u.s. senate

Several airports in California have refused to play a video featuring U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blaming Democrats for delays due to the federal government shutdown.

The video, playing for travelers waiting in Transportation Security Administration security lines at airports across the country, comes as the government entered a third week of a shutdown after Congress failed to reach an agreement on funding legislation.

“It is TSA’s top priority to make sure you have the most pleasant and efficient airport experience as possible while we keep you safe,” Noem says in the video. “However, Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government and because of this many of our operations are impacted, and most of our TSA employees are working without pay.”

Officials at multiple airports in California say they are not playing the video at their locations. They include: John Wayne Airport in Orange County, Hollywood Burbank Airport, San Diego International Airport, San José Mineta International Airport, Sacramento International Airport, Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport and San Francisco International Airport.

Officials from Los Angeles International Airport did respond to questions on whether the video was being played there.

Some airport officials have refused to play the video, calling it inappropriate. On Tuesday, the ranking member of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation called for Noem to be investigated for possibly breaking the Hatch Act by asking airports to play the video.

“Recent reports indicate DHS is using taxpayer dollars and federal assets to produce and air a video message featuring Secretary Noem, in her official capacity, making political attacks against Democratic Members of Congress,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) wrote in a letter addressed to the Office of Special Counsel and reviewed by The Times. “This message is not just false; it appears to violate the prohibitions contained in the Hatch Act.”

The act, according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, is to “ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion,” as well as protect federal employees from political coercion at work.

Noem’s video was received by airports on Thursday and was followed up by a verbal request from DHS officials to play it at security checkpoints, multiple airport officials told The Times.

The reasons the video is not being shown for California fliers varies.

In Orange County, airport spokesperson AnnaSophia Servin said that Homeland Security requested, to the airport’s director, that the video be played, but a final decision has not yet been made. In Burbank, political messaging is prohibited, officials said. In San José, an airport spokesperson said there have been no shutdown impacts and therefore no reason to play the video.

At San Francisco International Airport, officials determined that the video wasn’t helpful.

“SFO limits messaging at our security checkpoints to information intended to help passengers be prepared to go through the security screening process,” a spokesperson said in an email. “Any content, whether in video or print form, which does not meet this standard, will not be shown.”

When The Times asked Homeland Security officials to respond to airports not playing Noem’s video, spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded with Noem’s video statement blaming Democrats.

But California airports aren’t the only locations choosing not to play Noem’s message.

Airports in Oregon, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle have also opted not to play it.

“We did not consent to playing the video in its current form, as we believe the Hatch Act clearly prohibits use of public assets for political purposes and messaging,” said Molly Prescott, a spokesperson for the Port of Portland, which manages Portland International Airport, said in a statement.

Oregon law also prohibits public employees from politicking on the job.

“We believe consenting to playing this video on Port assets would violate Oregon law,” she said.

Officials in New York also pushed back against airing the video.

“It is inappropriate, unacceptable, and inconsistent with the values we expect from our nation’s top public officials,” New York’s Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins said in a statement. “The [Public Service Announcement] politicizes the impacts of a federal government shutdown on TSA Operations, and the County finds the tone to be unnecessarily alarmist.”

According to the Homeland Security website, more than 61,000 TSA employees continue to work despite a lapse in appropriations, and a lack of a paycheck to employees.

There’s a reason for the fearsome redistricting fight raging across America. It’s about Democrats trying to rein in Donald Trump and his rogue-elephant regime.

Or, if you’re the country’s aspiring strongman, it’s about avoiding accountability and sanction.

That’s why Trump and fellow Republicans are trying to rig the midterm election, by gerrymandering congressional lines in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping its tenuous hold on the House past 2026.

California Democrats are seeking payback by redrawing the state’s congressional lines in hopes of swiping five or more GOP-held seats. Voters will have their say on the matter Nov. 4, when they decide Proposition 50.

Of course, there are two branches of Congress. Why, then, is there so much focus on the House? Simply put, it’s because of the steep odds Democrats face trying to win control of the Senate, which are somewhere between slim and none — with slim last seen cinching his saddle before cantering out of town.

Let’s take a moment for a quick refresher.

Every two years, all 435 House seats are on the ballot. Senate terms are staggered and run six years, so roughly a third of the chamber’s 100 seats are up for a vote in each federal election. In 2026, there will be 35 Senate contests.

Most won’t be remotely competitive.

In fact, more than two dozen of those races are effectively over before they begin, given the advantage one party holds over the other. Mississippi, for instance, will send a Democrat to the U.S. Senate the day that Delaware elects a Republican; both will occur right after Trump and Adam Schiff get inked with matching “I Love L.A.” tattoos.

That leaves nine Senate races that are at least somewhat competitive. Of those, three are considered toss-ups: open-seat contests in Michigan and North Carolina and the race in Georgia, where Democrat Jon Ossoff is seeking a second term.

Democrats need to gain four seats to take control of the Senate, meaning even if they win all three of those even-steven races — which is far from certain — they still need to successfully defend seats in Minnesota and New Hampshire and pick up at least one other GOP-held seat.

That’s where the going gets tough.

Kamala Harris won Maine, which suggests Republican Susan Collins could be vulnerable. But the five-term senator has repeatedly managed to hang on, even in good Democratic years.

The three other races are tougher still.

Ohio used to be a major Midwestern battleground, but it’s grown solidly Republican. Democrats landed their prized recruit, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who narrowly lost his 2024 reelection bid and may be the only Democrat with a realistic shot at the seat. Still, he’s facing an uphill fight in the special election against Republican Jon Husted, an ex-lieutenant governor who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance.

In Iowa, where Republican Joni Ernst is retiring, GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson starts out the favorite in another state that’s grown increasingly red. (Hinson, a USC grad and former KABC-TV intern, has taken to trash-talking the Golden State — “I don’t want to see the country look like California” — because that’s what Republicans do these days.)

Which leaves Texas, land of shattered Democratic dreams.

It’s been more than three decades since the party has won a statewide election. Ever since, Democrats have insisted this is the year they’d end their losing streak.

They’ve tried various approaches. A “dream team” that consisted of a slate of Black, white and Latino nominees. A ticket topped by political celebrity Wendy Davis, of filibuster fame. An out-of-nowhere phenom by the name of Beto O’Rourke. All failed.

This time, Democrats are hoping for an assist from the GOP.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn is seeking his fifth term and faces the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, in a primary that’s already grown fierce and ugly.

Paxton is MAGA down to the soles of his feet, which would normally give him a big advantage in a GOP primary. But his history — allegations of bribery and corruption, an impeachment trial, a messy divorce — have left him in bad odor with many Republicans.

The GOP’s Senate campaign committee and Majority Leader John Thune have aggressively thrown their weight behind Cornyn, though Trump has so far remained neutral.

Democrats would love to run against Paxton, given polls suggesting a competitive race if he’s the nominee. First, though, they’ll have to sort out their own primary.

Supporters cheer as state Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) kicks off his campaign for U.S. Senate at Centennial Plaza in Round Rock on Sept. 9.

(Mikala Compton/The Austin American-Statesman / Getty Images)

Colin Allred, the former NFL linebacker who lost in November to Ted Cruz, is running again and faces James Talarico, a state representative and seminarian from the Austin area, who’s became an online sensation with his godly persona and viral take-down of conservative pieties. O’Rourke also hasn’t ruled out another try for Senate.

Garry Mauro, a Democrat and former Texas land commissioner, is clear-eyed in assessing his party’s prospects.

“If you run on the right issues and don’t leave yourself a crazy radical … then I think you have a real chance of building a winning race,” he said. But “to say this isn’t a leaning-R state would be Pollyannish, and I’m not Pollyannish.”

Which means counting on the Lone Star to deliver a Democratic-run U.S. Senate is a bit like trusting a drunken gambler to preserve and protect your rent money.

That’s why Democrats are betting the House in hopes of corralling Trump.

DUBAI — President Trump has signed an executive order vowing to use all measures, including U.S. military action, to defend the energy-rich nation of Qatar — though it remains unclear just what weight the pledge will carry.

The text of the order, available Wednesday on the White House’s website but dated Monday, appears to be another measure by Trump to assure the Qataris following Israel’s surprise attack on the country targeting Hamas leaders as they weighed accepting a ceasefire with Israel over the war in the Gaza Strip.

The order cites the two countries’ “close cooperation” and “shared interest,” vowing to “guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack.”

“The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty or critical infrastructure of the state of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States,” the order says.

“In the event of such an attack, the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the state of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.”

The order apparently came during a visit to Washington on Monday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump organized a call by Netanyahu to Qatar during the visit in which Netanyahu “expressed his deep regret” over the strike that killed six people, including a member of the Qatari security forces, the White House said.

Qatari officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s order. However, the Qatari-funded satellite news network Al Jazeera prominently reported about it Wednesday under the headline: “New Trump executive order guarantees Qatar security after Israeli attack.”

The true scope of the pledge remains in question. Typically, legally binding agreements, or treaties, need to receive the approval of the U.S. Senate. However, presidents have entered international agreements without the Senate’s approval, as President Obama did with Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

And ultimately, any decision to take military action rests with the president. That uncertainty has clouded previous U.S. defense agreements in Trump’s second term, such as NATO’s Article 5 guarantees.

Qatar, a peninsular nation that sticks out into the Persian Gulf, became fantastically wealthy through its natural gas reserves. It has been a key U.S. military partner, allowing America’s Central Command to have its forward operating base at its vast Al Udeid Air Base. President Biden named Qatar a major non-NATO ally in 2022, in part due to its help during America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In the aftermath of the Israeli attack, Saudi Arabia entered a mutual defense agreement with Pakistan, bringing the kingdom under Islamabad’s nuclear umbrella. It’s unclear whether other Gulf Arab countries, worried about Israel as well as Iran as it faces reimposed United Nations sanctions over its nuclear program, may seek similar arrangements as well with the region’s longtime security guarantor.

“The Gulf’s centrality in the Middle East and its significance to the United States warrants specific U.S. guarantees beyond President Donald J. Trump’s assurances of nonrepetition and dinner meetings,” wrote Bader al-Saif, a history professor at Kuwait University who analyzes Gulf Arab affairs.

Gambrell writes for the Associated Press.

Two major digital platforms — YouTube and Hulu + Live TV — have agreed to carry C-SPAN two months after the nonprofit organization made a public plea for wider distribution.

Changing industry economics have taken a toll on C-SPAN, prompting the U.S. Senate to urge streaming companies to begin offering customers the privately funded television service, which has provided nonpartisan gavel-to-gavel television coverage of congressional hearings and roll call votes for decades.

“All television providers, including streaming services, should make delivery of C-SPAN a priority so Americans can watch Congress in action, in real time,” senators said in their June resolution.

On Wednesday, C-SPAN announced separate distribution agreements with YouTube and Hulu + Live TV.

The agreements expand “access to C-SPAN’s unfiltered coverage of U.S. government for millions of subscribers nationwide, further strengthening the network’s role as an indispensable source of public affairs programming,” C-SPAN said in a statement.

C-SPAN stands for Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network. It relies heavily on revenue generated from license fees paid by cable, satellite and other multi-TV channel operators. But as the number of traditional pay-TV homes continues to shrink, C-SPAN found itself running a troubling financial deficit.

Last year, C-SPAN collected $46.3 million in revenue, a 37% decline from $73 million in 2015. That’s largely because C-SPAN and other basic cable channels were available in more than 100 million homes 10 years ago.

Since then, the number of homes has been cut nearly in half.

The three C-SPAN channels — C-SPAN, C-SPAN2 and C-SPAN3 — will be added to YouTube TV’s base package of channels this fall, the companies said. The channels will also run on the main YouTube video platform.

In addition, Google-owned YouTube will sponsor the network’s coverage of “America 250” — the celebrations to mark the nation’s founding two and a half centuries ago.

“For nearly half a century, C-SPAN has partnered with cable and satellite providers who recognize the value of our important public service,” C-SPAN Chief Executive Sam Feist said in a statement. “We now look forward to working closely with YouTube to bring C-SPAN’s unfiltered coverage of the democratic process to millions more Americans.”

C-SPAN uses its own cameras in the Capitol, enabling the service to catch the action when government-operated audio and visual equipment is cut off.

Earlier this summer, Feist told The Times that C-SPAN should be able to close its budget gap if YouTube TV and Walt Disney Co.’s Hulu + Live TV would carry its feeds.

Around 20 million households subscribe to such online subscription platforms, known as virtual multichannel video program distributors, which stream broadcast and cable channels.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

By closing one door, Kamala Harris has left another ajar.

Running for California governor in 2026, which she ruled out Wednesday, would almost certainly have precluded another run for the White House in 2028 — something Harris explicitly did not rule out.

There were significant hurdles to attempting both.

To have any chance of being governor, Harris would have almost certainly have had to swear off another presidential bid, convincing California voters that the state’s top political job was not something she viewed, blithely, as a mere placeholder or springboard to the White House.

There also would have been the practical difficulty of running the nation’s most populous state, a maw of endless crises and challenges, while at the same time pursuing the presidency. No California governor has ever done so successfully, though several tried.

Harris’ much-anticipated decision, announced in a written statement, was not a huge surprise.

Unlike others — Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to name a few — Harris has never burned with a fever to be California governor. She had a clear shot at the position in 2016, but opted instead to run for the U.S. Senate, in part because the role seemed like a better launching venue for a try at the White House.

Privately, several of those closest to Harris questioned whether she had much appetite to deal with the myriad aggravations of being governor — the stroking and hand-holding of recalcitrant lawmakers, the mind-numbing drafting of an annual budget, the endless march of disasters, both natural and man-made.

Not least, many wondered whether Harris would be content returning to the small stage of Sacramento after traveling the world as vice president and working in the rarefied air of politics at its peak.

There is every possibility that Harris will retire from public life.

Sean Clegg, a longtime Harris advisor, noted the Democrat has spent more than two decades in elected office. “I think she’s interested in exploring how she can have an impact from the outside for a while,” Clegg said.

For her part, Harris said she looked forward “to getting back out and listening to the American people [and] helping Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly.”

Doesn’t sound like life in a cloister.

If Harris did run for president, she’d start out as a nominal front-runner, based on her universal name recognition and deep nationwide fundraising base — advantages no other contestant could match. But she won’t scare away very many opponents; the Democratic field in 2028 will probably be a large and expansive one, as it was the first time Harris ran for president in 2020. (And notably crashed and burned.)

Charlie Cook, who has spent decades as a nonpartisan political handicapper, said he would view Harris “as a serious contender, but no more so than a handful of other people would be.”

Normally, Cook went on, her status as the party’s most recent vice president would give her a significant, if not overwhelming, edge. “But I think the desire/need to turn the corner and get some separation from Biden probably strips away any advantage that she would have,” Cook said.

Harris got a small taste of the Biden burden she could carry in the 2028 campaign when two of her prospective gubernatorial rivals — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — suggested she was complicit in covering up Biden’s mental and physical frailties.

“She could say she didn’t know,” Villaraigosa taunted in a May interview. “They can’t prove that she did. But last time I looked, she had lunch with him pretty regularly. … She had to have seen what the world [saw] over time and particularly in that debate. The notion that she didn’t? Come on. Who’s going to buy that?”

A strategist for one potential presidential rival suggested Democrats were eager to turn the page on Biden and, along with him, Harris.

“There’s a lot of respect for her taking on the challenge of cleaning up Biden’s mess in 2024,” said the strategist, who asked to remain nameless to avoid compromising an as-yet-unannounced candidate. “But I think it’s going to be a hard sell. She lost to Donald Trump, who was convicted of 34 felony counts and run out of D.C. in shame. There is some blame there for his return.”

Should Harris make a third try for the White House, it raises the intriguing possibility of facing her fellow Californian, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been effectively running for president for the last several months. The two, who came up together in the elbows-out world of San Francisco politics, have had a decades-long rivalry, sharing many of the same donors and, once upon a time, the same set of strategists.

If the two ran, it would be the first time since 1968 that a pair of major Californians faced off for their party’s presidential nomination.

That year, Gov. Ronald Reagan made a late, failed attempt to overtake Richard Nixon, the former vice president and U.S. senator from California.

At it happened, Nixon had waged an unsuccessful 1962 run for California governor after leaving the White House. While that failure didn’t stop him from eventually winning the White House, it certainly didn’t help. In fact, Nixon left California and moved to the East Coast, taking a job at a white-shoe law firm and using New York City as his political base of operations.

Harris’ announcement Wednesday promised “more details in the months ahead about my own plans.” She said nothing about relocating or leaving California behind.

The White House moved Tuesday to keep interim U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli in power as Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor, marking the Trump administration’s latest maneuver to defy norms and keep controversial appointees in positions across the country.

Essayli — a former Riverside County assemblyman, staunch conservative and Trump ally — will be named Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, according to Matthew Nies, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice. He will be granted the acting title at 5:01 p.m., Nies said.

The maneuver — which echoes steps the Trump administration took to keep its chosen prosecutors in power in New York, New Jersey and Nevada in recent weeks — allows Essayli to stay in office while sidestepping normal confirmation processes in the U.S. Senate.

Essayli was appointed to his post by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in early April. Interim appointees must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate within 120 days. But Trump never moved to formally nominate Essayli for confirmation by the U.S. Senate, where he would have faced fierce opposition from California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, both Democrats.

That left Essayli’s fate in the hands of a local federal judicial panel, which declined to name anyone to the post on Tuesday, according to a report from Fox News. Court records do not reflect any action taken by local judges.

Assuming the role of acting U.S. attorney will seemingly give Essayli another 210 days in the position before he has to face any formal confirmation process.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles referred all questions to the White House, which did not immediately respond to an inquiry. Essayli did not respond to a call seeking comment.

The move is the latest sign of the Trump administration’s willingness to use legal workarounds to keep its appointees for U.S. attorney in power as the clock runs out on their interim status.

In upstate New York, a judicial panel declined to name John A. Sarcone III, or anyone else, as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York. In response, Bondi appointed Sarcone to a lower position in the office but effectively gave him the powers of the top federal prosecutor.

In a letter to the chief U.S. district judge, later posted by the court, Sarcone said he’d been designated the first assistant United States attorney for the Northern District of New York and is now serving as the acting U.S. attorney for the district “indefinitely.”

In New Jersey, a judicial panel rejected Trump’s pick, Alina Habba, one of the president’s former personal attorneys who had no experience as a prosecutor before being named the state’s top federal law enforcement official. In response, the Trump administration moved to fire Desiree Leigh Grace, a career prosecutor and registered Republican whom the judicial panel named to replace Habba.

Trump later rescinded his nomination of Habba and appointed her as acting U.S. attorney. Experts have called both situations legally dubious and defense lawyers have argued the appointment violates federal statute prohibiting people whose nominations have been submitted to the Senate from serving in an acting role.

Habba’s appointment has reportedly halted federal court hearings, grand jury proceedings and plea deals in New Jersey federal courts due to questions over her authority to serve as acting U.S. attorney.

On Tuesday morning, Bloomberg Law reported that Trump used a similar move to keep Sigal Chattah as Nevada’s top federal prosecutor. Her interim term was also set to expire Tuesday.

Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who now serves as a professor at the Loyola Law School of Los Angeles, said the Trump administration’s actions reflected an unprecedented exploitation of a legal loophole.

“These laws have never been used, as far as I can see, to bypass the Senate confirmation process or the judicial one,” Levenson said. “The most serious consequences are if you’re going to end up with indictments that are not valid because they weren’t signed by a lawful U.S. Attorney.”

It remains unclear exactly what happens when the clock on Essayli’s acting tenure runs out next year.

Essayli’s time as L.A.’s top federal prosecutor has been marked by controversy.

Not long after getting the job, he moved to offer a no-jail plea deal to L.A. County sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk — who had already been convicted of assault for using excessive force when he threw a woman to the ground and pepper-sprayed her while responding to a 2023 robbery in a Lancaster supermarket. The woman was not armed or committing a crime when Kirk confronted her, court records show.

Essayli’s decision, which was not prompted by new evidence regarding Kirk’s guilt or innocence, led several veteran prosecutors to resign.

Prosecutors who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation within the office have described Essayli as a chaotic and belligerent leader who seems more focused on advancing the president’s agenda than making decisions that comport with the law.

While Essayli has taken a hard line against demonstrators who allegedly broke the law during massive June protests against the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Southern California, a Times investigation shows he’s struggling to prove those cases in court.

Multiple federal law enforcement sources told The Times that a number of protest-related cases pushed by Essayli have failed to even secure grand jury indictments, where prosecutors face a significantly lower burden of proof than at a jury trial. Of the nearly 40 cases related to demonstrations or alleged interference with immigration raids that Essayli has filed, just seven have netted indictments, records show.

In one explosive moment, sources told The Times that Essayli screamed at prosecutors to disregard Department of Justice rules on bringing cases with weak evidence, insisting they must secure indictments for Bondi.

The U.S. attorney’s office dismissed The Times’ article, claiming it was based on “factual inaccuracies and anonymous gossip.” The statement offered no specifics about disputed facts and Bloomberg Law reported the same anecdote this week.

With Essayli’s fate now squarely in Trump’s hands, Levenson said it’s clear the White House is calling the shots for federal law enforcement in Southern California.

“I don’t think [Essayli] even pretends he’s making these decisions on his own,” Levenson said of Essayli. “I think he’s just the messenger here.”

Queally and Mejia reported from Los Angeles. Wilner reported from Washington, D.C. Times Staff Writer Seema Mehta in Los Angeles contributed to this report.