support

Country music star Zach Bryan signaled his support for Palestinians at the same stadium that recently banned rapper Macklemore over his efforts to do the same.

Grammy winner Bryan donned a black T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Free Palestine” and “Appeal to Heaven” during his Friday concert at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass., according to photos and videos shared on social media.

Members of his backing band also wore similar shirts, including drummer Nate Head, whose jersey paid homage to Hind Rajab, the 5-year-old girl killed alongside five members of her family in a 2024 attack by Israeli forces in Gaza.

Bryan’s Friday concert marked the first of two at Gillette Stadium, owned by billionaire Robert Kraft. The musician’s public display of support for Palestinians comes weeks after Kraft urged pop star Ed Sheeran to remove Macklemore from his tour, citing concerns over his pro-Palestinian messaging.

Last month, Sheeran and his touring team faced pressure to remove former opening act Macklemore from the rest of the tour. The Grammy-winning “Same Love” musician faced backlash from a number of Jewish advocacy groups over his performances at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

Days after the New Jersey shows, Messina Touring dismissed the rapper, who has been a vocal advocate for the Palestinian cause. “Shape of You” singer Sheeran denied playing a part in Macklemore’s departure, but confirmed in a statement that he spoke with Kraft, who was among the stadium owners expressing concern about Macklemore’s further involvement.

The remaining supporting acts for Sheeran’s tour, including Grammy winner Finneas (and brother of Billie Eilish) and folk band Beoga (Sheeran’s backing band), quit Sheeran’s Loop tour in solidarity. Sheeran carried on with his tour, but it hit another snag when his shows at Gillette Stadium last weekend were canceled “due to severe weather warnings” in the region.

Following the fallout, Macklemore announced his Free Palestine tour, which begins later this month with three shows in Dublin, Paris and London. Macklemore said he will be joined by artists “who have shown up and used their stages to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people.”

The rapper announced on Wednesday that “all three shows sold out immediately.” He also said the full concert lineups and U.S. tour stops will come in a later announcement.

Macklemore, in his announcement, said all proceeds from the tour will go to a handful of charities supporting the Palestinians amid Israel’s war in Gaza. Macklemore previously said he would donate all $1 million of his earnings from his time on Sheeran’s tour to numerous pro-Palestinian charities.

Bryan’s With Heaven on Tour will return Saturday at Gillette Stadium. The “I Remember Everything” and “Pink Skies” singer will conclude his tour Oct. 10 at Jordan-Hare Stadium in Auburn, Ala.

The country star and U.S. Navy veteran, 30, is no stranger to channeling his political views in his music and performances. In 2025, Bryan released “Bad News,” a song critical of nationwide federal immigration enforcement operations.

Bryan’s pro-Palestinian stage gesture adds to a noticeable shift among mainstream artists speaking openly about their support for Palestinians amid Israel’s ongoing strikes on Gaza. Melissa Barrera, Rachel Zegler, Irish rap trio Kneecap and rap-punk group Bob Vylan have been among the entertainers who faced professional backlash for their criticism of Israel.

In April 2025, Cornell University also dismissed Kehlani from her headlining performance at the school after President Michael Kotlikoff accused the singer of espousing “antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiments in performances, videos, and on social media.”

In recent months, however, artists and entertainers, including Mark Ruffalo and the Israeli “NAZA” filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor (co-directors of Oscar winner “No Other Land”), continue to face backlash for criticizing Israel.

SACRAMENTO — Supporters of a high-profile Nov. 3 ballot measure that would require Californians to show identification when they vote accused state Democratic leaders of falsely stating that President Trump has endorsed the initiative.

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, one of the measure’s authors, on Thursday called Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra a “bald-face liar” over comments he made during Wednesday’s gubernatorial debate hosted by CNN.

Becerra said during the debate with Republican Steve Hilton that Trump was instrumental in the voter ID measure, Proposition 39, qualifying for California’s November ballot. Trump for years has tried to cast doubt about American elections, and unsuccessfully pushed Congress to pass a strict voter ID and proof of citizenship measure known as the SAVE America Act.

“Prop. 39 is an initiative that is backed by Donald Trump,” Becerra said during the hourlong debate. “He couldn’t get his SAVE Act out of Congress, which tries to interfere in elections. So he’s gone around the country and put initiatives on the ballot. In California, it’s Prop. 39.”

Though Proposition 39’s provisions are less restrictive than those in the SAVE America Act, its proponents echo Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that voter fraud and noncitizen voting are widespread in California and therefore stricter ID measures are needed.

DeMaio said the ballot measure qualified for the ballot because of strong support from California voters, including many Democrats and independents. Supporters collected more than 1 million petition signatures in support of the measure, surpassing the 874,641 needed to qualify.

“It was not put on the ballot by Donald Trump,” said DeMaio, who also founded the conservative advocacy group Reform California.

Becerra is “showing that he’s not willing to be truthful with California voters,” DeMaio said.

Meredith Shields, press secretary for the Yes on Prop. 39 committee, reiterated that Trump hasn’t taken a position on the initiative.

“The opposition will do anything to advance their cause and protect their power,” Shields said. “It will come as a surprise to no one that career politicians don’t always tell the truth, and they certainly aren’t telling the truth here.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about Trump’s position on Proposition 39.

The measure would require anyone voting in person in California to present a government-issued ID, and those voting by mail ballot to include the last four digits of the ID number provided when they registered to vote. State and county election officials would be required to verify the U.S. citizenship of registered voters using government data and publicly report the findings.

The ballot measure is backed by DeMaio and several deep-pocketed Trump supporters. Julie Luckey, director of the group Californians for Voter ID, is the mother of billionaire tech entrepreneur Palmer Luckey, a major Trump fundraiser and Republican donor. Richard Uihlein, chief executive of the shipping and packing supplies company Uline, has given the campaign $17 million.

Representatives for Becerra and the No on Prop. 39 campaign on Thursday argued that Trump pushed for voter ID in California before Proposition 39 officially qualified for the ballot, pointing to a March 11, 2025 news release on Reform California’s website acknowledging Trump’s support.

In January 2025, Trump endorsed “CA Voter ID” as a “condition” for continued federal funding to the state, according to the release, which was updated this year with an editor’s note to clarify that Proposition 39 hasn’t been endorsed by Trump.

“Carl DeMaio knows Prop. 39 is central to Trump’s voter suppression playbook, and he’s doing everything he can to hide that from voters,” said Jonathan Underland, spokesperson for Becerra’s campaign.

The No on Prop. 39 campaign repeatedly has sought to link Trump to the measure, which has not been a surprise given that the Republican president remains extremely unpopular among a majority of Californians.

“The fact that Donald Trump has endorsed it tells you everything you need to know,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) said in a statement released by the “No” campaign this year.

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) suggested to reporters at a rally organized by the “No” campaign last month that Trump is behind Proposition 39.

“Carl DeMaio has been the face of this in California, but don’t be fooled into thinking this has nothing to do with Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda nationally,” Padilla said.

Separately, DeMaio on Thursday accused Secretary of State Shirley Weber, another Democrat, of falsely stating that Proposition 39 would end California’s vote-by-mail system. The vast majority of Californians use mail-in ballots.

Weber, in a television interview that aired this week on KCRA in Sacramento, said the state already requires ID for those who register to vote.

“But if you tell me everybody has to take their ID to the poll, Californians should be concerned because 90% of them don’t want to do that,” she said. “They want to vote by mail, and you would effectively eliminate vote by mail.”

DeMaio questioned whether Weber understood what Proposition 39 proposes.

“If she truly is concerned about trust and confidence in our elections, she should start with her own behavior by refraining from spreading misinformation about Prop. 39 and our election,” he said.

Weber, when asked about her statement this week, said in an email to The Times that Proposition 39 would “cause disruption” in the state’s mail-in voting system because it would require voters “to write private personal information on the ballots.”

A Weber campaign spokesperson followed up with another response Thursday.

“What Dr. Weber actually said was that, if passed, this very poorly drafted proposition could cause people to decide not to vote by mail because it creates unnecessary and burdensome steps,” the spokesperson said.

WASHINGTON — A pro-Israel Democratic advocacy group on Thursday released a framework intended to help the party better articulate its vision for the U.S. relationship with Israel, an issue that has deeply fractured Democrats this year and could lead to further divisions heading into the next presidential campaign.

Democratic Majority for Israel is calling on the party to continue providing security and military assistance to the country while supporting a negotiated path to statehood for both Israelis and Palestinians and a future for Gaza that doesn’t include Hamas.

It notably does not insist on unyielding support for Israel, acknowledging that “Israel’s security does not require support for every decision made by an Israeli government.” The document also calls on Israel to “act decisively against settler threats, intimidation, and violence.”

The framework is being released at a sensitive moment for Democrats following a primary season in which voters from New York to Michigan embraced candidates who backed positions including ending military aid to Israel. If Democrats retake control of the U.S. House or Senate in next month’s elections, these candidates could play a significant role in shaping the debate over America’s posture toward Israel.

The issue could also play prominently in the early stages of the next presidential campaign, which could begin shortly after the midterms.

Democratic Majority for Israel’s chief executive, Brian Romick, said his goal is to provide a “helpful guide for our mainstream Democratic candidates on how to engage with a complicated issue.”

“It’s important to remind Democrats and Americans that there’s value in the U.S.-Israel relationship,” he said. “We thought it was important to kind of lay out a forward-looking vision.”

The question is whether such a framework will go very far in shaping the views of Democrats, who are increasingly skeptical of Israel.

About 58% of Democrats said the U.S. is “too supportive” of the Israelis, according to a June survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, up from 45% in January 2024. Roughly half of Democrats believe that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians during the war with Hamas, an accusation Israel rejects.

Former Obama administration chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who has argued Democrats need to return to the political center ahead of launching a potential presidential bid, went to Israel in July and delivered a blistering speech warning the country was at risk of becoming a “territorial pariah.” He specifically called out Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has closely aligned himself with President Trump, a Republican.

Emanuel, who’s also a former congressman, Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador, blamed Netanyahu for driving Israel to a “dead end,” emboldened by poor decisions from American leaders.

The framework from Democratic Majority for Israel takes a less strident view on Netanyahu, who faces another election this month. “Support for Israel,” the group argued, “transcends any one Israeli government.”

The group took a similarly long view on military and security assistance for Israel, arguing it shouldn’t be stopped now even as it acknowledged the possibility of change in the future.

“Over time, and by mutual agreement, today’s partnership should be capable of evolving beyond the traditional assistance framework toward an increasingly reciprocal relationship centered on joint investment, innovation, and technological advantage,” the framework reads. “The objective should be to build the partnership both countries will need to confront the threats and seize the opportunities of the coming decades.”

Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama, acknowledged “strong, passionate views” on the issue.

“Clearly, not everyone will agree with every aspect” of the framework, he said. “But I think there’s a lot there that many Democrats would find speaks to them.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

The Chicago White Sox used a big first inning and a three-run homer from Chase Meidroth to propel them to a 7-3 win over the Houston Astros on Wednesday to sweep their AL Wild Card Series.

It’s the first time Chicago has won a playoff series since beating Houston in the World Series in 2005. Under the direction of second-year skipper Will Venable and with a letter of support from Pope Leo XIV, the White Sox advanced to face AL Central champion Cleveland in the AL Division Series beginning Saturday in Cleveland.

The White Sox, who lost 100 games in each of the last three seasons, are the only team in major league history to follow consecutive 100-loss seasons with a playoff berth.

The AL West-winning Astros went 81-81 to become the first team to reach the postseason without a winning record. Their recent playoff woes in Houston continued Wednesday as they dropped their ninth straight home playoff game in a ninth trip to the postseason in the last 10 years.

Chicago pounced on the Astros for four runs in the first inning a day after scoring three in the first two innings of a 6-3 win. Houston ace Hunter Brown was lifted after getting just two outs and wasn’t helped by a sloppy defense which committed two first-inning errors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The uncertain funding picture has many hospitals bracing for cuts.

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

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

Clanton writes for Bloomberg. Kara Wetzel of Bloomberg contributed.