, which is funded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor of the proposal.

The California secretary of state is expected to officially certify the measure for the Nov. 3 ballot on Thursday evening.

Carthan said their effort has support in public opinion polls, and from lawmakers, unions, community organizations and volunteers across the state, “something the billionaires and their buddies will never have.”

However, a coalition of healthcare, education, public safety, housing, business and labor leaders opposed to the proposal warned that it would make the state’s notoriously unstable budget even more unpredictable.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the leaders of the California Medical Assn., the California Primary Care Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. said in a statement. “That’s why so many leaders – both Democrats and Republicans – are joining us and saying NO. We look forward to ensuring voters have the facts, know the stakes, and resoundingly reject this reckless experiment in November.”

Supporters of the one-time proposed 5% tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents pitched the effort as a stop-gap measure to offset devastating federal healthcare funding cuts passed by the GOP-led Congress and signed by President Trump nearly one year ago. The federal legislation is expected to result in $100 billion in cuts that would affect California’s most vulnerable residents.

The proposed tax, which would be retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1, drew predictable opposition from the wealthy, notably Silicon Valley tech leaders.

But it notably divided liberals. While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) supported the proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom was among the Democrats who opposed it because of fears about the potential impact on the state’s volatile budget.

Despite being the fourth largest economy in the world — the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — California’s budget is extremely dependent on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Newsom and others who generally support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans also argued that the proposed billionaire tax in California was poorly crafted and that any such levies ought to be enacted nationally, because varying state policies would be ineffective.

Opponents also argued that the political priority in the 2026 midterm election should be squarely focused on efforts to make sure Democrats regain control of Congress to serve as a counter balance during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

“It’s disappointing. This is a critical election where we need to concentrate on flipping the house and undoing the damage that was done” by Trump’s legislation that led to the healthcare funding cuts, said Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. The wealth tax “is short term and doesn’t address what is the long-term problem. And I’m not even sure the policy is a viable solution. It’s so critical to be sending the right message — holding Congress accountable and how we need to find long-term solutions to make sure Californians have access to healthcare.”

Rob Lapsley, co-chair of Californians Against Tax Increases and president of the California Business Roundtable, argued that the proposed wealth tax would ultimately affect every Californian.

“Strip away the spin, and this measure forces every California taxpayer, not just billionaires, to file a sworn declaration of their net worth with the Franchise Tax Board under penalty of perjury,” Lapsley said in a statement. “And it hands the Legislature the power to extend the wealth tax to all Californians and every kind of property, including home equity, retirement savings without ever returning to the voters – effectively gutting” voter-approved caps on property tax increases.

Supporters of the tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures in April to qualify the proposal for the ballot, roughly double the number required. However, support for the effort has grown increasingly shaky. Newsom’s team created a broad coalition of opponents, including healthcare and education activists, that undercut the foundational argument for the tax.

The union that crafted the proposal responded last week by proposing a legislative alternative that would create a 2% tax on billionaire’s assets. It was flatly refused by the Newsom administration. No deal was reached by the Thursday evening deadline for the union to withdraw the proposal from the November ballot.

Two efforts that were crafted to sink the proposed billionaire tax — dubbed as poison pills — also qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office. One would bar new state taxes on personal property, while the other prohibits any new taxes being exempted from existing state spending rules and to be regularly audited. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but either of the other proposals receives more votes, the tax measure would be voided.

The proposed billionaire tax would apply to more than 200 Californians, some of whom proactively left the state or moved their companies out of California because of the proposal.

The prospect of the wealthy fleeing the state is among the reasons that prominent Democrats such as Newsom opposed it, given California’s budget being so reliant on the state’s most prosperous residents.

Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, is among the billionaires who have reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to an organization that is funding efforts to invalidate the proposed billionaire tax.

Ballot measure proponents had a Thursday evening deadline to withdraw their proposals.

Other policy proposals that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot include:

• Requiring government-issued voter identification to cast ballots in elections.
• Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act, once a third-rail in Democratic politics that has become increasingly scrutinized in the rebuilding in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton wildfire.
• Creating a $11.3-billion affordable housing bond.

Two notable proposals were pulled off the ballot after negotiations between the California Hospital Assn. and labor unions:

• An effort to limit healthcare executives’ compensation.
• A union proposal by the same union backing the billionaire tax that would have required many healthcare clinics to spend 90% of their revenue to serve low-income and underserved residents.

WASHINGTON — California’s two Democratic senators on Thursday criticized the Trump administration after it requested $87.6 billion from Congress to address some of the nation’s most “urgent needs” but omitted funding for victims of last year’s Los Angeles wildfires.

“Donald Trump’s desire to punish Los Angeles and the state of California for not voting for him, means once again that thousands of Angelinos are left watching this administration fight for anything but them, their businesses, and their communities,” Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

“These fires did not discriminate based on party or political preference. Neither should this administration,” they added.

The omission is the latest strain in a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over federal disaster aid, and it comes after Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met with President Trump at the Oval Office in April to request the funding.

At the meeting, Trump signaled his commitment to working with local officials to help with disaster recovery efforts. The officials asked for $16 billion that would be split between the city and county. The money would consist primarily of disbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency flagged for communities hit by the fires, part of a $33.9-billion wildfire relief funding request made by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Two months later, those talks have yet to yield results sought by local leaders.

The budget request, submitted by the Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday, mostly seeks funding for the Pentagon to address costs related to the Iran war. It also includes $11.1 billion in economic assistance for American farmers, $1.4 billion to address the Ebola virus outbreak in Central Africa, $500 million to support “ongoing efforts to complete restorations and construction projects” across the nation’s capital and $1 billion to boost the pensions of workers at General Motors that were cut as a result of the automaker’s bankruptcy.

“I urge the Congress to take action on these important and urgent requests as soon as possible,” White House budget director Russell Vought wrote in a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Vought said the administration was open to discussing “additional relief for other urgent matters.” The White House did not immediately respond when asked why the budget request did not mention the Eaton and Palisades disaster relief funds.

State leaders, including Newsom, have repeatedly accused the Trump administration of stonewalling billions in wildfire aid. The governor visited Washington in December to meet with lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to push for the funding.

The governor also attempted to meet with FEMA about the matter, but said his request was denied. Newsom, a political foe of Trump’s, would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to talk about the recovery efforts.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston in effect converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be implemented. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she wrote.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after election day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

In a statement, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” she said.

Requests for comment sent to the White House and Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

It was the latest in a string of rulings against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. He has since signed another executive order on elections, seeking to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

In the fall, a federal judge in Washington overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred the secretary of Defense from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he won’t do so until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens, and violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by election day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by election day.

Smyth and Casey write for the Associated Press.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is retreating from a plan to use warehouses to hold up to 10,000 people on a single site, jettisoning a key piece of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s $38-billion plan to rapidly expand detention capacity this year.

The federal government, which was sued by Michigan and a Detroit suburb, informed a judge Monday that a warehouse purchased in Romulus will be sold. Plans also are unraveling in Social Circle, Ga., and the El Paso suburb of Socorro, local officials said.

The three cities are among 11 where the federal government spent a combined $1.074 billion on warehouses.

The New York Times first reported last week that federal immigration officials now plan to get rid of seven of the 11 warehouses — either giving them to other federal agencies or selling them outright.

DHS didn’t confirm the reports but said in a statement that it is “moving swiftly to utilize EXISTING detention space with our state and county partners.”

“Wildly foolhardy” is how Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former ICE official under the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations described the plans to convert the buildings into immigrant detention.

One issue was that Noem’s purchases were largely carried out of public view and angered communities that were caught by surprise. Some only learned about ICE’s ambitions after the agency bought or leased space for detainees.

After Noem was fired, her replacement, Markwayne Mullin, quickly paused the purchase of new warehouses.

Objections came from Republicans and Democrats alike

Some were opposed on moral grounds to ICE’s presence in their neighborhoods, while others questioned whether the facilities would be a drain on local resources, such as sewer and water systems.

Seven federal lawsuits were filed, and regulatory roadblocks created hassles elsewhere.

Meanwhile, questions about how much DHS paid for some warehouses triggered an internal audit. The agency shelled out double what the New Jersey warehouse was valued at in tax records and nearly five times more than the assessed value of the Social Circle warehouse.

Trickler-McNulty, the former ICE official, said ICE does have a few facilities that it owns that it inherited from its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, but generally ICE has contracted out its detention needs.

“Facilities over 2,000 people just break down. It’s very hard to run a very big facility, to keep it staffed, to keep all of it moving,” she said.

Former head of plumbing business takes over for Noem

Mullin, who took over and expanded his family’s plumbing business before representing Oklahoma in the U.S House and Senate, acknowledged there had been issues at his confirmation hearing.

He noted that most municipalities don’t have the capacity in their infrastructure for waste and water.

Indeed the water issues were such a challenge that a federal lawsuit filed over the Salt Lake City warehouse, the costliest purchased at $145.4 million, said ICE officials told the mayor that they might need to truck water and sewage from the facility as an “interim solution.”

Plans begin to unravel

The New York Times story, which cited internal documents that the newspaper obtained, said the Salt Lake City warehouse is among those that federal immigration officials plans to hand off or sell. Also on the list is the Romulus warehouse, as well as one in New Jersey and two each in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said it would have been an “abomination” if the 249,000-square-foot Romulus warehouse was transformed into immigrant detention, as was planned when it was purchased for $34.7 million,

“The ICE warehouse proposal was every bit as ill-conceived as it was cruel and unnecessary, and I am relieved that this chapter is coming to a close,” Nessel, a Democrat, said.

Social Circle, Georgia, announced last week in a statement that it has received notification from U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican, that the Department of Homeland Security is no longer pursuing an ICE detention facility there.

Meanwhile, acting ICE Director David Venturella told officials in the El Paso area during a visit there earlier this month that the agency has changed its plans for three warehouses it purchased in nearby Socorro for $122 million, said Rep. Veronica Escobar, who was present for the visit.

Escobar, a Democrat who represents El Paso, said during a news conference that ICE no longer plans to detain up to 8,500 immigrants in the facilities as originally envisioned, and instead will convert the property into an ICE campus, she said. The site will include an unspecified smaller number of detainees but also ICE offices and training space, she said.

Frustrations persist as communities seek details

However, many of the communities remained frustrated, as they struggled to get information about possible sales.

In Pennsylvania, state and local officials said Tuesday that they hadn’t received any new information from DHS about two warehouses bought earlier this year by the department. Both are being held up by the state’s denial of permits over concerns that drinking water and sewer service are inadequate to handle thousands of inhabitants.

U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, whose district includes both warehouses, said he met Friday with DHS personnel, but that the agency hadn’t made a decision whether to use them as detention centers or sell them.

In Georgia, the city manager in Oakwood, said Tuesday he is talking to his state congressional delegation, trying to confirm rumors that a warehouse there will be sold. “I have not heard anything yet,” B.R. White said.

Work appears to continue on other warehouses

In Maryland, where a judge extended a stoppage on transforming a sprawling warehouse into a processing facility for immigrants, ICE is currently collecting public comments about the environmental impacts of the facility. And an announcement earlier this month disclosed more details on plans for the facility, including six secure recreation yards.

Patrick Dattilio, the founder of Hagerstown Rapid Response, which formed in opposition to housing ICE detainees in the warehouse, said there has been little communication outside of the lawsuit. But he remains committed to keeping it from opening.

“It’s a big warehouse,” Dattilio said. “It’s not meant for people.”

Hollingsworth, Foley and Santana write for the Associated Press. AP writers Marc Levy and Ed White contributed to this report.

I sat down recently and counted — surprising myself — that I’ve notched visits to 24 of Mexico’s 32 states, for leisure or while reporting. Querétaro is a highland charmer. Nuevo León is the country’s muscular northern colossus. Campeche, a verdant beauty. Everywhere I go in this country, I find new wonders. Then I visited Colima, and it hit me that Mexico is an endless cornucopia that will never vanquish a traveler’s curiosity.

Never heard of button-sized Colima? Don’t fret. A lover of Mexico may be vaguely aware of its important port at Manzanillo, or the state’s spectacular volcano complex. Otherwise, Colima is not commonly on visitors’ radar. The tourism industry is consistently ranked among Mexico’s smallest.

Yet it is a refreshingly contained and relaxed culture, with foods that are only found here. The depth of its riches are laid out in an ambitious recent series of culinary guidebooks by a group called Colima Sabe.

Use these handy dining guides for all of your summer travel, near and far.

The state has international airports in Manzanillo and Colima, which you might call Burbank-sized, largely serviced by connecting flights from Mexico City. Weekend travelers also come in by road from Guadalajara. There is a smattering of mid-tier or boutique hotels in central Colima or the nearby village of Comala, and a few resort hotels in Manzanillo. If you go, here are a handful of to-do’s for a sure-to-be-surprising Colima journey.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Taste the tuba

Glass of tuba compuesta, a fermented drink made from the sap of the coconut palm.

(Daniel Hernandez/Los Angeles Times)

Colima’s traditional devotion to tuba, the coconut palm ferment imported from the Philippines hundreds of years ago, comes into focus as you traverse the region and notice vendors congregating on busy street corners or central plazas with gourds or jugs of a milky liquid. It is tart, crisp and infinitely cooling for tropical temperatures. Embrace the “compuesta” style: tuba poured over ice and adorned with crumbled nuts and ruddy red fruit chunks, turning the liquid pink. El Camellón de la Tuba, a well-known stand near central Colima, made the best that I tasted on my visit. Avoid tuba that looks too brown or tastes too vinegary. * El Camellon de la Tuba, Avenida Constitución 2008, Centro, 28017 Colima, @camellondelatubaoficial

Savor Nico Mejía’s restaurants in Manzanillo

Ceviche colimense by chef Nico Mejía.

(Daniel Hernandez/Los Angeles Times)

La Sal, breezy and surprising in a former carport at his mother’s home in Manzanillo, launched the fame of chef Nico Mejía as a destination cook in 2020. Earlier this year, he moved La Sal (Colima’s coastal lagoons produce excellent salt) to a plot directly on a beach facing the Pacific. The restaurant makes refined regional favorites like ceviche colimense and his tostada de pozole seco, and mixes cocktails with tuba. The white-walled Casa Rangel is Mejía’s power-meeting magnet for internationally inspired local fare. Not too far away, Mejía’s partner Melissa Santamaria Mora runs an excellent bakery called Santamaria. These are restaurants on par with any you’d see in Guadalajara or Mexico City. * La Sal Playa, Avenida Lázaro Cárdenas 797, Playa Azul las Brisas, 28217 Manzanillo, @lasalplaya_

Sip the prizewinning beers of Cervecería de Colima

Cervecería de Colima is one of Mexico’s most acclaimed breweries.

(Daniel Hernandez/Los Angeles Times)

Winner of the Copa Cerveza México 2025 for best large brewery, Cervecería de Colima has been my go-to for quality, consistency and innovation since I first tasted its pale ale, the Páramo. I’d hold it against any other in this style. Over the years, I’ve found that just about everything Cervecería de Colima brews is satisfying. I’ve enjoyed the session IPA called Piedra Lisa, the bright pilsner Colimita, and the brewery’s recent entrant in the nonalcoholic market, Colima Cero. The headquarters just outside Colima city offer tastings, and in February, co-founder Esteban Silva and his team opened a taproom in the city called Estación Colimita. When a restaurant anywhere in Mexico offers these beers, I know they know what they’re doing. * Estación Colimita, Avenida Constitución 1401-local 1, Jardines Vista Hermosa IV, 28017 Colima, @cerveceriadecolima

Take in coffee and casual dining in Comala and Colima

A cucumber and mezcal cocktail at a rooftop bar overlooking Colima’s central square.

(Daniel Hernandez/Los Angeles Times)

Comala is a postcard-ready pueblo a few miles north of Colima. Those familiar with Mexican literature will recognize the name matching the fictional town in Juan Rulfo’s 1955 novel “Pedro Páramo,” the groundbreaking book that Gabriel García Márquez said inspired his magical realism masterpieces. The connection is coincidental, yet a certain air of enchantment hangs over Comala’s cobbled streets and tiled rooftops. According to Silva, who lives near Comala, the restaurants worth noting here are Cuaxiote, De La Suerte, and Hacienda Pascual Nogueras with chef Alan Ramos. In Colima city for coffee and a nice meal, visitors should bookmark Puerto Café and Cumbre, a restaurant and bakery that stands out in a scene of growing maturity and ambition. * Cuaxiote, Degollado 81, Centro, 28450 Comala, @cuaxiote

Bite into Colima’s iconic pozole seco

Pozole seco is Colima’s signature regional dish.

(Daniel Hernandez/Los Angeles Times)

It is Colima’s most famous regional specialty: all the ingredients and most of the preparation of a traditional white pozole, only without the liquid that makes it a stew. Its origins are uncertain, with one tale suggesting that a cook at Manzanillo’s mercado left a pot of pozole over fire and forgot it. When she returned to find the broth dried out, the lore is the cook slathered the remaining mass of meat and hominy on a tostada, and pozole seco was born. Find it at the local markets, cenadurías, comedores, and the sit-down restaurants that ring Colima city’s central plaza, such as Ramos’ new ¡Aquí Es Colima! * Aquí Es Colima! Portal Morelos 1, Centro, 28000 Colima, @aquiescolimaporgloriadedios

Explore Colima’s ancient history

A ceramic figurine of the extinct Mexican dog breed tlalchichi, which was native to Colima.

(Daniel Hernandez/Los Angeles Times)

Colima’s major pre-Hispanic site is La Campana, a grid of streets and structural bases that is believed to have been settled as early as 1870 B.C. in Mexico’s Pre-Classic period. The archaeological zone sits right beside urbanized Colima. At the former hacienda community Nogueras near Comala, an impressive museum features historical and archaeological artifacts, and the restaurant Pascual mentioned above. The museum holds ceramics of a dog from ancient times that is native to Colima, similar to Mexico’s more well-known native hairless dog the xoloitzcuintle. Colima’s tlalchichi breed is similar, with shorter legs. Though now sadly it is extinct, the tlalchichi is the state’s unofficial mascot, incorporated in signage, marketing and touristy knickknacks. * Museo Universitario Alejandro Rangel Hidalgo Nogueras, Nogueras s/n, 28450 Nogueras, Comala, @alejandrorangel_udec

MACUNGIE, Pa. — President Trump visited a Mack Trucks facility in battleground Pennsylvania on Tuesday, attempting to shift attention to the U.S. economy in his first major public event outside the nation’s capital since he signed an interim agreement to end the Iran war.

The trip to Macungie, in the Allentown suburbs, came as Trump works to put the conflict — and the higher gasoline prices it caused — in the rearview mirror as the November midterm elections draw closer.

Trump had a private tour of the facility, but his speech often felt more like a reelection rally from two years ago than an effort to promote his second-term accomplishments.

The president listed longstanding political grievances, and made only passing mentions of promoting Republicans ahead of Election Day — while spending more time bragging about the UFC fight he staged on the White House lawn in honor of his own 80th birthday than he did the economy.

At one point, Trump even called UFC fighters Bo Nickal and Anthony Cassar to the stage and mused about whether he could beat either one of them in a wrestling match if he were to “work out for the next couple of months.”

It was Trump’s fifth second-term visit to Pennsylvania, a state whose support in 2016 and 2024 helped him to win the White House. The truck factory is in a district where incumbent Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie faces Democratic challenger Bob Brooks in November.

“For more than 100 years, this legendary company has been making trucks right here in eastern Pennsylvania,” Trump said, “building the heavy duty machinery that keeps our economy rolling, our factories moving, and our industries roaring all across the nation.”

His visit coincided with rising prices that could color the verdict voters render on Trump’s stewardship in the fall. About one-third of U.S. adults approved of Trump’s approach to the economy, according to a June Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll. That’s in line with last month for Trump on the issue.

The Iran war, which began Feb. 28, has also been a politically difficult issue for the president. Most Americans continued to disapprove of his handling of Iran, according to the June AP-NORC poll, which was being fielded as Trump announced a tentative deal with Iran and concluded just before the interim agreement was signed last week. It found that 65% of U.S. adults disapprove of how the president is handling issues with Iran, unchanged from May.

Still, while most Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only about 3 in 10 Republicans are unhappy.

This is the kind of district that matters in November elections

Trump addressed a cheering crowd from a stage erected on the factory floor, flanked by two red, white and blue trucks and rows of workers in fluorescent safety vests under a large “American Workers First” banner.

It’s the kind of district that may prove pivotal to Republicans holding narrow control of the House, where a loss could hobble the president’s final two years in office.

Mackenzie, a freshman lawmaker, is looking to hold on to a district Democrats have targeted to flip. Brooks, president of the state firefighters’ union, has support from Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, who’s also seeking reelection this year.

Trump urged the crowd to support Mackenzie, saying of his trip, “I’m not doing this for my health.” But he devoted more energy to issues such as the U.S.-Mexico border, opposing transgender rights and decrying “Marxist” judges, while also referencing his administration’s efforts to lower prescription drug prices.

“We gotta win the midterms,” Trump said, in one of the few references he made to the midterms. Later, however, he suggested it wasn’t actually a “political season,” perhaps because he himself won’t be on the ballot in November.

On Iran, Trump suggested that the country would be smart and keep negotiating during the ceasefire. “Otherwise we’ll have to finish the job, which will take about, maybe less than a week,” he said.

An odd moment came when the president offered, “The ideology of the Muslims is slightly different than the ideology of the Catholics. We have the Catholics and the Muslims slightly different.” He didn’t elaborate.

Biden came to the same plant previously

Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, visited the same Mack Trucks facility in 2021 to highlight regulations aimed at promoting manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 at nearly 19.6 million jobs. It trended downward after the 2001 recession and the 2007-9 Great Recession. The figure now stands at 12.6 million as of May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In 2025, the truck facility got hit by market uncertainty, including sweeping tariffs that Trump’s administration imposed, and about 170 people were laid off, according to Mack spokesperson Kimberly Pupillo. She added that by the end of last year, almost 150 people were recalled to work and anyone laid off last year was given the chance to return.

There are about 2,800 workers at Mack, Pupillo said.

At a pizzeria down the road from the truck facility, workers and diners said they’d heard about the president’s visit and recalled Biden’s trip to the plant.

George Carver, a retired elementary school principal, said he wasn’t a fan of Trump’s. “I’m looking for a president who’ll clean up this mess,” he said, meaning improve the economy and better handle the war in Iran and immigration.

“I’m looking for someone who’s gonna tell the truth — that could be a Democrat or Republican,” Carver said.

Trump’s visit underscores Pennsylvania’s status as a crucial swing state.

Trump made a trip to Mount Pocono in December 2025 to road test messages that he’s addressing affordability; in July 2025, he was in Pittsburgh to tout tens of billions of dollars of recent energy and technology investments in the state; in June 2025, he was in West Mifflin to tell steelworkers he was doubling the tariff on steel imports to protect the industry; and in March 2025, he attended the NCAA wrestling championship in Philadelphia.

Denise Green, a retired software trainer, was among a handful of people protesting the visit outside a McDonald’s across the street from the plant.

Green said she was a former Republican who became a Democrat in 2007 because her original party backed policies where “all the money” was going to the rich.

Green said her key issue was Social Security funding, which she said she’ll need but is worried could run out.

“It’s outrageous,” she said.

Catalini and Kim write for the Associated Press.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan on Monday challenged a decision by a top state elections official to disqualify his candidacy and remove him from the August primary ballot.

A court filing, on behalf of the challenger Sullivan by his attorneys, said the decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualifying him violates state and federal law. It asks that he be placed on the ballot. Sullivan, a retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, has maintained that he’s a qualified candidate for U.S. Senate and that election officials lacked a legal basis to boot him from the ballot.

The U.S. Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing age, citizenship and residency, his attorneys wrote.

“Nothing in Alaska law regulates in any way the private motivations that draw individuals to declare or campaign for office,” the filing by attorneys Jeffrey Robinson, Bryn Pallesen and Zoe Eisberg states.

Sullivan’s entrance into the race, days before the June 1 filing deadline, drew condemnation from Sen. Sullivan and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They called the challenger a sham candidate and alleged he was working with Democrats to boost Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola’s chances in the race. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile contenders in a race with more than a dozen candidates. It’s one of the most prominent U.S. Senate races in this year’s midterm elections — one both parties consider crucial to their efforts to control the chamber.

Steve Kirch, a spokesperson for the division, said the agency had no comment and does not discuss “ongoing reviews, investigations or related proceedings.” Beecher has previously noted that ballots are due to be printed on Sunday.

Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said the agency will defend the division’s finding and looked forward to a swift ruling from the court.

On June 15, a week after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced an investigation into the challenger Sullivan’s run, Beecher disqualified him. She concluded that his declaration of candidacy “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

In announcing an investigation, Dahlstrom cited “credible allegations” that Sullivan declared his candidacy “in coordination with another candidate and campaign” with an intent to confuse and “manipulate” voters. But in removing the challenger from the ballot, Beecher did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination with Peltola or Democratic Party officials.

The challenger Sullivan, when asked in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month if he’d had any contact with Peltola’s campaign, responded ”zero, none, zilch.”

Beecher said she based her decision on factors including that he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats.

The form congressional candidates in Alaska complete asks them how they would like to be referred to on the ballot and their preferred party affiliation.

Beecher said she acted in line with a regulation that says a candidate’s name may not appear on a ballot with academic or professional titles or “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”

In response to questions from Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray, legislative attorney Andrew Dunmire last week said the regulation cited by Beecher does not forbid placing Sullivan’s name on the ballot. He said the elections division could comply with it by designing the ballot in a way that allows voters to distinguish between both Sullivans.

It’s a position echoed by the attorneys for the challenger Sullivan.

The challenger initially had been certified and listed on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan. The senator was listed as Dan S. Sullivan and denoted as the incumbent.

Alaska has open primaries in which the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked-choice general election.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.