voter

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia voters will decide whether to back a redrawn district map that favors Democrats in the tit-for-tat battle for the U.S. House after the left-leaning Senate advanced a proposed constitutional amendment on Friday that supports mid-decade congressional redistricting.

Such a congressional map has not been publicly released, though lawmakers say that will change by the end of the month. Officials have repeatedly vowed that voters would see a proposed map before the referendum is held, likely in April.

“Because this is a Virginian-led process and we’re asking for their permission, voters will be able to see the maps prior to their vote,” Democratic Del. Cia Price said Wednesday.

The closely divided state Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority, voted along party lines on Friday afternoon, following a similar vote by House Democrats earlier this week.

Trump teed up an unusual redistricting plan last year and pushed Texas Republicans to create more favorable districts for the party by way of new congressional maps. That triggered something of a mid-decade redistricting dogfight.

Since then, Texas, Missouri and North Carolina all approved new Republican-friendly House districts. Ohio also enacted a more favorable House map for Republicans.

On the Democratic side, California voters approved new House districts helping Democrats, and a Utah judge adopted a new House map that benefits Democrats.

There have been some defections in the nationwide redistricting battle: Kansas Republicans dropped plans for a special session on redistricting. Indiana’s Republican-led Senate also defeated a plan that could have helped the GOP win all of the state’s U.S. House seats.

It’s still up in the air as to whether new maps will be created in other states, such as Republican-leaning Florida, and Democratic-led Illinois and Maryland.

The redistricting battle has resulted, so far, in nine more seats that Republicans believe they can win and six more seats that Democrats think they can win, putting the GOP up by three. However, redistricting is being litigated in several states, and there is no guarantee that the parties will win the seats they have redrawn.

In Virginia, the redistricting resolution sparked raucous debate among lawmakers on the merits of gerrymandering a battleground state known to have independent voters, particularly after a recent years-long push for fair maps in the state.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said when Republican-led states “rig elections in their favor, our commitment to fairness that we made — that our voters made — effectively becomes unilateral disarmament.”

Virginia Republicans have admonished Democrats’ redistricting efforts, arguing gerrymandering isn’t the answer. Republican Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle said, “Republicans in Indiana stood up to political pressure and said, ‘We’re not going to play these political games.’ And they stopped.”

The state currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who ran in districts whose boundaries were imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the census.

That commission came about following a 2020 referendum, in which voters supported a change to the state’s constitution aimed at ending legislative gerrymandering.

The new proposed constitutional amendment, if backed by voters, would only be in effect until 2030. The resolution also has trigger language, meaning Virginia lawmakers can only redraw congressional maps if such action is taken by other states.

In January, Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger backed Democrats’ redistricting effort but has not committed to a particular plan.

“Ultimately, it’s up to the people of Virginia to choose whether or not to move forward with the referendum,” she said.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John Raby in Charleston, W.Va., contributed to this report.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit demanding California turn over its voter rolls, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal” and accusing the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.”

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee based in Santa Ana, questioned the Justice Department’s motivations and called its lawsuit demanding voter data from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber not just an overreach into state-run elections, but a threat to American democracy.

“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” Carter wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

Carter wrote that the “taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left,” and that the Justice Department’s lawsuit was “one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

In a video she posted to the social media platform X earlier Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said she was proud of her office’s efforts to “clean up the voter rolls nationally,” including by suing states for their data.

“We are going to touch every single state and finish this project,” she said.

Weber, who is California’s top elections official, said in a written statement that she is “entrusted with ensuring that California’s state election laws are enforced — including state laws that protect the privacy of California’s data.”

“I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote,” Weber said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the decision another example of “Trump and his administration losing to California” — one day after another court upheld California’s congressional redistricting plan under Proposition 50, which the Trump administration also challenged in court after state voters passed it overwhelmingly in November.

The Justice Department sued Weber in September after she refused to hand over detailed voter information for some 23 million Californians, alleging that she was unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

It separately sued Weber’s counterparts in various other states who also declined the department’s requests for their states’ voter rolls.

The lawsuit followed an executive order by President Trump in March that purported to require voters to provide proof of citizenship and ordered states to disregard mail ballots not received by election day. It also followed years of allegations by Trump, made without evidence, that voting in California has been hampered by widespread fraud and voting by noncitizens — part of his broader and equally unsupported claim that the 2020 presidental election was stolen from him.

In announcing the lawsuit, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in September that “clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” and that the Justice Department was going to ensure that they exist nationwide.

Weber denounced the lawsuit at the time as a “fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” and as “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list”; and the dates of their removals.

It also demanded a list of all registrations that had been canceled due to voter deaths; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in California; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were canceled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

Carter, in his ruling Thursday, took particular issue with the Justice Department’s reliance on federal civil rights laws to make its case.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation,” Carter wrote.

Carter wrote that the legislation in question — including Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 — was passed to defend Black Americans’ voting rights in the face of “persistent voter suppression” and to “combat the effects of discriminatory and unfair registration laws that cheapened the right to vote.”

Carter found that the Justice Department provided “no explanation for why unredacted voter files for millions of Californians, an unprecedented request, was necessary” for the Justice Department to investigate the alleged problems it claims, and that the executive branch simply has no power to demand such data all at once without explanation.

WASHINGTON — Top Danish diplomats met with White House officials on Wednesday to talk about President Trump’s repeated threats to take control of Greenland and left with the understanding that the United States and Denmark have a “fundamental disagreement” about the future of the Arctic territory.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, told reporters that the closed-door meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been “frank, but also constructive,” and that he was hopeful the allied governments would be able to find a “common way forward” in the near future.

“For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable,” Lokke Rasmussen said. “We, therefore, still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree.”

In the hours leading up to the meeting, Trump said in a social media post that the “United States needs Greenland” for national security purposes — and that “anything less than” acquiring the Danish territory would be “unacceptable.” Otherwise, the president has argued, China or Russia will annex the territory because he does not think Danish officials have done enough to protect the island.

As Vance and Rubio met with the Danish officials, the White House posted a cartoon on social media that depicted two dog sleds, with Greenland’s flag on the back, facing two pathways: a sunny day at the White House or a stormy scenario with Chinese and Russian flags. The image did not show a pathway with Denmark.

Vivian Motzfeldt, Greenland’s foreign minister, told reporters after the meeting that she wants to strengthen the island’s ties with the United States. But she asserted: “That doesn’t mean that we want to be owned by the United States.”

The meeting marked the first time top officials from the three governments met to discuss Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, and it came at the same time that Denmark and allied countries announced they were increasing their military presence in and around the Arctic territory.

After the meeting, Lokke Rasmussen said a high-level working group would be formed and meet within weeks to “explore if we can find a common way forward” on security with the request that the U.S. respect Greenland’s sovereignty.

“Whether that is doable, I don’t know, but I hope it could take down the temperature,” he said.

A few hours after the closed-door meeting, Trump told reporters that he had not been briefed yet on the discussions but reiterated that “we need Greenland for national security.”

The president has long talked about making Greenland part of the United States, but his threats have escalated in the days after the U.S. military’s operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. For instance, Trump warned last week that his administration was going to “do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not.”

“If we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” Trump said at a White House event Friday.

European and Danish leaders have repeatedly opposed the president’s plans to take over the semiautonomous territory, warning that such a move threatens to dismantle the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Trump said Wednesday that part of the reason he wants to acquire Greenland is to build a Golden Dome missile defense system. He said NATO would become “far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States.”

On Tuesday, Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, and Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen both came out in opposition of the president’s plans.

“If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Nielsen said at a news conference in Copenhagen.

Asked about Nielsen’s comments, Trump said: “I disagree with him. … That’s going to be a big problem for him.”

The president’s plans have also drawn opposition domestically.

In Washington, a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland — let alone pursue any military action against a U.S. ally without congressional approval.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Tuesday joined Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to push legislation that would bar the departments of Defense andState from using funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control” over the territory of any other NATO member state.

In practice, the proposal — titled the “NATO Unity Protection Act — would block Trump from taking over Greenland.

“This bipartisan legislation makes clear that U.S. taxpayer dollars cannot be used for actions that would fracture NATO and violate our own commitments to NATO,” Shaheen said in a statement.

Murkowski said it was “deeply troubling” to see the United States attempt to use its resources against allies, and said such actions “must be wholly rejected by Congress in statute.”

“Our NATO alliances are what set the United States apart from our adversaries,” Murkowski said. “We have friends and allies who are willing to stand firmly alongside us as the strongest line of defense to keep those who work to undermine peace and stability from making sweeping advances globally.”

A similar bipartisan proposal was introduced in the House on Wednesday that would block federal funds from being used to occupy a NATO ally.

“America is at our strongest when we honor our alliances and stand by our allies,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat co-sponsoring the House measure.

Beyond diplomatic concerns, the president’s plans to buy or seize Greenland are not popular among the electorate.

About 9 in 10 registered voters oppose the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force, while only 9% are in favor, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. Voters are also divided on the idea of buying the territory, with 55% of voters opposing and 37% in favor.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee will spend millions of dollars to cement control of voter registration efforts that have traditionally been entrusted to nonprofit advocacy groups and individual political campaigns, a shift that party leaders hope will increase their chances in this year’s midterm elections.

The initiative, being announced on Tuesday, will begin in Arizona and Nevada with at least $2 million for training organizers. It’s the first step in what could become the DNC’s largest-ever push to sign up new voters, with a particular focus on young people, voters of color and people without college educations. All of those demographics drifted away from Democrats in the last presidential race, which returned Republican Donald Trump to the White House.

“It’s a crisis. And for our party to actually win elections, we have to actually create more Democrats,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in an interview with the Associated Press.

Martin added that “we need all hands on deck, not just the outside groups,” as the party tries to win back control of Congress and break Republicans’ unified control in Washington.

Democrats have spent decades relying on advocacy organizations and civic groups to register voters, but those efforts are generally required by law to be nonpartisan. Party leaders want a more explicitly partisan approach like the one used by Republicans, who have relied less on outside groups to register and mobilize their voter base.

Martin said allied nonprofits are “really important partners” that have “done amazing work to actually get people engaging in their democracy.”

“But in this moment right now, given the significant disadvantage that we have and the advantage the Republicans have, we actually have to do more,” he said.

The DNC initiative aims to reach non-college-educated young voters by recruiting organizers from a wide array of backgrounds, like gig economy workers and young parents, who have often been overlooked in the party’s grassroots efforts. Democrats hope that organizers’ own perspectives and experiences will help party strategists learn how to connect with Americans in blue-collar roles who are disaffected with politics, whom the party fears it has lost touch with in recent elections.

“I think it’s incredible that Democrats are actually investing in reaching Democratic voters who have been left behind,” said Santiago Mayer, founder of Voters for Tomorrow, a progressive political youth group that is collaborating with the DNC. “We got killed on persuasion in 2024, and I think this is a really important step, fixing it and ensuring that we do not have a repeat of that in 2026.”

The program will kick off with dozens of videos from lawmakers, activists and party leaders across the country. Democrats hope to boost enthusiasm for the program through interstate party competitions throughout the year.

If successful, the investments will provide a foundation that Democrats can rely upon beyond the fall midterm elections.

“This is a critical piece of the infrastructure that we’re building to actually not only win the moment in ’26 but to win the future,” Martin said. “For us to put ourselves in a position to win in ’28 and ’30 and ’32, we actually have to keep doing this work and do it consistently.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

That escalated quickly. We’re barely into 2026, and events are already unfolding that could meaningfully reshape the political landscape.

The death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother and U.S. citizen who was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, has the potential to shake the political landscape in ways reminiscent of George Floyd’s killing in 2020.

The Trump administration initially claimed Good “weaponized her vehicle” in an act of “domestic terrorism,” an account that appears to be contradicted by video evidence. Whether the incident escalates into a broader political reckoning — or fades from public attention — may determine its lasting effect on President Trump’s popularity and his immigration policies.

Meanwhile, Trump’s decision to invade Venezuela and capture then-President Nicolás Maduro remains controversial, even among some of his fans.

The attack drew immediate criticism from Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson and Laura Loomer, with Carlson and Loomer going so far as to float the claim that Maduro’s ouster was really about imposing gay marriage on Venezuela (this is impressive, because it manages to combine foreign policy, culture war panic and complete nonsense into a single sentence).

But this schism isn’t limited to ex-House members, podcasters and conspiracy theorists. Inside the administration, the balance of power appears to be tilting away from the noninterventionists and toward the hawks — at least, for now.

The current beneficiary of this shift is Secretary of State Marco Rubio. As recently as last month, JD Vance, who has generally staked out an anti-interventionist posture, seemed like Trump’s obvious heir. Now, Rubio’s stock is up (if “Lil Marco” falls short, he can always settle for Viceroy of Venezuela).

That’s not to say Rubio is anywhere near being Trump’s clear successor. Venezuela could disappear from the headlines as quickly as it arrived, buried beneath the next crisis, scandal or social media outburst. Or it could go sideways and dominate headlines for years or decades.

Military adventurism has an uncanny habit of doing exactly that.

If Venezuela turns into a slow-motion disaster, Democrats will reap the benefits as will the GOP’s “America First” contingent.

But January hasn’t just presented a possible touchstone for Republicans; Democrats have been hit with their own challenge, too: the Minnesota fraud scandal, which has already pushed Democratic Gov. Tim Walz out of a reelection bid. It is the kind of story that reinforces voters’ worst suspicions about their party.

During the past five years, parts of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora became entangled in alleged fraudulent activity, reportedly submitting millions of dollars in claims for social services that were not actually rendered.

The details are complicated; the implications are not. Public programs retain support only when voters believe they are competently managed, and this story suggests the opposite.

The fact that the scandal involves the Somali community makes it even more combustible. Fair or not, it provides ready-made ammunition for those eager to stoke racial resentment, discredit refugee policies and turn bureaucratic failure into an indictment on Democrats.

The fallout extends well beyond Minnesota. Kamala Harris has been signaling interest in another presidential run, and Walz was her vice-presidential pick in what was already a truncated and awkward campaign. That decision alone won’t sink a future bid for her, but it certainly doesn’t strengthen her already dubious case that she has exceptional political judgment.

More troubling for Democrats is the fear that Minnesota is the tip of the iceberg. Walz’s exodus was sparked by a right-wing YouTuber who started doing some sleuthing — and brought attention to years-old investigations by the Walz and Biden administrations. Other influencers are already promising similar exposés elsewhere.

Right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson, for example, has announced plans to descend on California, declaring it “the fraud capital of the world.” Newsom returned fire with a vicious Trump-like retort, demonstrating once again why he became the Democratic frontrunner in 2025.

Newsom’s Twitter rejoinder aside, it’s not crazy to think that the Democrats’ recent momentum could be squandered if it turns out more of these scandals exist and have been ignored, downplayed or (worse) covered up.

It’s risky to describe anything in modern politics as a turning point, because each week reliably produces something that eclipses the last outrage. Still, the opening days of this new year already feel consequential. Seeds have been planted. Whether they mature is the question.

Buckle up. It’s only January.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Jan. 7 (UPI) — The Justice Department has sued Arizona and Connecticut for refusing to hand over their full voter registration lists, making them the 22nd and 23rd states to be targeted by the Trump administration in its litigious campaign over voter data ahead of the midterm elections.

The lawsuits were filed Tuesday, with Attorney General Pam Bondi arguing she is charged by Congress to ensure that states have proper and effective voter registration and voter list maintenance programs.

She also threatened that she has the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to demand the statewide voter registration lists.

“Accurate voter rolls are the foundation of election integrity, and any state that fails to meet this basic obligation of transparency can expect to see us in court,” she said in a statement.

The Justice Department has sent demands for the voter registration rolls to at least 40 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

All states except North Dakota require citizens to register with election officials, with the information forming voter registration rolls.

The demands for these rolls, which include private and sensitive information, have raised concerns among both voting-rights groups, who say the Trump administration may try to undermine elections, and immigration advocates worried the rolls could be shared with the Department of Homeland Security.

The Trump administration has argued that it needs the lists to ensure election integrity, including that non-citizens are not voting. President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim that the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden, was stolen from him.

The lawsuits overwhelming target Democratic-led states, and the effort comes ahead of November’s midterm elections, which Trump has increasingly become involved with.

Jesus Osete, principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, posted the lawsuit naming Arizona as a defendant on X, saying the Democratic-led state “didn’t respond” to the Justice Department requests for the voter rolls.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes responded to Osete with a video statement, saying they have responded to every Justice Department request, and that he will not break state and federal law to share unredacted voter data with the federal government.

“I would recommend that Mr. Osete read those correspondence and we will see you apparently in court,” he said.

“Pound sand.”

California Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) has died, GOP leadership confirmed in a social media post Tuesday morning.

“Jacquie and I are devastated about the sudden loss of our friend, Congressman Doug LaMalfa. Doug was a loving father and husband, and staunch advocate for his constituents and rural America,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the House majority whip, in an X post. “Our prayers are with Doug’s wife, Jill, and their children.”

LaMalfa, 65, was a rice farmer from Oroville and staunch Trump supporter who had represented his Northern California district for the past 12 years. His seat was one of several that was in jeopardy under the state’s redrawn districts approved by voters with Prop 50.

LaMalfa’s death reduces the GOP’s already slim House majority to 218-213.

This story is developing.

California has tried all manner of design in choosing its governor.

Democrat Gray Davis, to name a recent example, had an extensive background in government and politics and a bland demeanor that suggested his first name was also a fitting adjective.

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, by contrast, was a novice candidate who ran for governor on a whim. His super-sized action hero persona dazzled Californians like the pyrotechnics in one of his Hollywood blockbusters.

In the end, however, their political fates were the same. Both left office humbled, burdened with lousy poll numbers and facing a well of deep voter discontent.

(Schwarzenegger, at least, departed on his own terms. He chased Davis from the Capitol in an extraordinary recall and won reelection before his approval ratings tanked during his second term.)

There are roughly a dozen major candidates for California governor in 2026 and, taken together, they lack even a small fraction of Schwarzenegger’s celebrity wattage.

Nor do any have the extensive Sacramento experience of Davis, who was a gubernatorial chief of staff under Jerry Brown before serving in the Legislature, then winning election as state controller and lieutenant governor.

That’s not, however, to disparage those running.

The contestants include a former Los Angeles mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa; two candidates who’ve won statewide office, schools Supt. Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee; two others who gained national recognition during their time in Congress, Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell; and Riverside County’s elected sheriff, Chad Bianco.

The large field offers an ample buffet from which to choose.

The rap on this particular batch of hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, which, honestly, seems a greater concern to those writing and spitballing about the race than a reflection of some great upwelling of citizens clamoring for bread and circuses.

In scores of conversations with voters over the past year, the sentiment that came through, above all, was a sense of practicality and pragmatism. (And, this being a blue bastion, no small amount of horror, fear and loathing directed at the vengeful and belligerent Trump administration.)

It’s never been more challenging and expensive to live in California, a place of great bounty that often exacts in dollars and stress what it offers in opportunity and wondrous beauty.

With a governor seemingly more focused on his personal agenda, a 2028 bid for president, than the people who put him in office, many said they’d like to replace Gavin Newsom with someone who will prioritize California and their needs above his own.

That means a focus on matters such as traffic, crime, fire prevention, housing and homelessness. In other words, pedestrian stuff that doesn’t light up social media or earn an invitation to hold forth on one of the Beltway chat shows.

“Why does it take so long to do simple things?” asked one of those voters, the Bay Area’s Michael Duncan, as he lamented his pothole-ridden, 120-mile round-trip commute between Fairfield and an environmental analyst job in Livermore.

The answer is not a simple one.

Politics are messy, like any human endeavor. Governing is a long and laborious process, requiring study, deliberation and the weighing of competing forces. Frankly, it can be rather dull.

Certainly the humdrum of legislation or bureaucratic rule-marking is nothing like the gossipy speculation about who may or may not bid to lead California as its 41st governor.

Why else was so much coverage devoted to whether Sen. Alex Padilla would jump into the gubernatorial race — he chose not to — and the possible impact his entry would have on the contest, as opposed to, say, his thinking on CEQA or FMAP?

(The former is California’s much-contested Environmental Quality Act; the latter is the formula that determines federal reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the state’s healthcare program for low-income residents.)

Just between us, political reporters tend to be like children in front of a toy shop window. Their bedroom may be cluttered with all manner of diversion and playthings, but what they really want is that shiny, as-yet unattained object — Rick Caruso! — beckoning from behind glass.

Soon enough, once a candidate has entered the race, boredom sets in and the speculation and desire for someone fresh and different starts anew. (Will Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta change his mind and run for governor?)

For their part, many voters always seem to be searching for some idealized candidate who exists only in their imagination.

Someone strong, but not dug in. Willing to compromise, but never caving to the other side. Someone with the virginal purity of a political outsider and the intrinsic capability of an insider who’s spent decades cutting deals and keeping the government wheels spinning.

They look over their choices and ask, in the words of an old song, is that all there is? (Spoiler alert: There are no white knights out there.)

Donald Trump was, foremost, a celebrity before his burst into politics. First as a denizen of New York’s tabloid culture and then as the star of TV’s faux-boardroom drama, “The Apprentice.”

His pizzazz was a large measure of his appeal, along with his manufactured image as a shrewd businessman with a kingly touch and infallible judgment.

His freewheeling political rallies and frothy social media presence were, and continue to be, a source of great glee to his fans and followers.

His performance as president has been altogether different, and far less amusing.

If the candidates for California governor fail to light up a room, that’s not such a bad thing. Fix the roads. Make housing more affordable. Help keep the place from burning to the ground.

Leave the fun and games to the professionals.

The fiery debate about a proposed ballot measure to tax California’s billionaires has sparked some soul-searching across the state.

While the idea of a one-time tax on more than 200 people has a long way to go before getting onto the ballot and would need to be passed by voters in November, the tempest around it captures the zeitgeist of angst and anger at the core of California. Silicon Valley is minting new millionaires while millions of the state’s residents face the loss of healthcare coverage and struggle with inflation.

Supporters of the proposed billionaire tax say it is one of the few ways the state can provide healthcare for its most vulnerable. Opponents warn it would squash the innovation that has made the state rich and prompt an exodus of wealthy entrepreneurs from the state.

The controversial measure is already creating fractures among powerful Democrats who enjoy tremendous sway in California. Progressive icon Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) quickly endorsed the billionaire tax, while Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced it .

The Golden State’s rich residents say they are tired of feeling targeted. Their success has not only created unimaginable wealth but also jobs and better lives for Californians, they say, yet they feel they are being punished.

“California politics forces together some of the richest areas of America with some of the poorest, often separated by just a freeway,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “The impulse to force those with extreme wealth to share their riches is only natural, but often runs into the reality of our anti-tax traditions as well as modern concerns about stifling entrepreneurship or driving job creation out of the state.”

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The tax proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

Supporters say the revenue is needed to backfill the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that President Trump signed this summer. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

On social media, some wealthy Californians who oppose the wealth tax faced off against Democratic politicians and labor unions.

An increasing number of companies and investors have decided it isn’t worth the hassle to be in the state and are taking their companies and their homes to other states with lower taxes and less regulation.

“I promise you this will be the final straw,” Jessie Powell, co-founder of the Bay Area-based crypto exchange platform Kraken, wrote on X. “Billionaires will take with them all of their spending, hobbies, philanthropy and jobs.”

Proponents of the proposed tax were granted permission to start gathering signatures Dec. 26 by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets, such as businesses, art and intellectual property, valued at more than $1 billion. There are some exclusions, including property.

They could pay the levy over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs and the remaining 10% would be spent on food assistance and education programs.

To qualify for the November ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

The union, which represents more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients and healthcare consumers, has committed to spending $14 million on the measure so far and plans to start collecting signatures soon, said Suzanne Jimenez, the labor group’s chief of staff.

Without new funding, the state is facing “a collapse of our healthcare system here in California,” she said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) spoke out in support of the tax.

“It’s a matter of values,” he said on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have the Medicaid.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment.

The debate has become a lightning rod for national thought leaders looking to target California’s policies or the ultra-rich.

On Tuesday, Sanders endorsed the billionaire tax proposal and said he plans to call for a nationwide version.

“This is a model that should be emulated throughout the country, which is why I will soon be introducing a national wealth tax on billionaires,” Sanders said on X. “We can and should respect innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking, but we cannot respect the extraordinary level of greed, arrogance and irresponsibility that is currently being displayed by much of the billionaire class.”

But there isn’t unanimous support for the proposal among Democrats.

Notably, Newsom has consistently opposed state-based wealth taxes. He reiterated his opposition when asked about the proposed billionaires’ tax in early December.

“You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others,” Newsom said at the New York Times DealBook Summit. “We’re in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury, particularly people of that status, they already have two or three homes outside the state. It’s a simple issue. You’ve got to be pragmatic about it.”

Newsom has opposed state-based wealth taxes throughout his tenure.

In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed at the ballot box, with strategists on both sides of the issue saying Newsom’s vocal opposition to the effort was a critical factor.

The following year, he opposed legislation by a fellow Democrat to tax assets exceeding $50 million at 1% annually and taxpayers with a net worth greater than $1 billion at 1.5% annually. The bill was shelved before the legislature could vote on it.

The latest effort is also being opposed by a political action committee called “Stop the Squeeze,” which was seeded by a $100,000 donation from venture capitalist and longtime Newsom ally Ron Conway. Conservative taxpayer rights groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and state Republicans are expected to campaign against the proposal.

The chances of the ballot measure passing in November are uncertain, given the potential for enormous spending on the campaign — unlike statewide and other candidate races, there is no limit on the amount of money donors can contribute to support or oppose a ballot measure.

“The backers of this proposed initiative to tax California billionaires would have their work cut out for them,” said Kousser at UC San Diego. “Despite the state’s national reputation as ‘Scandinavia by the Sea,’ there remains a strong anti-tax impulse among voters who often reject tax increases and are loath to kill the state’s golden goose of tech entrepreneurship.”

Additionally, as Newsom eyes a presidential bid in 2028, political experts question how the governor will position himself — opposing raising taxes but also not wanting to be viewed as responsible for large-scale healthcare cuts that would harm the most vulnerable Californians.

“It wouldn’t be surprising if they qualify the initiative. There’s enough money and enough pent-up anger on the left to get this on the ballot,” said Dan Schnur, a political communications professor who teaches at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley.

“What happens once it qualifies is anybody’s guess,” he said.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, called Newsom’s position “an Achilles heel” that could irk primary voters in places like the Midwest who are focused on economic inequality, inflation, affordability and the growing wealth gap.

“I think it’s going to be really hard for him to take a position that we shouldn’t tax the billionaires,” said Gonzalez, whose labor umbrella group will consider whether to endorse the proposed tax next year.

California billionaires who are residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be impacted by the ballot measure if it passes . Prominent business leaders announced moves that appeared to be a strategy to avoid the levy at the end of 2025. On Dec. 31, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel announced that his firm had opened a new office in Miami, the same day venture capitalist David Sacks said he was opening an office in Austin.

Wealth taxes are not unprecedented in the U.S. and versions exist in Switzerland and Spain, said Brian Galle, a taxation expert and law professor at UC Berkeley.

In California, the tax offers an efficient and practical way to pay for healthcare services without disrupting the economy, he said.

“A 1% annual tax on billionaires for five years would have essentially no meaningful impact on their economic behavior,” Galle said. “We’re funding a way of avoiding a real economic disaster with something that has very tiny impact.”

Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya disagrees. Billionaires whose wealth is often locked in company stakes and not liquid could go bankrupt, Palihapitiya wrote on X.

The tax, he posted, “will kill entrepreneurship in California.”

Is there a dumpster somewhere to torch and bury this year of bedlam, 2025?

We near its end with equal amounts relief and trepidation. Surely we can’t be expected to endure another such tumultuous turn around the sun?

It was only January that Donald Trump moved back into the White House, apparently toting trunkloads of gilt for the walls. Within weeks, he’d declared an emergency at the border; set in motion plans to dismantle government agencies; fired masses of federal workers; and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

Demonstrators at a No Kings rally in Washington, protesting actions by President Trump and Elon Musk.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

By spring, the administration was attacking Harvard as a test case for strong-arming higher education. By June, Trump’s grotesquely misnamed Big Beautiful Bill had become law, giving $1 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and funding a deportation effort (and armed force) that has fundamentally reshaped American immigration law and ended any pretense about targeting “the worst of the worst.”

Fall and winter have brought questionable bombings of boats in the Caribbean, a further backing away from Ukraine, a crackdown on opposition to Trump by classifying it as leftist terrorism and congressional inaction on healthcare that will leave many struggling to stay insured.

That’s the short list.

It was a year when America tried something new, and while adherents of the MAGA movement may celebrate much of it, our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak have a different perspective.

Here, they renew their annual tradition of looking at the year past and offering some thoughts on what the new year may bring.

Chabria: Welp, that was something. I can’t say 2025 was a stellar year for the American experiment, but it certainly will make the history books.

Before we dive into pure politics, I’ll start with something positive. I met a married couple at a No Kings rally in Sacramento who were dressed up as dinosaurs, inspired by the Portland Frog, an activist who wears an inflatable amphibian suit.

When I asked why, the husband told me, “If you don’t do something soon, you will have democracy be extinct.”

Crowds participate in No Kings Day in downtown Los Angeles in October.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

I loved that so many Americans were doing something by turning out to not just protest policies that hit personally, but to rally in support of democracy writ large. For many, it was their first time taking this kind of action, and they were doing it in a way that expressed optimism and possibility rather than giving in to anger or despair. Where there is humor, there is hope.

Barabak: As in, it only hurts when I laugh?

In 2024, a plurality of Americans voted to reinstall Trump in the White House — warts, felony conviction and all — mainly in the hope he would bring down the cost of living and make eggs and gasoline affordable again.

While eggs and gas are no longer exorbitant, the cost of just about everything else continues to climb. Or, in the case of beef, utility bills and insurance, skyrocket.

The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is another of the long-standing institutions Trump has smeared his name across.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Meantime, the president seems less concerned with improving voters’ lives than smearing his name on every object he lays his eyes on, one of the latest examples being the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

(The only place Trump doesn’t want to see his name is in those voluminous Epstein files.)

I wonder: Why stop there? Why not brand these the United States of Trump-erica, then boast we live in the “hottest” country on Planet Trump?

Chabria: Stop giving him ideas!

You and I agree that it’s been a difficult year full of absurdity, but we’ve disagreed on how seriously to take Trump as a threat to democracy. As the year closes, I am more concerned than ever.

It’s not the ugly antics of ego that alarm me, but the devastating policies that will be hard to undo — if we get the chance to undo them.

The race-based witch hunt of deportations is obviously at the top of that list, but the demolition of both K-12 and higher education; the dismantling of federal agencies, thereby cutting our scientific power as a nation; the increasing oligarchy of tech industrialists; the quiet placement of election deniers in key election posts — these are all hammers bashing away at our democracy.

Now, we are seeing overt antisemitism and racism on the MAGA right, with alarming acceptance from many. The far right has championed a debate as dumb as it is frightening, about “heritage” Americans being somehow a higher class of citizens than nonwhites.

Vice President JD Vance speaks at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

(Gerald Herbert / Associated Press)

Recently, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech in which he announced, “In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” and Trump has said he wants to start taking away citizenship from legal immigrants. Both men claim America is a Christian nation, and eschew diversity as a value.

Do you still think American democracy is secure, and this political moment will pass without lasting damage to our democratic norms?

Barabak: I’ll start with some differentiation.

I agree that Trump is sowing seeds or, more specifically, enacting policies and programs, that will germinate and do damage for many years to come.

Alienating our allies, terrorizing communities with his prejudicial anti-immigrant policies — which go far beyond a reasonable tightening of border security — starving science and other research programs. The list is a long and depressing one, as you suggest.

But I do believe — cue the trumpets and cherubs — there is nothing beyond the power of voters to fix.

To quote, well, me, there is no organism on the planet more sensitive to heat and light than a politician. We’ve already seen an anti-Trump backlash in a series of elections held this year, in red and blue state alike. A strong repudiation in the 2026 midterm election will do more than all the editorial tut-tutting and protest marches combined. (Not that either are bad things.)

A stressed-out seeming poll worker in a polling station at Los Angeles’ Union Station.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

The best way to preserve our democracy and uphold America’s values is for unhappy citizens to register their dissent via the ballot box. And to address at least one of your concerns, I’m not too worried about Trump somehow nullifying the results, given legal checks and the decentralization of our election system.

Installing lawmakers in Congress with a mandate to hold Trump to account would be a good start toward repairing at least some of the damage he’s wrought. And if it turns into a Republican rout, it’ll be quite something to watch the president’s onetime allies run for the hills as fast as their weak knees allow.

Chabria: OMG! It’s a holiday miracle. We agree!

I think the midterms will be messy, but I don’t think this will be an election where Trump, or anyone, outright tries to undo overall results.

Although I do think the groundwork will be laid to sow further doubt in our election integrity ahead of 2028, and we will see bogus claims of fraud and lawsuits.

So the midterms very well could be a reset if Democrats take control of something, anything. We would likely not see past damage repaired, but may see enough opposition to slow the pace of whatever is happening now, and offer transparency and oversight.

But the 2026 election only matters if people vote, which historically is not something a great number of people do in midterms. At this point, there are few people out there who haven’t heard about the stakes in November, but that still doesn’t translate to folks — lazy, busy, distracted — weighing in.

If proposed restrictions on mail-in ballots or voter identification take effect, even just in some states, that will also change the outcomes.

But there is hope, always hope.

Barabak: On that note, let’s recognize a few of the many good things that happened in 2025.

MacKenzie Scott donated $700 million to more than a dozen historically Black colleges and universities, showing that not all tech billionaires are selfish and venal.

The Dodgers won their second championship and, while this San Francisco Giants fan was not pleased, their seven-game thriller against the Toronto Blue Jays was a World Series for the ages.

And the strength and resilience shown by survivors of January’s SoCal firestorm has been something to behold.

Any others, beside your demonstrating dinos, who deserve commendation?

Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the Christmas Day blessing from the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

(Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)

Chabria: Though I’m not Catholic, I have been surprisingly inspired by Pope Leo XIV.

So I’ll leave us with a bit of his advice for the future: “Be agents of communion, capable of breaking down the logic of division and polarization, of individualism and egocentrism.”

Many of us are tired, and suffering from Trump fatigue. Regardless, to put it in nonpapal terms, it may be a dumpster — but we’re all in it together.

Barabak: I’d like to end, as we do each year, with a thank you to our readers.

Anita and I wouldn’t be here — which would greatly please some folks — but for you. (And a special nod to the paid subscribers out there. You help keep the lights on.)

Here’s wishing each and all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

We’ll see you again in 2026.

WASHINGTON — President Trump made dozens of promises when he campaigned to retake the White House last year, from boosting economic growth to banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports.

But one pledge stood out as the most important in many voters’ eyes: Trump said he would not only bring inflation under control, but push grocery and energy prices back down.

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again,” he said in 2024. “Your prices are going to come tumbling down, your gasoline is going to come tumbling down, and your heating bills and cooling bills are going to be coming down.”

He hasn’t delivered. Gasoline and eggs are cheaper than they were a year ago, but most other prices are still rising, including groceries and electricity. The Labor Department estimated Thursday that inflation is running at 2.7%, only a little better than the 3% Trump inherited from Joe Biden; electricity was up 6.9%.

And that has given the president a major political problem: Many of the voters who backed him last year are losing faith.

“I voted for Trump in 2024 because he was promising America first … and he was promising a better economy,” Ebyad, a nurse in Texas, said on a Focus Group podcast hosted by Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell. “It feels like all those promises have been broken.”

Since Inauguration Day, the president’s job approval has declined from 52% to 43% in the polling average calculated by statistician Nate Silver. Approval for Trump’s performance on the economy, once one of his strongest points, has sunk even lower to 39%.

That’s dangerous territory for a president who hopes to help his party keep its narrow majority in elections for the House of Representatives next year.

To Republican pollsters and strategists, the reasons for Trump’s slump are clear: He overpromised last year and he’s under-performing now.

“The most important reasons he won in 2024 were his promises to bring inflation down and juice the economy,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres said. “That’s the reason he won so many voters who traditionally had supported Democrats, including Hispanics. … But he hasn’t been able to deliver. Inflation has moderated, but it hasn’t gone backward.”

Last week, after deriding complaints about affordability as “a Democrat hoax,” Trump belatedly launched a campaign to convince voters that he’s at work fixing the problem.

But at his first stop, a rally in Pennsylvania, he continued arguing that the economy is already in great shape.

“Our prices are coming down tremendously,” he insisted.

“You’re doing better than you’ve ever done,” he said, implicitly dismissing voters’ concerns.

He urged families to cope with high tariffs by cutting back: “You know, you can give up certain products,” he said. “You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice, but you don’t need 37 dolls.”

Earlier, in an interview with Politico, Trump was asked what grade he would give the economy. “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” he said.

On Wednesday, the president took another swing at the issue in a nationally televised speech, but his message was basically the same.

“One year ago, our country was dead. We were absolutely dead,” he said. “Now we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world. … Inflation is stopped, wages are up, prices are down.”

Republican pollster David Winston, who has advised GOP members of Congress, said the president has more work to do to win back voters who supported him in 2024 but are now disenchanted.

“When families are paying the price for hamburger that they used to pay for steak, there’s a problem, and there’s no sugarcoating it,” he said. “The president’s statements that ‘we have no inflation’ and ‘our groceries are down’ have flown in the face of voters’ reality.”

Another problem for Trump, pollsters said, is that many voters believe his tariffs are pushing prices higher — making the president part of the problem, not part of the solution. A YouGov poll in November found that 77% of voters believe tariffs contribute to inflationary pressures.

Trump’s popularity hasn’t dropped through the floor; he still has the allegiance of his fiercely loyal base. “He is at his lowest point of his second term so far, but he is well within the range of his job approval in the first term,” Ayres noted.

Still, he has lost significant chunks of his support among independent voters, young people and Latinos, three of the “swing voter” groups who put him over the top in 2024.

Inflation isn’t the only issue that has dented his standing.

He promised to lead the economy into “a golden age,” but growth has been uneven. Unemployment rose in November to 4.6%, the highest level in more than four years.

He promised massive tax cuts for the middle class, but most voters say they don’t believe his tax cut bill brought them any benefit. “It’s hard to convince people that they got a tax break when nobody’s tax rates were actually cut,” Ayres noted.

He kept his promise to launch the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history — but many voters complain that he has broken his promise to focus on violent criminals. In Silver’s average, approval of his immigration policies dropped from 52% in January to 45% now.

A Pew Research Center survey in October found that 53% of adults, including 71% of Latinos, think the administration has ordered too many deportations. However, most voters approve of Trump’s measures on border security.

Republican pollsters and strategists say they believe Trump can reverse his downward momentum before November’s congressional election, but it may not be easy.

“You look at what voters care about most, and you offer policies to address those issues,” GOP strategist Alex Conant suggested. “That starts with prices. So you talk about permitting reform, energy prices, AI [artificial intelligence] … and legislation to address healthcare, housing and tax cuts. You could call it the Affordability Act.”

“A laser focus on the economy and the cost of living is job one,” GOP pollster Winston said. “His policies on regulation, energy and taxes should have a positive impact, but the White House needs to emphasize them on a more consistent basis.”

“People voted for change in 2024,” he warned. “If they don’t get it — if inflation doesn’t begin to recede — they may vote for change again in 2026.”