Supreme Court

JERUSALEM — Vice President JD Vance criticized on Thursday a vote in Israel’s parliament the previous day about the annexation of the occupied West Bank, saying it amounted to an “insult” and went against the Trump administration policies.

Hard-liners in the Israeli parliament had narrowly passed a symbolic preliminary vote in support of annexing the West Bank — an apparent attempt to embarrass Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Vance was still in the country.

The bill, which required only a simple majority of lawmakers present in the house on Wednesday, passed with a 25-24 vote. But it was unlikely to pass multiple rounds of voting to become law or win a majority in the 120-seat parliament. Netanyahu, who is opposed to it, also has tools to delay or defeat it.

On the tarmac of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport before departing Israel, Vance said that if the Knesset’s vote was a “political stunt, then it is a very stupid political stunt.”

“I personally take some insult to it,” Vance said. “The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel.”

Netanyahu is struggling to stave off early elections as cracks between factions in the right-wing parties, some of whom were upset over the ceasefire and the security sacrifices it required of Israel, grow more apparent.

While many members of Netanyahu’s coalition, including the Likud, support annexation, they have backed off those calls since U.S. President Trump said last month that he opposes such a move. The United Arab Emirates, a key U.S. and Israeli ally in the push to peace in Gaza, has said any annexation by Israel would be a “red line.”

The Palestinians seek the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, for a future independent state. Israeli annexation of the West Bank would all but bury hopes for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians — the outcome supported by most of the world.

Gaza’s reconstruction and Palestinians’ return

Vance also unveiled new details about U.S. plans for Gaza, saying he expected reconstruction to begin soon in some “Hamas-free” areas of the territory but warning that rebuilding territory after a devastating two-year war could take years.

“The hope is to rebuild Rafah over the next two to three years and theoretically you could have half a million people live (there),” he said.

The war caused widespread destruction across the coastal Palestinian enclave. The United Nations in July estimated that the war generated some 61 million tons of debris in Gaza. The World Bank, the U.N. and the European Union estimated earlier this year that it would cost about $53 billion to rebuild.

The Israel-Hamas war has killed at least 68,280 Palestinians, according to the Health Ministry in Gaza, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count. The ministry maintains detailed casualty records that are seen as generally reliable by U.N. agencies and independent experts. Israel has disputed them without providing its own toll.

Intense U.S. push toward peace

Earlier this week, Vance announced the opening of a civilian military coordination center in southern Israel where some 200 U.S. troops are working alongside the Israeli military and delegations from other countries planning the stabilization and reconstruction of Gaza.

The U.S. is seeking support from other allies, especially Gulf Arab nations, to create an international stabilization force to be deployed to Gaza and train a Palestinian force.

“We’d like to see Palestinian police forces in Gaza that are not Hamas and that are going to do a good job, but those still have to be trained and equipped,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said ahead of his trip to Israel.

Rubio, who is to meet with Netanyahu later on Thursday, also criticized Israeli far-right lawmakers’ effort to push for the annexation of the West Bank.

Israeli media referred to the nonstop parade of American officials visiting to ensure Israel holds up its side of the fragile ceasefire as “Bibi-sitting.” The term, utilizing Netanyahu’s nickname of Bibi, refers to an old campaign ad when Netanyahu positioned himself as the “Bibi-sitter” whom voters could trust with their kids.

In Gaza, a dire need for medical care

In the first medical evacuation since the ceasefire began on Oct. 10, the head of the World Health Organization said Thursday the group has evacuated 41 critical patients and 145 companions out of the Gaza Strip.

In a statement posted to X, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called on nations to show solidarity and help some 15,000 patients who are still waiting for approval to receive medical care outside Gaza.

His calls were echoed by an official with the U.N. Population Fund who on Wednesday described the “sheer devastation” that he witnessed on his most recent travel to Gaza, saying that there is no such thing as a “normal birth in Gaza now.”

Andrew Saberton, an executive director at UNFPA, told reporters how difficult the agency’s work has become due to the lack of functioning or even standing health care facilities.

“The sheer extent of the devastation looked like the set of a dystopian film. Unfortunately, it is not fiction,” he said.

Court hearing on journalists’ access to Gaza

Separately on Thursday, Israel’s Supreme Court held a hearing into whether to open the Gaza Strip to the international media and gave the state 30 days to present a new position in light of the new situation under the ceasefire.

Israel has blocked reporters from entering Gaza since the war erupted with the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023.

The Foreign Press Association, which represents dozens of international news organizations including The Associated Press, had asked the court to order the government to open the border.

In a statement after Thursday’s decision, the FPA expressed its “disappointment” and called the Israeli government’s position to deny journalists access “unacceptable.”

The court rejected a request from the FPA early in the war, due to objections by the government on security grounds. The group filed a second request for access in September 2024. The government has repeatedly delayed the case.

Palestinian journalists have covered the two-year war for international media. But like all Palestinians, they have been subject to tough restrictions on movement and shortages of food, repeatedly displaced and operated under great danger. Some 200 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israeli fire, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“It is time for Israel to lift the closure and let us do our work alongside our Palestinian colleagues,” said Tania Kraemer, chairperson of the FPA.

Brito and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington. AP writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem, Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Kareem Chehayeb in Beirut and Farnoush Amiri in New York contributed to this report.

Oct. 23 (UPI) — American Airlines announced Thursday it is onboarding a new commercial chief as the air carrier seeks to match its rivals.

Company officials revealed Nathaniel Pieper will be American Airlines’ next chief commercial officer effective Nov. 3.

“Nat is a world-class, results-oriented leader who has achieved tremendous success throughout his entire career,” said American CEO Robert Isom, adding that Pieper was “well-versed in the airline business, having led teams across multiple” different airline conglomerates.

Pieper, 56, currently sits as CEO of the Oneworld alliance in a collaborative that includes a number of airlines, including American and British Airways. His prior experience included high-level positions in finance, networks and fleet strategy.

“Nat’s experience and expertise, coupled with his recent work with us leading oneworld, make him incredibly well-suited to lead our Commercial team moving forward,” added Isom in a statement.

Pieper, who will report directly to Isom, replaced Vasu Raju after a corporate business-travel strategy failed its goal and ignited fierce pushback from travel industry leaders.

“He is exactly the kind of leader we want at American — collaborative and a great people leader with a relentless focus on delivering results while keeping an eye to the future,” Isom said in a staff note seen by CNBC.

Pieper joined American after time at Northwest Airlines, Delta and Alaska Airlines after entering the industry in the late 1990s.

He will oversee, among other departments, American’s commercial business strategy, loyalty program, network planning and revenue and sales departments.

Over the summer the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a partnership proposal between American and JetBlue in the northeast United States.

Meanwhile, American Airline officials added in a release Steve Johnson will return as the airline’s chief strategy officer.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s Anita Chabria again. Today, I’m coming to you from a coffee shop where I just used Apple Pay to buy a dirty chai.

Why does that matter? Because in the last five minutes, I’ve dropped all kinds of data into the universe. What I drink, how much I’ll pay for it, how long I sat here using this Wi-Fi and dozens of other details that companies are willing to pay for but that I don’t even think about — much less benefit from.

Every day, we all walk around dropping data like garbage — when in reality it’s gold. Especially in the age of budding artificial intelligence, when the smallest bit of insight is being crammed into these new robo-gods in the hope of making them seem ever smarter and more human.

It all raises the question, if it’s our data, shouldn’t we be paid for it?

André Vellozo thinks so, and is working to make that a reality. He’s a Brazilian hippie based in Silicon Valley, an outsider in an increasingly conservative and insular community with an idea that’s more about equality than power.

“Everything you do generates value and data,” Vellozo said. “Now you can collect.”

Here’s what he envisions — and why it’s as much politics as business.

A bus stop advertises Artisan AI, an artificial intelligence software company, along the Embarcadero in downtown San Francisco.

(Florence Middleton / For The Times)

Pennies add up

Think of Vellozo’s idea a bit like streaming royalties, giving you a small paycheck every time information you create is used, be it details of a coffee purchase or your hospital stay. Obviously, an artist could never keep track of every single time their show or song is played — they rely on managers and brokers.

Vellozo’s company, DrumWave, would act as that broker for individuals’ data. In his scenario, every person from birth would have a digital wallet where every bit of data they drop is accounted for. This is stuff you are already creating, whether you’re aware of it or not — and which companies are too often collecting, whether you are aware of it or not.

How many “accept all” buttons have you clicked in your life without reading the details of what you are agreeing to, including allowing others to sell your data for their own profit?

When companies want to use that data — which they do to understand economics in the macro and micro, or to study health outcomes, or to feed those large language models such as ChatGPT — DrumWave packages it and licenses it for use without identifying details, but with each consumer’s consent.

Data goes out, payment comes it — over and over for the life of the account.

It’s not as far-fetched as it might seem. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a similar idea in 2019, arguing, “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data.”

Nothing ever came of it, in no small part due to the lobbying and money thrown at government by big tech. I asked the governor’s office if there was still any interest around the idea and got nothing back from them. But California already has a law that could give folks control of their data, though it isn’t often used the way Vellozo envisions.

Downsides

There are, of course, many obstacles and potential pitfalls. Data privacy is one that comes up often — do we really want to be selling the details of our most recent colonoscopy, anonymous or not?

And of course, there’s also the potential for exploitation. What data would the poor or desperate be willing to sell, and how cheaply?

Annemarie Butler is an associate professor of philosophy at Iowa State University who specializes in the ethics of AI. She wonders if people would really understand what their data was being used for or by whom, and if they would be able to pull it back in any way once it’s out there.

She also said that there may be no meaningful way to opt out.

“Our own data are not always restricted to that one person,” she warns. “DNA is probably the clearest example of this: When one shares a DNA sample, she shares vital (and immutable) information about any of her blood relatives. And yet only she provides the consent.”

Of course, privacy is something of an illusion right now.

And, Vellozo points out, it’s not just that we are currently giving data away for free under the current system — we are all actually paying to create that data in the first place. We pay for the electricity that charges our phones. We pay the monthly service charge on our devices. We are actively putting in our time and labor to create the information.

Vellozo’s company is currently running a pilot of digital wallets with rideshare drivers in California.

He points out that these drivers spend a lot of money and energy creating information that will likely be used to train their AI replacements — their gas, the cost of the car, insurance, maintenance and time. Then all that information — who they pick up, when, how long the ride is and a million other details — is just collected and used to create profit for others.

In another milestone, Brazil — a country that has embraced a national model of digital payments much to the chagrin of many technology and banking companies, and President Trump for that matter — is on board with the idea of a digital wallet for all citizens. Vellozo was back home this week to work on that effort.

A check on AI

So why does all this matter in a politics newsletter?

Beyond money, data ownership offers another benefit: Regulation. Although California has arguably done more to regulate AI than almost any other state, the controls on the technology remain woefully slim. The federal government, after a fancy dinner redolent in flattery at the White House, has made it clear it has no interest in protecting people from this powerful technology, or the men who would wield it.

Vellozo sees the ownership of data as an important step in curbing the power of corporations to pursue ever-mightier AI models without oversight.

The coming changes induced by artificial intelligence are going to be profound for the average person. Already, we are seeing a world in which physical money, or at least the movement of it, is increasingly a relic. Financial companies are becoming tech companies, and money is digital (yes, economists, I know this is technically too simple).

Combine that with the changes in our ability to earn money through work, and the power imbalance already faced by the poor and working class becomes, well, really bad. Remember the railroad barons? This is going to make it seem like they were running ice cream trucks.

We need to rethink what a successful economy looks like. Because AI is going to give a few people not just a lot of money, but a lot of power — by scavenging the knowledge and work of the rest of us. It will take all of us to build successful AI, but the rewards will go to a handful.

So the idea of owning our data is not really about Vellozo’s company or if it accomplishes its goal.

It’s about creating a future in which individual power isn’t a thing of the past.

And where the coming changes benefit society, not just the corporate titans who would like us all to remain too confused to object.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Just like humans, AI can get ‘brain rot’ from low-quality text and the effects appear to linger, pre-print study says
The what happened: Trump empowers election deniers, still fixated on 2020 grievances
The L.A. Times special: Malibu residents flee as international buyers snap up burned-out lots

P.S. We’re continuing to look at the blatant (and frankly frightening) propaganda that Homeland Security is posting on its official social media. Case in point, this recruitment ad with … medieval knights? Not only is this image chock-full of Christian nationalism dog whistles, it’s aimed at the young men Immigration and Customs Enforcement is hoping to recruit with its edgelord/video game fanatasies that would turn legimate law enforcement efforts into a religious crusade against immigrants.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday extended her order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago before the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

District Judge April Perry, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, decided to keep the ban until there’s a full trial on the issue or the high court rules.

On Oct. 9, Perry issued the original order that was to expire Thursday.

Five days earlier, Trump ordered the deployment to Chicago.

Her earlier decision came as 200 members of the Texas National Guard arrived at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the south Chicago suburb of Broadway. People opposed to the ICE presence have protested there.

The deployment also included 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and 16 troops from California.

Perry had found there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.” She said the Department of Homeland Security’s information of protests are “unreliable.”

On Thursday, the three-judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals backed Perry’s ruling, writing that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

The Trump administration accused the appeals judges of “judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.”

The federal government filed an emergency appeal to the high court.

Originally, Department of Justice lawyers proposed extending that order another 30 days in a Tuesday filing.

But because a temporary restraining order can only be extended once, the judge warned Wednesday that “whatever extension we make has to be the right one” to prevent a gap in judicial orders “that would allow troops be deployed on the streets.”

In a filing Friday to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said the judicial branch has no right to “second guess” a president’s judgment on national security or military actions. He said the guard is needed to protect federal immigration agents and property from protesters.

Even if the high court stays Perry’s temporary restraining order, the state would seek a “quick trial” or other expedited injunction hearing, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said.

In Portland, Ore., an expedited trial is planned for next week after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned another temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, blocking National Guard deployment there.

On Wednesday night, the Trump administration asked the full circuit not to examine the three-judge ruling.

The district judge in Oregon is planning a hearing on Friday to consider whether to dissolve or suspend the temporary restraining order.

The Trump administration is planning to send dozens of federal agents to San Francisco on Thursday, a source told CNN.

Oct. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a decision in the case Louisiana vs. Callais that may guide how the Voting Rights Act is enforced.

The high court heard rearguments last week in the case over the Louisiana legislature’s redistricted congressional map. A decision may be weeks, if not months, away.

The legislature redrew its congressional map in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new map included two districts where a majority of voters are Black out of six districts total.

Plaintiffs in Louisiana vs. Callais argue that the redrawn map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because race was a guiding consideration in redistricting.

The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of this case with reargument under a supplemental question: Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutional?

The collision between these two pieces of doctrine, both intended to insure equality in political participation, raises a critical question about how race and representation should be approached, one that the court is now poised to answer.

“The court is signaling that there has to be some reconciliation that happens beyond the status quo,” Atiba Ellis, Laura B. Chisholm Distinguished Research Scholar and professor of law in the Case Western Reserve School of Law, told UPI. “It’s hard to predict exactly how far that will go.”

One goal, different approaches

Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause may share an underlying purpose but they take different approaches to meeting that goal.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in election practices.

The extremes, according to Ellis, are that the court could determine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional or it could reinterpret the test that it has long used in addressing concerns about race in redistricting cases.

Somewhere between the extremes is the court striking down the map at question but preserving Section 2.

“On the scale of possible solutions, it demonstrates that the court, informed by its colorblind jurisprudence that we saw in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College, is wanting to further restrict if not all but abolish the use of race-conscious remedies in the elections context,” Ellis said.

Legal tests, cases

In the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The test that guides Section 2 enforcement, referred to as the Gingles test, is the criteria required to prove vote dilution under Section 2. It is based on the court’s decision in the case Thornburg vs. Gingles in 1986.

The Gingles test is a “results test,” Ellis said.

“We simply look at a practice like redistricting in its context and the results that it has,” he said. “Thornburg v. Gingles basically created a roadmap for the inquiry. Then a court can make an inquiry within the totality of the circumstances, including the impact, the history, the background and determine whether that practice violates Section 2.”

Equal Protection Clause enforcement is guided in part by a precedent established in the case Shaw vs. Reno. This case in 1993 was over an oddly shaped majority-Black congressional district drawn in North Carolina.

The Supreme Court struck down this map, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was a predominant factor in its creation.

Unlike the Gingles test, the Shaw test is based on intent, according to Ellis.

“From the Shaw line to today, legislatures have had to basically walk this balance between not making race the predominant factor in redistricting — but you also can’t use race divisively by subsuming a minority group’s political power to the majority’s advantage,” Ellis said. “The former is what the Shaw line of precedent is out to do. The latter is what Section 2 does.”

“The problem, at least according to the Callais plaintiffs bringing the suit and other political entities that are supporting their position, is that these two precedents are inherently irreconcilable,” he continued.

John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, serves as a member of the counsel in the Louisiana vs. Callais case arguing in defense of the Louisiana congressional map. He represents the appellants in the case Robinson vs. Landry, which was the impetus for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map.

Cusick told UPI that the case is part of a broader effort to limit race-conscious remedies to Civil Rights violations.

“What’s at stake in this case is that opponents are seeking to roll back progress while there is a simple truth that remains: that Black voters in Louisiana deserve the same fair and effective representation as many other communities throughout the country,” Cusick said. “So Louisianans have organized and legislated and litigated for the promise of a fair legislative map.”

“What’s consistent here is that decades of Supreme Court precedent make clear that districts created to remedy the type of racial discrimination against Black voters that’s at the heart of this case is clear and consistent and well-settled law,” he continued. “That Louisiana creating a first and second majority minority district is constitutional and not, per se, a racial gerrymander.”

Broader issue

Based on the Supreme Court precedents at play, Cusick believes Louisiana’s congressional map will be found to be permissible. However, the supplemental question over whether the constitutionality of Section 2 as a whole could send ripples across Civil Rights law.

“The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of Civil Rights legislation,” Cusick said. “It has the greatest effect on this country’s promise of full and equal citizenship for all Americans. We are seeing efforts throughout the country to attack many of the tools that Civil Rights legislatures have relied on, whether they are constitutional protections, whether they are statutory protections, that identify racial discrimination, that root it out and provide fair and effective remedies in doing so.”

Cusick adds that attempts to peel away Section 2 can also have effects beyond Civil Rights protections against racial discrimination. Protections for people based on gender identity and disability are also at risk.

“If the court is adhering to the supplemental question presented, this case shouldn’t have a broader impact on the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, let alone other areas of the law,” Cusick said. “While we’re hopeful of that, we’re not naive.”

SACRAMENTO — Some witty person long ago gave us this immortal line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Humorist Will Rogers usually is credited — wrongly. Mark Twain, too, falsely.

The real author was Gideon J. Tucker, a former newspaper editor who founded the New York Daily News. He later became a state legislator and judge, and he crafted the comment in an 1866 court opinion.

Anyway, Californians are safe from further legislative harm for now. State lawmakers have gone home for the year after passing 917 bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 794 (87%) and vetoed 123 (13%).

I’m not aware of any person’s life being jeopardized. Well, maybe after the lawmakers and governor cut back Medi-Cal healthcare for undocumented immigrants to save money.

One could argue — and many interests did — that what the Legislature did to increase housing availability made some existing residential neighborhoods less safe from congestion and possible declining property values.

But kudos to the lawmakers and governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago.

Public pressure generated by unaffordable costs — both for homebuyers and renters — spurred the politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage much more development. The goal is to close the gap between short supply and high demand.

But legislative passage was achieved over stiff opposition from some cities — especially Los Angeles — that objected to loss of local control.

“It’s a touchy issue that affects zoning and is always going to be controversial,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who finessed through a bill that will allow construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs such as light-rail and bus stations. The measure overrides local zoning ordinances.

Wiener had been trying unsuccessfully for eight years to get similar legislation passed. Finally, a fire was lit under legislators by their constituents.

“The public understands we’ve screwed ourselves by making it so hard to build homes,” Wiener says.

But to win support, he had to accept tons of exceptions. For example, the bill will affect only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. There are eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Sacramento.

“Over time it will have a big effect, but it’s going to be gradual,” Wiener says.

Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn., calls it “a positive step in the right direction.”

Yes, and that direction is up rather than sideways. California could accommodate a cherished ranch-house lifestyle when the population was only a third or half the nearly 40 million people it is today. But sprawling horizontally has become impossibly pricey for too many and also resulted in long smog-spewing commutes and risky encroachment into wildfire country.

Dozens of housing bills were passed and signed this year, ranging from minutia to major.

The Legislature continued to peck away at the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Opponents of projects have used the act to block construction for reasons other than environmental protection. Local NIMBYs — ”Not in my backyard” — have resisted neighborhood growth. Businesses have tried to avoid competition. Unions have practiced “greenmail” by threatening lawsuits unless developers signed labor agreements.

Another Wiener bill narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction. It also exempted from CEQA a bunch of nonresidental projects, including health clinics, manufacturing facilities and child-care centers.

A bill by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) exempted most urban infill housing projects from CEQA.

You can’t argue that the Legislature wasn’t productive this year. But you can spar over whether some of the production was a mistake. Some bills were both good and bad. That’s the nature of compromise in a functioning democracy.

One example: The state’s complex cap-and-trade program was extended beyond 2030 to 2045. That’s probably a good thing. It’s funded by businesses buying permits to emit greenhouse gases and pays for lots of clean energy projects.

But a questionable major piece of that legislation — demanded by Newsom — was a 20-year, $1-billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money for California’s disappointing bullet train project.

The project was sold to voters in 2008 as a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s $100 billion over budget and far behind its promised 2020 completion. No tracks have even been laid. The new infusion of cap-and-trade money will merely pay for the initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield, which the state vows to open by 2033. Hot darn!

Newsom muscled through the bill at the last moment. The Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future.

One gutsy thing Democratic legislators and the governor did — given that “oil,” among the left, has become the new hated pejorative sidekick of “tobacco” — was to permit production of 2,000 more wells annually in oil-rich Kern County.

It was part of a compromise: Drilling in federal offshore waters was made more difficult by tightening pipeline regulations.

Credit the persistent Sen. Shannon Grove, a conservative Republican from Bakersfield who is adept at working across the aisle.

“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” she told colleagues during the Senate floor debate, citing not only oil but wind, solar and battery storage. “We are the experts. We are not the enemy.”

But what mostly motivated Newsom and legislators was the threat of even higher gas prices as two large California oil refineries prepare to shut down. Most Democrats agreed that the politically smart move was to allow more oil production, even as the state attempts to transcend entirely to clean energy.

Let’s not forget the most important bill the Legislature annually passes: the state budget. This year’s totaled $325 billion and allegedly covered a $15-billion deficit through borrowing, a few cuts and numerous gimmicks.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek last week projected deficit spending of up to $25 billion annually for the next three years.

In California, no state bank account is safe when the Legislature is in session.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Sen. Scott Wiener to run for congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
California vs. Trump: Federal troops in San Francisco? Locals, leaders scoff at Trump’s plan
The L.A. Times Special: One of O.C.’s loudest pro-immigrant politicians is one of the unlikeliest

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner.

Andrea Grossman was a kid when her mother pulled her out of school to join the 1969 Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, a nationwide day of peaceful protest. They held hands while her mom walked in a knit suit and ladylike shoes, joining more than 2 million people nationwide.

Grossman, now one of the organizers of the Beverly Hills segment of the “No Kings” marches being held in more than 2,000 cities this weekend, remembers that opponents of that long-ago protest threw stinky rat poison on the lawns in Exposition Park so participants couldn’t sit on the grass. But protesters were not deterred.

“It made it all the more rebellious of us to be there,” Grossman told me. “It made us more insistent that we had to be there.”

Today, that rat poison is being metaphorically hurled by MAGA leaders such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), in the form of noxious allegations that the No Kings marches are “Hate America” rallies staged for a “rabid base” of criminal agitators.

“It’s all the pro-Hamas wing and the antifa people, they’re all coming out,” Johnson said on Fox News.

Of course, that is dumb and false. It would be all too easy to write off comments such as Johnson’s as partisan jibber-jabber, but his insidious words are the kind of poison that seeps into the soil and shouldn’t be ignored.

Participants in the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam demonstrate in 1969 at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

(Clay Geerdes / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

Johnson isn’t the only Republican working overtime to smear everyday folks such as Grossman. Talk about organized campaigns — Trumpites are all going after No Kings with the same script.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said: “These guys are playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country. You’ll see them on Saturday on the Mall. They just do not love this country.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has parroted similar messaging, and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), diving into old, antisemitic conspiracies, described the events as “a Soros paid-for protest,” adding that the National Guard would probably need to be activated.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi added her two cents, apparently confusing printed signs, the kind that say, a union or organizations such as Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, might have made up, with evidence of diabolical terrorist networks.

“You’re seeing people out there with thousands of signs that all match,” Bondi told Fox News. “They are organized and someone is funding it. We are going to get to the funding of antifa, we’re going to get to the root of antifa and we are going to find and charge all of those people who are causing this chaos.”

Note to Bondi: Matching signs are not a conspiracy. Just ask Kinko’s.

But in her defense, it was a mere two weeks ago when President Trump addressed the leaders of the U.S. military at Quantico, Va. There, he warned that the use of military troops on American protesters was about to become reality, if he has any say in it.

“This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” Trump said.

That came on the heels of his executive order declaring antifa — a general descriptor for anyone who opposes fascism — as a terrorist organization.

So to recap: The president declares “antifa” a terrorist organization, warns military brass that they must be ready to defeat internal enemies, then MAGA Republicans begin to falsely claim No Kings rallies are full of “antifa.”

Andrea Grossman, second from left, with other activists in 2024 discussing efforts to protect a Beverly Hills abortion clinic.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Bad journalism

Grossman calls the idea that she is anti-American “preposterous.”

“We wouldn’t be out there spending our time and energy if we weren’t desperately worried for our country. Of course we love America,” she said.

Here’s where I eat my own: Media are failing miserably and unforgivably in covering this issue — this terrifying march to turn peaceful protest into a criminal offense. We shouldn’t be asking Grossman whether she hates America. We should be pushing Johnson and his ilk to defend his attack on people like her.

“We can both recognize that it’s ridiculous and also that it’s pretty sinister,” Leah Greenberg told me.

She’s the co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization behind the No Kings effort, and she’ll be at the D.C. event — the one Johnson specifically condemned. At the first No Kings rally in Philadelphia, her husband led more than 1,000 people in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, some real anti-American stuff.

“We have to see what is currently happening here, not only as Republicans desperately grasping for a message, but also of them creating a permission structure to, you know, invite a broader crackdown on peaceful dissent,” Greenberg warned.

I asked Grossman whether she felt personally at risk by taking on this organizing role at such a fraught moment, even in Beverly Hills, that hotbed of radicalism. At first, she said she didn’t. But when I asked her why not, she paused for a bit.

“We have to put ourselves out there and it takes risk sometimes,” she finally said. “I mean, I don’t consider myself a freedom fighter by any means. I consider myself a woman of a certain age, you know, who has to stand up and be loud and noisy.”

In her regular life, Grossman runs one of the preeminent literary salons in Los Angeles, drawing authors and luminaries including Rob Reiner, Rep. Jasmine Crockett and legal podcaster Joyce Vance. She was also one of the “abortion yentas” who last year fought a losing battle to protect a controversial abortion clinic in the neighborhood. So she knows risk and doesn’t shy away from it.

But this moment is different, because it’s not normal for a president to declare protests to be terrorism, or for legislators to deem them un-American. It is not normal to fear that the military will be used to silence us.

Which is why No Kings is so crucial to this moment.

It is a movement that seeks to draw the most normal, the most average, the most mild of people to highlight just how abnormal this government is. No flags are going to be burned (though that is a protected 1st Amendment right, no matter what Trump says). No Molotov cocktails will be tossed. Hamas is not invited.

Greenberg said that “anybody with eyes” can see who comes to a No Kings rally.

“You see veterans, you see members of faith communities. You see federal workers, dedicated public servants. You see parents and grandparents and kids all coming together in this joyous and defiant opposition,” she said.

Those are exactly the types that turned out in June, when somewhere between 3 million and 6 million people marched in what felt like a cross between a fall school carnival and a Fourth of July parade. People sauntered, they sat, they sang. But most of all, they showed up.

“If we’re going to be afraid and not say anything, then [they] win,” Grossman said. “The only way to stand up to oppression is to get out there in huge, great numbers.”

So like her mom, she’ll march and she’ll ignore the poison — and much to the dismay of MAGA, I suspect millions of others just like her will too.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Justices lean toward rejecting race in redistricting, likely boosting GOP in 2026
The what happened: Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose
The L.A. Times special: USC finds itself in funding battle between Trump and Newsom over the campus’ future

P.S. This is another bit of propaganda from the Department of Homeland Security. “Remigrate” is a term often embraced by the far right that alludes to the forced deportation of immigrants, legal or not, especially those who are not of European origin.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Oct. 9 (UPI) — InfoWars publisher Alex Jones wants the Supreme Court to pause a $1.44 billion defamation judgment against him for making false claims about a 2012 school shooting.

Conservative conspiracy theorist Jones on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to pause his payments to the surviving families of the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, according to The Hill.

The families successfully sued Jones for defamation after he claimed the school shooting was a hoax and are readying to take control of InfoWars, which they intend to turn over to the satirical news site The Onion.

In Thursday’s emergency filing, Jones says the pause is necessary to stop his InfoWars site from being “acquired by its ideological nemesis and destroyed,” NBC News reported.

A Connecticut court in 2022 ordered Jones to pay $1.44 billion to the surviving families of 20 schoolchildren, who were shot and killed by Adam Lanza on Dec. 14, 2012.

Jones filed for personal bankruptcy soon after several judgments were entered against him, but his petition was denied.

He earlier was fined $25,000 per day by a Connecticut judge for refusing to submit to a deposition in the matter.

Lanza, 20, murdered his mother and used her firearm to shoot and kill 20 school children and six adults at the same elementary school he once attended in Newtown, Conn.

He shot and killed himself when law enforcement arrived at the school, which since has been razed and replaced.

WASHINGTON — A peace plan for Gaza touted by President Trump as a historic breakthrough is facing its first test this week after Israel and Hamas agreed in principle to an initial list of terms that could end the war.

The 20-point American plan reflects an administration losing patience with Israel, while also leveraging its relationships with Arab partners to finally pressure Hamas into a deal that would release the Israeli hostages still in its custody two years since the Oct. 7 attack.

On Wednesday evening, Trump said both parties had agreed to the first phase of his plan, securing the hostage release in exchange for a limited Israeli troop withdrawal.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump wrote on social media. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”

The president’s push comes amid an unexpected and growing divide within the Republican base over support for Israel — once seen as a bedrock of the alliance — and as Trump presents himself as a global peacemaker, ahead of the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

The president is expected to travel to the region over the weekend to secure the deal.

“All Parties will be treated fairly!” Trump wrote. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

Who controls Hamas?

People attend a pro-Palestinian vigil and protest on Tuesday outside Columbia University.

(Adam Gray / Getty Images)

One former senior Biden administration official who worked on the Gaza crisis told The Times that Trump’s 20-point plan “is credible,” if not fully baked, and that Trump’s position of influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may give the proposal “a real chance of success.”

Devastated after two years of war, Hamas had seen its continued holding of the hostages as its only remaining leverage to ensure later stages of a peace agreement are implemented by the Israelis. Trump’s plan demands an immediate release of all of the hostages, both dead and alive, in an initial phase, preceding reconstruction of the Strip that removes Hamas from power.

An opening emerged for progress in the talks after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

“A lot of this stems from the Israeli attack on Hamas in Doha,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations. “The Qataris panicked, and went to Trump to ask for defense and assurance that Israel would never do that again. And I think he had a price: to deliver Hamas.”

“Can they deliver Hamas? They can deliver the guys in Doha,” Abrams continued. “They can threaten them with expulsion. They can tell them that they’re living in fancy hotels, but they can be Palestinian refugees tomorrow morning. But the relationship between those people and the leadership on the ground is very unclear.”

U.S. officials believe it is the Egyptians, more so than the Qataris, with intelligence, sourcing and leverage on the ground in the Gaza Strip that can bring Hamas’ chain of command in compliance with a settlement. But whether Egyptian leadership is willing to exert its leverage is unclear. An unusual Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, in violation of the Camp David Accords that have secured Israel’s peace with Egypt since 1979, is causing widespread concern in diplomatic circles over Cairo’s intentions.

Talks over Trump’s plan have moved from Doha to Cairo.

“If talks in Cairo focus solely on the first phase of the peace plan — the release of hostages and prisoners, the first Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the flood of humanitarian goods — there is a good chance of success,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute. “But if the talks range into subsequent phases of the plan, including Hamas disarmament and deployment of third-country troops to Gaza, it will likely get bogged down as has been the case before.”

Pressure on Israel

Trump’s diplomatic push has also exposed growing concern within his administration over the damage Israel’s continued military campaign is inflicting on its global reputation — and on its support within the United States.

Over the weekend, speaking with an Israeli news outlet, Trump said that Netanyahu had “gone too far in Gaza, and Israel has lost a lot of support in the world.” It came amid reports that Trump had scolded Netanyahu over his initial reaction to Hamas’ willingness to negotiate over the plan.

“Whether you believe it was justified or not, right or not, you cannot ignore the impact that this has had on Israel’s global standing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

Much of the world supports Trump’s plan, which would see a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee oversee governance in the strip, and an international coalition funding the reconstruction of its economy and infrastructure. Palestinians would not be forced to leave the territory.

The proposal comes amid signs that Israel is rapidly losing support within the United States, with new polls showing 59% of Americans disapprove of its actions. A Pew poll showed that 55% of Republicans said they view Israel favorably — but that a growing generational divide, across party lines, risks eroding support for Israel over time.

“I think it’s gone on too long,” Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and former Fox News host, said last week on the Fifth Column Podcast. “I know what Hamas does, trust me. And I’ve been covering it. But that doesn’t mean that the devastation and destruction can go on forever.”

Other prominent figures on the right, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and commentators Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, have become more vocal criticizing Israel in recent months.

“Israel’s now taken out Hezbollah, it’s decimated Hamas, it had a war with Iran that we almost got dragged into,” Kelly added. “It’s time to wrap it up in this American’s view. I am entitled to that opinion. And I will not be shamed out of it by being called an antisemite.”

Netanyahu and his closest allies, including Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, have long believed that Israel is best served relying more on deep ties to the American right than on Jewish Americans overall or on balanced bipartisanship. Increased opposition to the war among MAGA Republicans may force Netanyahu’s team to expedite its end.

Whether discontent on the right is driving Trump to push for a peace deal is unclear. But his personal involvement could prove key to success, regardless of his motives, Satloff said.

“The key new factor that is giving a chance to phase one is President Trump’s intense personal interest in freeing the hostages and the desire of key Arab players not to disappoint him,” Satloff said. “But we shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of even this critical factor — the entire house of cards can still collapse.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘I don’t want this all on camera,’ gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter says in testy interview
The deep dive: Your guide to Proposition 50: California redistricting
The L.A. Times Special: Those hyper-realistic videos you’re seeing could be fake news — because they’re actually AI ads

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Oct. 8 (UPI) — Government shutdowns are the mark of some of the most tumultuous times on Capitol Hill in the United States, grinding government operations to a halt as lawmakers reach an impasse over funding.

Last week, the U.S. government was shut down after Congress failed to pass an appropriations bill or continuing resolution to continue funding employees and programs.

Republicans and Democrats stand apart on funding for Medicaid after the Republican majority and President Donald Trump passed a plan to cut access for an estimated 15 million people.

It is the third time the government has shut down during a Trump presidency.

In the last 50 years the government has come to at least a partial shutdown 11 times. Some have lasted a day or more. Others have stretched into weeks.

The Civiletti opinions

The U.S. government has faced a number of funding gaps that did not result in government shutdowns. Between 1976 and 1979, there were six funding gaps that lasted eight days or more. Government agencies continued to function.

In 1980 and 1981, everything changed. U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti penned a series of opinions that outlined how and why a government shutdown would happen.

Charged with interpreting the Antideficiency Act, a law passed by Congress in 1870, Civiletti determined that government agencies are not allowed to spend funds without approval under congressional appropriations unless “necessary for the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

Based on this interpretation, most federal employees would be furloughed during a funding gap.

Civiletti loosened his interpretation slightly in a third opinion, stating that agencies can do what is necessary to shut down in an orderly manner.

Since Civiletti’s opinions, funding gaps have resulted in government shutdowns.

Reagan administration

The federal government had funding gaps on eight occasions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, leading to at least some government agencies shutting down. It is the most shutdowns under a single president.

Three times during Reagan’s presidency, federal employees were furloughed.

In November 1981, the government shut down for two days after Reagan vetoed an emergency resolution put forward by Congress because he sought deeper funding cuts to domestic spending while maintaining defense spending.

The House, under a Democratic majority, sought to cut defense spending, and protect spending on social safety-net programs domestically.

On Nov. 23, 1981, Congress passed a joint resolution with broad support to make continuing appropriations. Reagan signed the bill that in effect bought time for the two sides to work out a longer term funding strategy.

In 1984, Reagan and Congress sparred over a crime bill, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It resulted in a two-day shutdown with about 500,000 federal workers being furloughed.

Reagan wanted the bill to impose stricter penalties and limit the efficacy of the insanity defense. Democrats sought to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision that peeled back Title IX protections.

Democrats also wanted to approve funding for local clean water projects, which Reagan opposed.

Democrats ultimately did not get the provisions they wanted in the final bill. Reagan meanwhile achieved his goal of installing stricter sentencing guidelines such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes and no-bail detentions. The bill also raised the standard for defendants to prove insanity.

The third shutdown during Reagan’s presidency lasted about two days. On Oct. 16, 1986, a continuing resolution that averted a shutdown earlier expired.

Welfare was at the center of the disagreement between House Democrats and Reagan. Democrats again attempted to protect and enhance social safety nets with an expansion of welfare access for families with dependent children.

Reagan’s vision was starkly different. He framed welfare as a tool that made people dependent on government support.

Democrats yielded on their push to expand welfare access with a promise that it would be discussed again in the future.Congress passed an omnibus spending bill after two days of a shutdown.

The debate over welfare in 1986 set the stage for the Family Support Act of 1988, a bipartisan bill that established the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program and created a new framework for child support payments, including wage withholding.

The 1990s

The first government shutdown of the 1990s was under the watch of President George H.W. Bush. The president wanted a funding bill that included a plan to reduce the federal deficit.

Democrats had a majority in the House and Senate.

On Oct. 5, 1990, government operations halted as Bush threatened to veto any bill that did not include the federal deficit plan he wanted. He vetoed such a bill the day after the shutdown began.

Two days later, the House and Senate passed a continuing resolution that was effectively the same as the bill they proposed just days earlier. Congress had the votes to sustain Bush’s veto this time, passing a bill to open the government.

The first of two shutdowns under President Bill Clinton began on Nov. 13, 1995, but the battle at the center of it caused a second shutdown to follow just weeks later.

Clinton and the Republican majority in the U.S. House, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, were apart on spending cuts. Republicans were seeking cuts to Medicare as well as agenda items Clinton favored such as public health, public education and environmental programs.

Republicans put forward a spending proposal that included the cuts Clinton opposed. Gingrich said the House would not raise the debt limit either. After five days, the shutdown ended when Congress agreed to a stopgap funding bill.

On Dec. 15, the stopgap funding expired and a long-term agreement had not been made. The longest government shutdown to that point commenced through the holiday season, lasting 21 days.

Senate-majority leader Bob Dole, Clinton’s opponent in the 1996 election, urged his side to end the standstill and both sides agreed to a compromised budget bill. The bill included tax increases and restored funding to education, health and environmental programs.

Healthcare and immigration

The Affordable Care Act has been one of the more polarizing pieces of legislation on Capitol Hill in modern history. In 2013, House Republicans attempted to undercut the law by defunding it and delaying its implementation.

The Democratic majority in the Senate rejected attempts by the Republican-led House to strip funding from the ACA on multiple occasions throughout the budget negotiation process. The deadline to pass a budget bill came and went with no resolution and a 16-day shutdown began.

On Oct. 17, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act to fund the government and suspend the debt limit in 2014. The bill did not include the Republican cuts to the ACA.

The first of three shutdowns under Trump began on Jan. 20, 2018. Congress failed to pass a government funding bill due to disputes between Trump’s Republican Party and Democrats over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.

The Trump administration attempted to end the Obama-era policy, calling on Congress to replace it within six months. A federal judge thwarted Trump’s plan and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against the president but the policy remained central to budget negotiations in the months to come.

The shutdown lasted less than three days before Congress passed a continuing resolution. A replacement for DACA was not included and the courts rejected Trump’s attempt to end the program by the time the continuing resolution expired. No protections for dreamers were included either.

Immigration remained a key issue when the government shut down again in late 2018. Trump called for funding for a border wall across the southern border to be included in the next budget bill. He demanded more than $5 billion for the project, saying the shutdown would not end until that funding was approved.

The shutdown lasted 35 days, the longest of any government shutdown in U.S. history. It began on Dec. 21, 2018 and ended on Jan. 25, 2019.

About 800,000 federal workers were furloughed during those 35 days. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it costs the United States about $11 billion in gross domestic product lost.

Trump signed a continuing resolution to open the government back up without any border wall funding included. When the continuing resolution expired, Congress approved $1.375 billion for border fencing, more than $4 billion less than what Trump demanded.

Oct. 7 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s conservative justices signaled Tuesday they were likely to side with a Christian therapist who argued that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates her free speech rights.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor whose practice is based in Christianity who says the Colorado law prevents her from assisting her minor clients who seek “to live a life consistent with their faith.”

Conversion therapy can include psychological, behavioral, physical and faith-based practices that are intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identification. Opponents point to evidence that it is harmful and leads to more serious psychological problems for people who experience it. Roughly half of states have banned it.

However, the court’s justices argued whether the conversion therapy banned by Colorado’s law is harmful to minors and if it was a violation of the Constitution’s free speech protections or regulation of medical treatment.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Colorado’s law would mean different treatment for an adolescent male who approaches a licensed therapist hoping to lessen his attraction for other males versus another adolescent male who wants to feel something different.

“It looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” he said.

Colorado is one of 23 states that ban conversion therapy, which is the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy.

Critics call the technique a pseudoscience, and the American Psychological Association and several other mental health and LGBTQIA+ organizations have come out in opposition to its use.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said a Supreme Court ruling striking down Colorado’s law could imperil not only efforts to prevent conversion therapy but other healthcare treatments that medical experts say are harmful or ineffective.

“For centuries, states have regulated professional healthcare to protect patients from substandard treatment,” he said, according to NBC News. “Throughout that time, the First Amendment has never barred states’ ability to prohibit substandard care, regardless of whether it is carried out through words.”

James Campbell, the lawyer for Chiles argued that the studies showing the harms of conversation therapy are flawed because they lump together voluntary conversations between a client and therapist with coercive measures, like shock therapy.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, is representing Chiles in the case.

Shannon Stevenson, the state’s solicitor general, argued that the harm in conversion therapy “comes from telling someone there’s something innate about yourself you can change.”

“Then you spend all kinds of time and effort trying to do that,” she said. “And you fail, but you bore the burden.

A lower court ruling said the Colorado law is a restriction on mental health treatment, not on speech. In a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, justices said the ban aligned with medical consensus that conversion therapy is “ineffective and harmful” and “rationally serves” the interests of the state in protecting minors.

Stevenson reiterated that argument saying that “Colorado’s law regulates treatments only and because it enforces the professional standard of care,” not speech.

However, conservative members of the court didn’t seem to buy that argument.

“Just because they’re engaged in conduct doesn’t mean that their words aren’t protected,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberals, brought up how the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. She asked if Colorado’s law wasn’t just the functional equivalent” of Tennessee’s law.

“I realized that there were two different constitutional provisions at issue, but the regulations work in basically the same way, and the question of scrutiny applies in both contexts,” she said. “So it just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here.”

Hashim Mooppan, a principal deputy solicitor general representing the Trump administration, argued that Tennessee’s law concerned drugs and medical treatment while Colorado’s law was focused on what is said during talk therapy sessions.

Oct. 7 (UPI) — Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, and refused to answer questions on several topics.

Bondi declined to answer questions about the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey regarding her discussions with President Donald Trump as well as the firings of Department of Justice attorneys who worked on Jan. 6 cases and her refusal to prosecute certain cases of Trump’s allies.

Bondi also avoided questions about the files of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s alleged friendship with him. She responded that the Democrats should explain their own relationships with him, CNN reported.

Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-N.Y., said Bondi’s testimony was a new low for attorneys general.

“Her apparent strategy is to attack and conceal. Frankly, I’ve been through close to 15 of these attorney general accountability hearings, and I have never seen anything close to it in terms of the combativeness, the evasiveness and sometimes deceptiveness,” Blumenthal told reporters after leaving the hearing. “I think it is possibly a new low for attorneys general testifying before the United States Congress, and I just hope my Republican colleagues will demand more accountability than what we have seen so far.”

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., agreed with Blumenthal.

“She was fully prepared for, with specific and personal comebacks, accusing various of my colleagues, of challenging their integrity or challenging their basis for their questions in a way I’ve not ever seen,” Coons said.

The White House has already praised Bondi’s performance.

“She’s doing great,” a White House official told CNN. “Not only is the AG debunking every single bogus Democrat talking point, but she’s highlighting the Democrats’ own hypocrisy and they have no response.”

Bondi, along with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, criticized the judge in the case of Sophie Roske, the woman who planned an attack on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Roske, who called the police on herself before making contact with Kavanaugh, was sentenced to eight years in prison for the plot.

“My prosecutors did an incredible job on that case,” Bondi said. She said the Justice Department would appeal the sentence, which was 22 years below the federal guidelines and the minimum sentence prosecutors wanted. “The judge also would not refer to the defendant by his biological name,” Bondi said. Roske is transgender.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Bondi what conversations she has had with the White House about investigations into Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Comey. Bondi again declined to answer.

“I’m not going to discuss any conversations,” Bondi said to Klobuchar, CBS News reported.

Klobuchar asked her about a Truth Social post by Trump last in which he asked Bondi why she hadn’t brought charges against Comey, Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“President Trump is the most transparent president in American history, and I don’t think he said anything that he hasn’t said for years,” Bondi said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pressed her on whether the FBI found any pictures of Trump “with half-naked young women,” saying that Epstein was reported to have shown them around.

“You know, Sen. Whitehouse? You sit here and make salacious remarks, once again, trying to slander President Trump, left and right, when you’re the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants,” Bondi responded, referring to tech entrepreneur and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who has said he regretted his contacts with Epstein, CBS reported.

Since Bondi took over at the Justice Department, she and her team have fired prosecutors who worked on capitol riot cases and pushed out career FBI agents.

The Public Integrity Section is nearly empty now, and more than 70% of the lawyers in the Civil Rights Division are also gone, NPR reported.

In a letter Monday, nearly 300 former Justice Department employees asked the Oversight Committee to closely monitor the department.

“We call on Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities far more vigorously. Members in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle must provide a meaningful check on the abuses we’re witnessing,” the letter said.

The letter also alleged poor treatment of staff.

“As for its treatment of its employees, the current leadership’s behavior has been appalling. … And demonizing, firing, demoting, involuntarily transferring, and directing employees to violate their ethical duties has already caused an exodus of over 5,000 of us — draining the Department of priceless institutional knowledge and expertise, and impairing its historical success in recruiting top talent. We may feel the effects of this for generations.”

Bondi said the DOJ stands by the “many terminations” in the department since Trump took office. “We stand by all of those,” she said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in an opening statement, “What has taken place since Jan. 20, 2025, would make even President Nixon recoil.”

Durbin said Bondi has left “an enormous stain in American history.”

“It will take decades to recover,” he said.

The hearing is just two weeks after she sought and secured an indictment of Comey at the direction of the president. Democrats have said she’s weaponizing the Department of Justice, breaking with the longstanding tradition of keeping the department independent of political goals.

Comey was indicted on one count each of lying to Congress and obstructing justice for his testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020. Before the indictment, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert refused to indict because of a lack of evidence against Comey. Trump accused him of waiting too long to indict and nearly allowing the statute of limitations to run out. Siebert resigned under pressure from the administration.

Last week, Durbin said the targeting of Trump’s political enemies is “a code-red alarm for the rule of law” in a floor speech, The Washington Post reported.

“Never in the history of our country has a president so brazenly demanded the baseless prosecution of his rivals,” he said. “And he doesn’t even try to hide it.”

But Republicans claim that Bondi’s leadership is necessary after years of what they say was politicized attacks from the Justice Department under the President Joe Biden administration.

“If the facts and the evidence support the finding that Comey lied to Congress and obstructed our work, he ought to be held accountable,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chair of the Judiciary Committee.

During her confirmation hearing, Bondi vowed that weaponization of the Justice Department is over.

“I will not politicize that office,” Bondi said at the time. “I will not target people simply because of their political affiliation.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday heard a free-speech challenge to state laws against “conversion therapy” and sounded likely to rule the measures violate the 1st Amendment.

California and more than 20 other states have adopted laws to forbid licensed counselors from urging or encouraging gay or transgender teens to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

They were adopted in reaction to a history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatments that induced nausea and vomiting or administered electric shocks.

Lawmakers and medical experts said these efforts to “cure” LGBTQ+ teens were cruel and ineffective and caused lasting harm.

But these “talk therapy” laws have been challenged by a number of Christian counselors who believe they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.

The court on Tuesday heard an appeal from Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colo. She says she is an evangelical Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people of a same-sex attraction or change their gender identity.

But she sued, alleging the state law seeks to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.

She lost before a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, both of whom said the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prevent substandard healthcare.

But the justices, both conservative and liberal, said the Colorado law appeared to violate the 1st Amendment.

“What’s being regulated here is pure speech,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Moreover, he said, the state law enforces a double standard. It would punish a licensed counselor who agrees to talk to a teenage client who wants to “overcome same-sex attractions,” but not if she encourages the teen to accept or affirm those attractions.

Justice Elena Kagan said she too saw a potential 1st Amendment violation. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there was less evidence that talk therapy alone has caused real harm.

In defense of the law, Colorado state solicitor Shannon Stevenson said the law applies only to licensed counselors. It does not extend to others, including religious ministers.

The practice of medical care “is a heavily regulated area. A doctor doesn’t have a 1st Amendment right to give wrong advice to patients,” she said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others suggested counselors could still face a medical malpractice lawsuit, even if the court rules the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

Oct. 6 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell Monday of her conviction for aiding the late Jeffrey Epstein in trafficking underage girls.

Maxwell’s defense attorney argued in March to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that her client should have been legally immune in a previous agreement made with convicted sex trafficker Epstein by Florida prosecutors in 2007.

The appeals court didn’t agree with her attorneys, and the Supreme Court refused to take up the case.

“We’re, of course, deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s case,” Maxwell’s defense attorney David Oscar Markus said in a statement. “But this fight isn’t over. Serious legal and factual issues remain, and we will continue to pursue every avenue available to ensure that justice is done.”

Maxwell, 63, has served five years of her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.

Maxwell and her attorney met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for two days in July. There were growing calls from Democrats and Republicans for President Donald Trump to release files on the Epstein case and worry that he may pardon her, though he hasn’t said that he would.

In August, she was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas, though no reason was ever given for the transfer.

In early September, some of the victims of Epstein and Maxwell spoke out in Washington, D.C., about their ordeals and how the government should release the files — including the “birthday book” — to show who Epstein’s clients were. Trump called it a “Democratic hoax.”

Epstein died by suicide while in custody in 2019.

Oct. 6 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to address a number of cases concerning executive power — specifically on elections, tariffs and President Donald Trump‘s ability to fire the employees of independent agencies — as begins a new term Monday in Washington, D.C.

The decisions the high court makes in the coming months are expected to say just how aggressively Trump can wield his presidential power without interference from lower-court judges. With a conservative 6-3 majority, three of whom were handpicked by the president, the Supreme Court’s next rulings could majorly affect the president’s current policy efforts.

Among this term’s cases:

— The Supreme Court will consider whether Trump has the ability to fire the employees of certain independent government agencies. This case stems from Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in September.

This will essentially revisit the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, which upheld the FTC’s protections from removal under President Franklin Roosevelt as constitutional.

— The high court will also decide whether Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs without congressional approval.

James Sample, a Hofstra Law professor and ABC News contributor, described the case as “staggeringly important.”

“If you think of a tariff as a tax, this is one of the biggest tax hikes in American history, and it didn’t go through Congress at all.

— Birthright citizenship is also on the docket this term. Two days into his second term, Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for anyone who doesn’t have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. Lower courts have so far blocked this order.

— In Louisiana vs. Callais, the high court will decide whether the state legislature’s efforts to redistrict violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

— The Supreme Court will also hear a legal challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQIA+ youths. A Christian therapist has argued that the ban is a restriction on her First Amendment rights, while opponents say the law is simply a restriction on treatment.

According to NPR News, the Supreme Court has set a record by granting 20 of Trump’s requests to block lower court orders that went against him. The court ruled against him three times in the same eight-month span.

SACRAMENTO — Regardless of all the campaign jabber, Proposition 50 is not about saving democracy, stopping power grabs or veering off the moral high road. It’s about which political party controls Congress.

Or whether Republicans and Democrats share the power.

It’s also about exerting some control over unhinged President Trump. That would happen if voters across America next year flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat, ending one-party rule of the federal government. Proposition 50 could help do that.

Does an obedient Republican Congress continue to allow Trump to walk all over it? Or does a new Democrat-led House exercise its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances over the executive branch?

This is what’s potentially at stake in California’s special election on Nov. 4. And it’s mostly what has motivated political donors to kick in an astronomical $128 million so far for the fight.

But let’s back up.

For many decades, state legislators drew their own districts — gerrymandering them to blatantly help themselves and their party win elections. And with some creative hands from California’s House delegation, Sacramento’s lawmakers also gerrymandered congressional districts.

It was unethical but perfectly legal. The final straw came in 2001 when legislators of both parties conspired to draw districts that protected every incumbent, whether Democrat or Republican.

California voters finally had enough and in 2008 banned gerrymandering. They assigned legislative redistricting to an independent bipartisan citizens’ commission. In 2010, voters also gave the panel responsibility for drawing House seats.

It has worked great. Politicians no longer get to choose their own voters. And the districts have become much more competitive.

District maps have always been drawn at the beginning of each decade after the decennial census — until now.

This time, Trump got worried that Republicans could lose the House in next year’s elections — a fate that has often befallen a president’s party during a midterm.

So Trump pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott into orchestrating a mid-decade legislative gerrymandering of his state’s House districts, with the aim of gaining five more Republican seats. The president has also been browbeating other red states to rig their congressional lines.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly retaliated. He asked an eager Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw up new House maps designed to gain five new Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ action.

Democrats already outnumber Republicans in the California House delegation, 43 to 9. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of the 38 House seats. Nationally, Democrats need to gain just three seats to retake House control.

Unlike in Texas, Newsom needs the voters’ permission to resume gerrymandering. That’s what Proposition 50 does, along with granting voter approval of proposed new weird-looking congressional maps drawn by Democratic lawmakers.

How weird? To make a new 2nd District Democrat-friendly, it was stretched hundreds of miles from the rural northeastern Oregon border southwestward into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

Under the ballot measure, the independent commission would resume redistricting in 2031 after the next census. Proposition 50’s opponents contend Democrats can’t be trusted to keep the gerrymandering temporary.

And they’re hypocritically screaming about a “Newsom power grab” — without also pointing the finger at Trump and Abbott, who started this fight.

At its core, this is a brawl over raw political power. Forget any idealism.

Longtime Republican operative Jon Fleischman mixed his party’s principal talking point with reality in a recent blog:

“Prop. 50 is a naked power grab by Gavin Newsom,” he wrote.

“If it passes, five of nine safe GOP House seats in California will flip to safe Democrat, potentially flipping the House next year.”

In trying to rally Democratic voters — who outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California — Newsom frames Proposition 50 as essential for democracy.

“It’s all at stake,” the governor asserts, sounding a bit hyperbolic. “This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves … and stand guard for the republic and our democracy.”

Come on, our republic will survive regardless of what happens to Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal — even if Trump does strain democracy.

Proposition 50 also is opposed on idealistic grounds — particularly by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Both were strong backers of creating the independent redistricting commission. Munger has contributed $33 million to the anti-50 effort.

“Gerrymanders are a cancer and mid-decade gerrymanders are metastasis,” Munger wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month.

If Democratic politicians gerrymander California, he asserted, “then they lose the moral high ground.”

Well, if this is the moral high ground we’re living in under the Trump regime, I’d like to move to another level.

My definition of a moral high ground doesn’t include a Congress that won’t push back against a bully president who cuts back millions in research aid to universities because he doesn’t like what they teach, who sics his own masked police force of unidentified agents on California residents, who sabotages our anti-pollution programs.

Isra Ahmad, a member of the independent commission, noted in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece that “California has embraced [redistricting] equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage.”

And she asked: “Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty?”

The answer: We should all play by the same rules — even if it unfortunately requires temporary gerrymandering. After Trump leaves, we can return to the high road.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California voters were mailed inaccurate guides ahead of November special election
The interpersonal read: He’s a real pain for Gavin Newsom. And a rising Democratic star
The L.A. Times Special: In the biggest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, some claim they were paid to sue

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Oct. 4 (UPI) — A federal judge has ordered a hearing to determine if the Justice Department is engaged in a vindictive prosecution of El Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in a 16-page ruling on Friday granted a motion by Garcia’s defense team that seeks a hearing regarding a potential vindictive prosecution.

“The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior DOJ and [Homeland Security] officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit,” Crenshaw wrote.

The Maryland lawsuit refers to Garcia’s successful legal challenge in a federal court there, in which he showed the Department of Homeland Security erred when it deported him to El Salvador, which is his nation of citizenship.

While Garcia is subject to deportation, an immigration judge had ruled he can’t be deported to El Salvador, where Garcia, an alleged member of MS-13, said his life would be in danger from a rival gang.

That rival gang is Barrio 18, which is active in the United States as the 18th Street Gang.

El Salvador since has cracked down on gang activities and imprisoned many gang members.

Crenshaw said Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi each publicly “celebrated the charges against him,” CNN reported.

Such public celebrations are insufficient to show vindictive prosecution, though, according to The New York Times.

Instead, Garcia must show federal prosecutors improperly filed criminal charges against him as punishment for his Maryland court challenge.

Crenshaw said Garcia has shown the possibility that the prosecution is vindictive by initiating an investigation into the Tennessee traffic stop within days of the Supreme Court upholding lower court rulings requiring the Trump administration to facilitate Garcia’s return from El Salvador.

The matter arises from a Nov. 30, 2022, traffic stop of Garcia, in which Tennessee police found him traveling from Texas to Maryland with eight passengers and driving without a valid license, Crenshaw said.

The Tennessee police released Garcia with a warning regarding his expired driver’s license and did not charge him with any crimes or civil infractions.

After securing a two-count federal indictment against Garcia on May 21, the Trump administration flew Garcia back to the United States on June 6 to face prosecution for alleged human trafficking and conspiracy.

“Abrego has carried his burden of demonstrating some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive,” Crenshaw wrote.

He said the Justice Department must provide “objective, on-the-record explanations” regarding the prosecution that was brought after the Biden administration said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Garcia.

A hearing date has not been scheduled regarding the alleged vindictive prosecution.

If Crenshaw rules the prosecution is vindictive, he could dismiss the case against Garcia, who remains subject to deportation.

Former President Barack Obama nominated Crenshaw to the federal court in 2015.