women

SACRAMENTO — In recent weeks, the Trump administration has been using taxpayer dollars — your money and mine — to pay for a series of cringy, self-glorifying advertisements that feature, you guessed it, President Trump himself.

In one particularly needy spot, the lyrics “love me, love me” are repeated continuously over fast-cut clips of Trump. The White House claims it’s a call to love America, but if someone I knew posted this, I’d be asking if they were OK. Like, teenage-style, “Are you OK?”

But I’d be missing the point if I went down that path of laughing off these regrettable commercials as just more Trump self-adulation.

Taken with two other recent developments — the banning of certain press from the White House and a further purge of military leadership — some experts on authoritarianism told me what we’re really watching is a further collapse of democracy into an authoritarian cult of personality in which Trump is the state and the state is Trump.

“In authoritarian countries, all leaders, they try to completely blur the line between themselves and the state function,” said Konstantin Sonin, an expert in authoritarianism and a professor at the University of Chicago. “So basically, being ‘anti-me’ is being anti-state. In this Trump advertisement, there is this authoritarian scent.”

State propaganda

Jason Stanley, a former Yale professor who moved to the University of Toronto in part over concerns about the far-right political shift in the U.S., put it even more succinctly.

“Trump is trying to tell you, you live in an authoritarian society now, and that he is the state,” Stanley said. “This is pure, pure state propaganda.”

State propaganda matters because it serves not just as a message, but also a warning, said Federico Finchelstein, a history professor at the New School for Social Research and author of “The Wannabe Fascists,” about dudes who try to destroy democracy from the inside. It tells citizens that being against Trump is being against America, he said — a chilling prospect for those who would oppose him.

Finchelstein points out that painting opponents as communists or socialists — an incessant refrain from Trump and the core of the commercials — is a common practice in non-democracies, turning enemies of the dictator into enemies of the state, and perhaps even criminalizing them.

“This should not be seen as just another outburst or just another ridiculed dimension of a kind of ‘original personality,’” he said of the ads. “This is more of a structural pattern of authoritarianism.”

The press ban

Finchelstein points to the recent White House press ban as another part of that pattern, and another way Trump is removing that line between himself and the state.

Recently, CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied access to the White House on Trump’s orders. The outlets sued, a judge issued a restraining order, and as of now, it mostly has blown over — though it shouldn’t.

For days, Trump made it clear that the ban was because he didn’t like coverage that made him look bad — and if it made him look bad, it was bad for America.

“Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country! No matter how GREAT my Achievements, they trivialize and demean,” Trump ranted on social media.

Then Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who has made loyalty to Trump his brand, took that a step further, arguing that “after years and years and years of one-sided media coverage of the president from certain outlets, the president finally said it’s not fair to the American people,” and constituted a national security risk.

Trump “tries to blur this line about negative stories about [himself] and negative stories about America,” a classic authoritarian tactic, said Sonin, the University of Chicago professor.

Finchelstein said that that kind of crackdown on dissent comes most often in moments of crisis for the person in power — such as when, say, his approval ratings are at an all-time low, gas prices are soaring because of an unpopular war and an election is looming.

The military concern

But what happens if propaganda and intimidation aren’t enough?

Stanley said that faced with plummeting popularity, Trump seems to have stopped trying to win our approval — instead focusing on consolidating power while he still has time.

“Trump is in a race to be a dictator,” Stanley said. “That’s why he doesn’t try to persuade you anymore. He’s not in the business of persuading. He’s in the business of hard propaganda, of just expressing his power. He’s saying public opinion doesn’t matter anymore.”

Finchelstein, Stanley and others warn that the most dangerous moment for democracies can be when a wanna-be dictator loses momentum.

“We’re in a situation where it matters whether the military will violate the Constitution,” Stanley said.

Make of this what you will, but this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth continued his purge of seasoned military leaders by confirming the department is firing 20% of top officers.

“The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in,” Hegseth said of the unprecedented hollowing of experienced leadership.

Hegseth also announced that billionaire right-wingers Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey are going to help guide the future of the military, which doesn’t sound terrifying at all. I mean, DOGE went so well.

Sonin, the University of Chicago professor, said despite all this, he has hope — because Trump is “old and unpopular” and support of him may have found a “floor.”

Or as Stanley puts it, Trump can conflate himself with the state all he wants, but it works only if we believe him — and even his supporters seem tired of the lies.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Legal Immigrants Lose Medicaid Coverage Under Trump’s Bill
The California angle: Sean Combs’ release date is pushed up, as new report details pampered prison lifestyle
The L.A. Times Special: What the ‘Taco Stand Karen’ fiasco says about right-wing Latinos
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has described violence against women as a “national shame” after the discovery of another woman’s body intensified public anger over the country’s persistent gender-based violence.

Eleven women’s bodies have been found in Ekurhuleni, a municipality east of Johannesburg, since July, prompting renewed fear and outrage after years of government promises to tackle violence against women.

Most of the victims were in their 20s or 30s. Some were found stripped and showing signs of sexual violence, according to authorities.

“There are women lying tonight in government mortuaries waiting to be identified, waiting for someone to claim them, waiting to be taken home and laid to rest,” Ramaphosa said in a televised address late on Tuesday.

“How can our hearts not be broken? How can we not be angry?”

He described violence against women as a source of “profound pain and national shame” and acknowledged growing anger among South African women.

Investigation Into the Killings

Ramaphosa said police had so far found no evidence that a serial killer was responsible for the 11 deaths. He stressed, however, that investigators were continuing to examine all possibilities.

Authorities have made arrests in connection with three of the killings, while investigations into the remaining deaths are continuing.

The president said none of the cases would be allowed to go cold, amid growing concerns over whether South Africa’s law enforcement agencies can adequately investigate violent crimes against women.

The latest deaths have revived criticism of the government’s efforts to tackle gender-based violence, despite repeated national campaigns and commitments aimed at reducing the problem.

South Africa’s Wider Crime Crisis

The killings are unfolding against a broader backdrop of severe violent crime in South Africa.

The country has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world, while corruption, limited resources and weaknesses within the policing system have made it difficult to investigate and prosecute cases effectively.

Only about one in 10 murders is solved, highlighting the scale of the challenge facing investigators.

For communities in Ekurhuleni, the discovery of 11 women’s bodies has therefore become more than a series of individual criminal investigations. It has renewed questions about public safety, accountability and whether years of government commitments are translating into effective protection for women.

Ramaphosa’s remarks reflect the political pressure surrounding the issue as authorities face renewed demands to identify the victims, establish who was responsible for their deaths and prevent further violence.

With information from Reuters.

The fraught relationship between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris is the stuff of reality TV.

With their Hollywood looks and unbridled ambition, the two San Francisco-spawned Democrats have spent decades in tacit competition, ascending to the heights of California politics while still managing to avoid direct confrontation.

That could change in 2028, should Newsom and Harris jump their parallel tracks and face each other — and possibly dozens of other candidates — in a bid for their party’s presidential nomination.

California’s departing governor, who has spent the better part of his second and final term auditioning for the White House, recently said he wouldn’t run if Harris chooses to do so. “Mutual assured destruction,” Newsom called a he-she contest between the two Left Coast rivals, and a “waste of everyone’s time.”

Some took that disavowal not as deference but jujitsu, or a form of political psy-ops directed at the governor’s longtime frenemy.

On the one hand …

In the same interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Newsom allowed as how the case against Harris — she’s a two-time loser at the presidential level and has had her shot — is “a pretty good one, actually.”

“That’s objectively true,” Newsom added, driving the knife a little deeper.

But rather than forcing Harris’ hand, Newsom’s professed willingness to stand aside may have simply invited the former vice president to take her sweet time deciding whether or not to run, waiting until the Democratic contest is well underway.

And leaving Newsom in an odd sort of limbo.

The former vice president, lips largely sealed, has done and said just enough to keep the door open to a 2028 run, without firmly committing to the contest. There’s a good chance that Harris — always careful, ever deliberate — doesn’t know what she’ll do. Or, at least, isn’t 100% certain.

She can afford to wait.

Time is on her side

After four years in the White House and her abbreviated 2024 White House bid, Harris has universal name recognition, a nationwide fundraising base and continued support among a significant number of Black women, who just happen to form the backbone of the Democratic Party.

Harris won’t freeze the presidential campaign the way she did the race for California governor. That contest was stalled and the field incomplete until Harris announced, after months of consideration, she’d take a pass. That’s not to say, by any stretch, Harris is the favorite to win the presidential nomination. The criticism Newsom expressed — just a fella jawing away, as he and Tapper cast their fly rods — is a view that is widely held among Democrats.

But the 2028 contest, which unofficially starts the instant the final polls close Nov. 3 — won’t be firmly fixed until it’s clear whether Harris is in or out.

Newsom doesn’t have that luxury of biding time, especially when so many other Democrats are poised to enter the race.

The governor has his own formidable national fundraising base — thanks in good part to his online trolling and anti-Trump hijinks — and a not-small degree of name recognition across the country. But Newsom has yet to fully engage in the see me, feel me aspect of presidential campaigning, which typically requires a candidate’s persistent physical presence and is particularly important in the earliest-voting states.

So his only option is to campaign full bore once he leaves the governor’s office in January, as though he’s running without hesitation or qualification. Then, if Harris jumps into the contest, Newsom can sulk his way back to California, or break his pledge and run against her after saying he wouldn’t.

That, as Newsom suggested to Tapper, would be a gift to the rest of the Democratic field.

Not too long ago, Newsom and Harris were carping over whether he was sufficiently supportive of her hurried-up 2024 presidential bid.

In her account of the campaign, Harris said she reached out to the governor shortly after President Biden announced he was standing aside in favor of his vice president. When she called, Harris wrote, Newsom texted that he was out hiking and would call her back. But, she said, he never did.

Much backing and forthing ensued — Newsom pointing out he didn’t hesitate to endorse Harris once he returned to civilization — with both insisting all the while things are fine between them, really.

Now the two are once more entwined, their fates tied up in mutual ambition and a shared hunger for the White House.

Was Newsom’s CNN interview a feint? Was he just faking respect for Harris as a way to keep in the good graces of Black women voters, all the while hoping against hope she won’t run — and planning to reverse himself if she does?

Will Harris put off her decision, knowing that every day and month that passes deepens the suspense and leaves Newsom twisting?

Will the two finally collide head-on, settling once and for all their intense, if unspoken, competition?

So much drama!

Stay tuned. There’s a reality TV show in there somewhere.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: With bans and taunts, Trump escalates his assault on the media
The deep dive: No electric shock gloves, face coverings: Newsom pushes back on Trump’s ‘Orwellian’ immigration agenda
The L.A. Times Special: War games and draft lawsuits: Democrats work to Trump-proof November election
Question for you: What would you want to ask of California’s two gubernatorial candidates? Fill out our survey!

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — What’s so wrong about requiring every Californian to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote? That’s what Proposition 39 backers ask. And it’s a fair question.

Here are some valid answers:

• It would make California’s already notoriously slow vote count even more pokey.
• It would be an added hassle for citizens attempting to exercise their voting right.
• It would cost taxpayers a bundle, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
• It’s another solution by politicians to a problem that really doesn’t exist.

Practically everyone, regardless of political affiliation, must understand by now that there simply is no evidence of widespread — significant, meaningful — voter cheating in California or anywhere else in America. This despite conspiracy-theorists’ fruitless searching and President Trump’s lies about “rigged” elections.

It’s my belief that the main reason Republicans placed Proposition 39 on the California ballot was to boost GOP voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. And recent independent polling shows that the measure does appeal strongly to Republicans — but not Democrats, who are united in opposition.

The proposition appears to be headed for defeat, largely because Democratic voters in this deep blue state equate it with the discredited president. Trump has turned into poison for Republican candidates in competitive races and any cause that reminds people of him.

That’s why the Proposition 39 campaign last week released a new major TV ad that essentially asks voters to ignore the president.

This is how conservative consultant Jon Fleischman summarized the ad’s message to Democrats in his blog: “You can hate Trump and still back Voter ID.”

Proposition 39 would mainly do two things:

• Require voters to show some government-issued identification each time they vote in person, such as a driver’s license or passport. Don’t have one? The state would issue a free ID card to any voter who asked.
• Californians who cast mail ballots — more than 80% of voters — would be required to write the last four digits of a government ID number on the return envelope. The number would be determined when initially registering to vote.

The measure also would impose some basically noncontroversial mandates that make sense separately. It would require election officials to maintain accurate voter registration files, weeding out people who have moved or died and verifying citizenship. But counties already do that pretty well.

The contrived bogeyman for election fraud scaremongers is the undocumented immigrant community. But these people, living on the edge and hiding from the government, aren’t going to risk deportation by trying to vote in an election they couldn’t care less about. And political candidates aren’t going to waste their time and money on them. Their targets are the large numbers of apathetic legal voters who sit out elections.

Currently, Californians must provide identification when registering and swear under penalty of perjury — a felony — that they are U.S. citizens. And they must record their signatures when registering and scribble it on the back of the ballot envelope when voting by mail.

Requiring me to add a four-digit number on the back of my “absentee” ballot envelope means I’d have to register all over again to record the PIN. And then remember it every election. A pointless pain.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, instigated and authored Proposition 39. “I do believe that voter fraud is a real problem. Absolutely,” he told me.

But he said the proposition has two main goals: 1, to clean up voter files and make sure ballots are properly validated and counted. 2, to increase public confidence in the voting process. “We have a perception problem,” he says. “Voters have low trust” in the election system.

Republicans mistrust a lot; Democrats not so much.

A California poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that 84% of Republican voters had a “major concern” about voter fraud. Only 21% of Democrats did.

Can anyone doubt who’s driving the Republicans’ anxiety? The bellicose president. “Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump has reiterated. “It’s terrible what’s going on.”

This from the hypocrite who mails in his ballots.

Fortunately, Proposition 39’s crafters left mail ballots pretty much alone, except for requiring a nuisance PIN on the ballot envelope.

That “absolutely” will slow down vote counting, says Assemblywoman Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), who heads the Assembly Elections Committee and was the longtime chief elections official of Santa Cruz County. Under Proposition 39, officials not only would need to check voters’ signatures against those on file, but also their PINs.

And voting in person would drag while people dug for an ID and an official checked it, Pellerin says. Some people are bound to be denied their voting right by mistake, she asserts.

Tony Quinn, formerly a GOP redistricting consultant and a longtime political analyst, points out that a disproportionately high portion of in-person voters are Republicans. Proposition 39 is “imposing a burden on them,” he says. “I don’t think the authors realize who’s voting in person these days. They sense illegal aliens.”

The UC institute poll showed Proposition 39 being supported by 39% of likely voters and opposed by 52%. It was backed by 92% of Republicans, but Democrats were 80% against. And they outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 in California.

The proposition also trailed in a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California: 43% yes, 55% no.

In the PPIC poll, Republicans said 39 was by far the most interesting proposition on the ballot.

Trump’s influence? Among the paltry 27% of voters who approve of his job performance, 88% support Proposition 39. But of the 72% who disapprove of the president, 73% oppose the measure.

Trump is toxic.

Proposition 39 is more government regulation for no good reason.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Tax the rich? California voters are divided, according to new poll
Law & Order: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The L.A. Times Special: High cost of living tops voter concerns, Becerra remains front-runner in governor’s race, new poll shows

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

SACRAMENTO — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco got slapped down Thursday by the California Supreme Court in not one but two cases. Ouch.

First, the court told Bianco to return more than 600,000 ballots he had seized as part of an ill-conceived, conspiracy-laden “investigation” into voter fraud — making it clear it was the sheriff who was the criminal.

“The seizure of the ballots was unlawful,” the court wrote, before ordering Bianco to give them back to the registrar of voters and “refrain from further handling of the ballots except as necessary to comply with our order.”

Then the court, in a separate case, told Bianco he’s not a law unto himself, and in fact does have a boss in the form of the state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. Bonta had previously ordered Bianco to pause his investigation, and Bianco largely ignored him.

The court found that the constitutional authority held by the attorney general “includes the power to give binding directions to sheriffs.”

While the high-profile lawsuit about Bianco’s seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots from last year’s special election on redistricting has grabbed headlines, the second case about the authority of the state attorney general to oversee all California sheriffs and district attorneys is equally powerful.

It’s the first time the court has weighed in on a long-running debate in California over whether elected sheriffs have to answer to anyone. Not only did Bianco lose for election deniers everywhere in the first case, he also managed to clarify for all California sheriffs in the second case that they are not as powerful as some would like to believe.

Combined, the two opinions by the state’s highest court give another layer of assurance to Golden State residents that the integrity of the November midterm elections is as secure as the state can make it — some welcome news in a national landscape where free and fair elections are increasingly at risk.

The quiet advocate

Before we get into what the ruling means for midterms in California, there are two overlooked bits that make these cases even more interesting.

First, gubernatorial candidate and former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has been closely involved in the ballot-seizing case, but also pretty quiet about it.

Whenever a politician does something good and doesn’t advertise it, it always catches my attention. Politicians, especially ones running for office, aren’t big on modesty.

But Becerra has not spent a lot of time talking about this, even though he is actually a working attorney on this case, as an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project. He came up with ideas, he participated — this wasn’t just a put-my-name-on-it role, I’ve been told by folks who know.

And it’s not the first time Becerra has helped the Voting Rights Project in a major endeavor. It was their work that helped define the legal arguments that made Proposition 50 happen. That’s last year’s ballot initiative that redrew California voting maps to favor Democrats, in response to a Texas effort to gerrymander in favor of Republicans. It was Proposition 50 ballots that Bianco seized.

“Today the California Supreme Court handed voters a great victory,” Becerra said in a statement from the voting project. “The Court knocked election deniers off their feet and strengthened our hand in election protection just ahead of the November vote. We must use every lever at our disposal to beat back voter interference and intimidation.”

That line about knocking election deniers is not hyperbole. In some far-right, conspiracy-rich circles, Bianco’s cowboy-saving-the-day routine was viewed as heroic. Maybe even something to emulate.

Across the country, there are rumblings — including from President Trump — about seizing ballots from past or future elections. While this ruling is firmly rooted in California law, most states have similar chains of custody when it comes to ballots. So it’s likely to at least make other would-be-Biancos pause.

In a later interview, Becerra told me that the Voting Rights Project was “the one thing I decided I would do after I came home from being secretary in Washington, D.C.,” whether he ran for office or not, “just because I so believe in the work that they do.”

He said as he campaigns this year, he’s seeing anxiety in minority communities from that interference and intimidation, maybe even fear that could pressure some legal voters to sit this one out.

“It makes it tough when you’ve got all these things standing in your way before you even get to thinking about going to vote,” Becerra said. “The Latino community, other communities, mostly under-served communities, I always tell them, we’re not rich. The way we win these things is by voting.”

The Liu concurrence

The second fact that caught my attention was a concurring opinion on the ballot case by Justice Goodwin Liu.

While the court was unanimous in its findings, Liu wrote his own opinion highlighting how the Riverside registrar of voters was “caught between a rock and a hard place” when the sheriff of his own county showed up with a warrant, guns and “enough trucks to remove several pallets of materials.”

That trifecta, Liu wrote, left the registrar little room for dissent — but that’s a problem.

Liu’s point seemed to be that with the current state of our president making election denial chic, our voting officials need to step up. He said the registrar should have come directly to the court for relief, and not left it to the Voting Rights Project and other plaintiffs.

“It is a lot to ask of our election officials that they not only do their jobs competently but also stand ready to sue anyone who unlawfully interferes with their duties,” Liu wrote. “Yet here we are.”

Since Bianco seized the ballots, state law has been changed. This session, legislators passed (and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed) at least 13 laws pertaining to election security, including making it a felony to break the chain of ballot custody, and ensuring that local election officials immediately contact the state in instances when that is threatened. Those laws will offer protection to election officials if a situation like this comes up again.

But Liu’s point is still valid. Being an election official is no longer a sleepy little job, but a front-line battle for democracy, and for “our democracy to flourish, our elections must be conducted in accordance with the law.”

Which brings us back to the midterms. California shouldn’t be complacent, but the state isn’t slouching on preparation, or resolve.

As Bonta put it, “if you can imagine it, we are ready for it.”

I’m not quite that confident — and definitely concerned for contests outside of the Golden State — but Thursday’s rulings are a reminder that the law still holds, even when lawmen try to break it.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The California angle: This deadly fungus isn’t just a rural threat anymore. New studies point to cities and oil wells
The L.A. Times Special: Hollywood would get 20% federal film tax credit under proposed new bill
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

Love is the name. Fraud allegedly was his game. And the list of his victims — several of whom said they became romantically involved with him — continues to grow.

Daejon Labrayae Love, 35, and his accomplice Taylor Jamie Chan, 18, remain in federal custody after their arrest Aug. 24 in Boise, Idaho, on wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges. The FBI charged the two men with scamming at least 26 women in four states out of at least $1.3 million.

Since then many more women have come forward to say they were victims of Love’s schemes, which often involved him impersonating a San Francisco 49ers player. The FBI said it has identified 35 additional women who say they were defrauded, ratcheting up the number of alleged victims to more than 60.

The latest development is especially troubling. A woman told ESPN on Tuesday that she submitted a complaint about Love on the 49ers website eight months ago on Dec. 20, 2025, yet the team apparently did little with the information.

Gwen Herndon submitted a complaint/concern form, writing “there is a federal investigation surrounding a man pretending to be a 49ers player.” She named Love, saying he stole money from women.

“I wanted you to be aware of the situation and are hopefully proactive in denouncing his involvement on your team,” she wrote in the message, which was reviewed by ESPN.

Herndon said the only response she received from the 49ers came from a Levi’s Stadium guest services account a week after her report, encouraging her to contact law enforcement agencies with the information.

“We take reports of individuals misrepresenting themselves as members of the San Francisco 49ers very seriously,” the 49ers response said. “For safety and legal reasons, the team cannot comment on ongoing investigations or specific individuals…. Our internal team will also monitor any instances of impersonation and take action as appropriate to protect fans and the team’s reputation.”

A 49ers spokesperson declined to confirm that Herndon’s email was viewed by team officials, citing the ongoing FBI investigation.

Federal investigators, meanwhile, are working to verify that the 35 women who have come forward in recent days are in fact victims of Love and Chan, Portland FBI Special Agent in Charge Doug Olson said in a news conference.

“We were surprised how many people were victimized in such a short period of time and then to have that many more come forward,” Olson said. “It’s a large volume for just a couple of subjects. Our concern is that this fraud could be replicated by other individuals that are out there victimizing other people in similar schemes.”

The FBI alleges that from February 2022 until they were arrested, Love and Chan fraudulently solicited money from women in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

Love portrayed himself on Instagram as a 49ers wide receiver who went undrafted but worked his way onto the roster. He met many of the women through dating apps and developed romantic relationships with several, according to the FBI. Chan falsely posed as Love’s financial adviser.

In an Instagram Story titled “NFL Journey,” Love held a 49ers helmet while driving and said, “I’m on my way to get my mom. I know I get a lot of fans who want to know how football works or how I got involved in the league…. If you know me and see me in person I’ll explain.”

Experts on interpersonal relationships say that a person can instantly assume someone is trustworthy who exudes warmth and confidence as a first impression — especially if they find the person attractive.

“When we meet someone for the first time, our brains are quietly trying to answer two big questions: Can I trust this person, and do they seem capable and confident?,” said Tammi Pickle, an executive at the personalized matchmaking agency Elite Connections. “Someone who comes across as confident might suddenly seem smarter, kinder, more successful and even more trustworthy simply because of the way they carry themselves.

“When we are attracted to someone, our brains have a tendency to fill in the blanks with positive assumptions. The catch? Those assumptions aren’t always accurate.”

Love quickly gained the trust of dozens of women, allegedly convincing them to give him large sums of money. The FBI said Love instructed several women who did not have cash to invest to take out personal loans, assuring them they would quickly be repaid.

“The scheme relied on Love’s creation of fictitious personas and display of a lavish lifestyle which Love presented to victims both in person and on social media websites,” federal authorities said in a press release.

“Chan and Love also hosted three-way FaceTime calls in which they showed victims falsified investment gains and encouraged victims to part with their money. Victims sent Love and Chan money due to their belief that their money would be invested in legitimate investment vehicles on the victims’ behalf.”

One women who didn’t fall for Love’s scheme told KPTV in Oregon that she went on a 2024 date with him in 2024 after meeting on a dating app. He told her his name was John Prince and claimed he was a Swiss real estate developer.

Anderson said his behavior during their first date raised suspicion.

“He said, ‘I’m very intentional and efficient when it comes to dating, and if I pursue you, you will be the only one I pursue. I need someone who has been around money, who understands that, you know, these things aren’t luxuries to me. This is just my normal life.’

“Within five minutes, I decided I wasn’t gonna see him again.”

Love also manipulated AI. Search engines and AI rely on web scraping and frequency of mentions, and the sheer volume of his fake posts caused AI to mistakenly identify him as an NFL wide receiver. He showed screenshots of erroneous AI search summaries to alleged victims, convincing them he was worthy of their trust.

On an Instagram story, he posted a one screenshot of a webpage AI Overview that says “Daejon Love is a wide receiver for the San Francisco 49ers and information about his position, contract and teammate texting habits is available online. He is also associated with the team in various social media content and articles.”

Love then turns the camera on himself and says, “That’s Google. That’s not me, that’s Google.”

He goes on to explain why he isn’t currently playing, lifting a crooked finger to the camera and saying he is injured. He concludes the story by again saying he wants “full transparency” because “people ask, what do I do? How can I afford a $500,000 car? How can I afford a $300,000 [Lamborghini] Urus? “

He says that he is driving to pick up his mother, then concludes by inviting those watching to reach out to him in person.

In the month before his arrest, Love traveled to New Mexico, California, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Idaho to meet with women, according to investigators. He allegedly used several fictitious names, including Jon Love, Avril Lyto Love and Jordan Love.

The romp abruptly ended at the Boise airport when Love and Chan were removed from a white sports car by federal agents, according to a video obtained by TMZ. Love appears to be wearing red Niners gear as he is handcuffed.

“Victims were encouraged to take out personal loans and make life-altering financial decisions based on the belief they were building a future with someone they cared about,” said Olson, the FBI special agent. “Once the money was taken, the victims were cut off, left without answers, without funds, and often without closure. Many lost not only their savings, but their sense of security and confidence.”

Millions of voters went to polls in Morocco on Wednesday to determine the makeup of the House of Representatives, the parliament’s lower house.

Twenty-seven political parties are competing for 395 seats in the country’s 12th legislative election since independence in 1956.

Almost 16 million people are able to vote, with 55 percent residing in urban areas and 45 percent in rural regions, seeing a mix of concerns among voters.

Economic frustrations

While King Mohammed VI will maintain most executive powers, the new government will manage many public affairs for the coming years.

Once the votes are counted, the king will appoint the head of government from the leading party, but they will still need the support of 198 deputies – an absolute majority – to gain parliamentary confidence.

The election comes at a time of mounting challenges for the country, with the economic situation creating discontent and frustration, Mohammed Masbah, head of the Moroccan Institute for Policy Analysis, told Al Jazeera.

“The upcoming elections will have special importance because they come in a context tied to a social and economic crisis, especially high prices and the cost of living on one hand,” Masbah told Al Jazeera.

“On the other hand, there is a state of frustration among broad segments of society, especially the youth. The Gen Z protests last year, as well as the attempt to cross towards Ceuta a few weeks ago, demonstrate this crisis.”

The introduction of a new financial system designed to support candidates aged 35 could encourage more youth participation. But the nearly six million Moroccans residing overseas, many of them younger citizens, will have to appoint a proxy in Morocco to cast their vote.

There is also an upcoming key milestone for the country with the 2030 World Cup, which requires huge investments. What will remain in the minds of most voters is the state of the economy and inflation, which have impacted the living standards of many Moroccans.

“I believe the upcoming elections will produce a government majority whose primary function will be to address these imbalances, especially the economic ones related to the high cost of living in Morocco,” Masbah said.

“Regarding the issues that were raised and discussed by the majority of political parties, whether represented in the government or the opposition, they are the issue of employment and high prices.”

Two of the main parties competing in the election, the National Rally of Independents and the Authenticity and Modernity Party, have put these issues at the front of their campaigns in what has been a heated election.

“Of course, this is the main topic, but in the public debate, we also noticed conflicts, especially between the top two parties currently running the government,” Masbah said. “We noticed mudslinging and accusations of squandering funds and stealing candidates, which may increase voter alienation from voting today.”

Despite the tense conditions, Morocco’s Public Prosecution has recorded a significant drop in election-related complaints compared with the 2021 vote.

But legal amendments that criminalise digital offences for the first time – including the dissemination of fake news and false allegations intended to defame candidates or voters – have been introduced. The digital space became the primary arena for violations this year, accounting for 22 complaints.

Masbah said that despite a mood of frustration in Morocco over the government’s inability to manage key economic and social issues, turnout is expected to remain steady, as it has been over the past 20 years, due to structural factors.

“Electoral and voting behaviour in Morocco is not primarily linked to electoral programmes and promises [of parties], as much as it is linked to the stable bloc formed by Moroccan deserts and villages, which relies primarily on a network of notables who have influence and the ability to win voters’ voices through utilitarian voting,” Masbah said.

“I expect that if there is a decline in the voting rate – and this is likely – it will not be catastrophic or a sharp decline, given the consideration I mentioned earlier, which is the focus on notables and traditional elites in winning over voters.”

Love or hate him, it must be said: Donald Trump is the most extraordinary politician of our time.

He’s survived twin impeachments, a felony conviction, innumerable scandals, moral and ethical lapses, dunderheaded policies and countless exhibitions of heartlessness and bad taste, allowing him to reign over American life like no other figure in decades.

His political superpower has never been his breadth of knowledge, intelligence, compassion or his empathy. Rather, it’s Trump’s ability to overcome outrages that would buckle mere mortals, and that’s a function of sheer velocity. One offense is almost immediately superseded by the next, leaving little time to react, much less absorb their individual meaning and consequence.

“Flood the zone with s—” is how strategist Steve Bannon described the approach, a tactic employed by the red-baiting Joseph McCarthy, whose Cold War consigliere, Roy Cohn, went on to mentor Trump in the art of parry and thrust.

Recently, our president engaged in yet another of his unseemly acts, which quickly passed like so many other indecencies once fresh provocations arrived. (The banishment of disfavored news media from the White House; threats to tear down the Kennedy Center.) This one, though, is worth revisiting and examining as the country careens toward an election now less than six weeks away.

Cheat, Trump urged his supporters. Cheat like hell.

The setting was the recent Republican midterm convention in Dallas, a pageant of Trump’s ego and insecurities in full-parade dress. On the final night, in the second of two keynote speeches, Trump asked those in attendance to raise their right hands and swear to the following:

“I pledge, to the greatest president in the history of the United States, that loves us so much he can’t even breathe, that I will go out with my family, my friends, I’ll do it any way, I don’t care if I’m registered or not, I’m gonna try and cheat like hell like [Democrats] do” — here supplicants regaled Trump with laughter — “I am gonna go out and I’m going to get my friends and family and we are going to vote on November 3rd, or we are going to vote before that!”

Breaking new ground

A brief programming note: This is not normal.

As Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law, put it: “Trump framed his comments as though he were making a joke. But it’s a deadly serious thing to be joking about.”

Trump’s performance as president has always been layered with a certain amount of shtick, especially when he’s placed in his preferred setting, which is standing before a microphone in front of a rapturous crowd. Lest it be forgotten, Trump stepped into the political arena from the world of reality television, which supposedly made him more authentic. His violation of norms and trampling of protocols has come to be known — and celebrated by acolytes — as simply “Trump being Trump.”

Still, it’s a remarkable thing when the president of the United States urges people to cheat.

Richard M. Nixon, in the throes of Watergate, famously declared, “I am not a crook.” Donald Trump, his approval rating slumping toward Nixonian levels, is urging Americans to act like crooks.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, can’t recall any president ever saying anything remotely similar.

“It’s an example of how manifestly unfit [Trump] is to serve as the chief executive with a constitutional imperative to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” Levitt, who worked on voting rights in the Biden administration, wrote in an email. “Exhorting your own followers to break the law is pretty directly inconsistent with his own oath of office.”

And it is, as Levitt noted, not the first time Trump transgressed his sworn vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

A history of election denial

What’s rich — and telling — about the latest breach is Trump urging supporters to cheat even as he pretends to fight to protect the sanctity of our voting process.

From the time he was defeated in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, Trump has consistently sought to undermine the will of voters and cast doubt on elections he didn’t like — a petulant pattern that culminated in the violent attempt to overturn his beyond-doubt loss in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Since returning to the White House — felonies, impeachments and all — Trump has continued his attempts to vandalize our election system, using the powers of the presidency to harass election workers, pursue phantom fraudsters, gerrymander House seats, undermine faith in our democracy and seek to prevent Americans from voting by mail, as Trump himself prefers.

As the subversive Dallas “pledge” makes clear, Trump’s exertions have never been about ensuring free and fair elections. Instead, he’s trying to rig the system to avoid what could be a midterm nightmare for the beleaguered president and his fellow Republicans.

Levitt said there’s no reason to think Trump supporters will cheat en masse, any more than one should believe Trump when, as seems inevitable, he cries fraud if results fail to go his way on Nov. 3. “For him, it’s all just vibes,” Levitt said, “with no factual content.”

Elections have consequences. Words matter.

Especially when they’re coming from the mouth of a president who’s abundantly shown his willingness to lie, cheat and steal to get his way.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: California Republicans walk a tightrope as Trump jumps into midterms campaigning
The deep dive: Despite court wins, California election war with Trump rages on
The L.A. Times Special: Three ballot measures on housing, medical research but only one no-brainer
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The 13-year-old beat the previous 400m Asian Games record, set by China’s Ye Shiwen in 2014, by about 4.5 seconds.

China’s 13-year-old swimming sensation Yu Zidi has completed a hat-trick of Asian Games golds with a dominant victory in the 400m individual medley, two years before the Los Angeles Olympics.

The schoolgirl powered home in an Asian Games-record 4 minutes 28.56 seconds (04:28.56) on Wednesday to make it a clean sweep of her three individual events in Tokyo, following victories in the 200m butterfly and 200m individual medley, also in games-record times.

She beat the previous 400m games record set by China’s Ye Shiwen in 2014 by approximately 4.5 seconds.

It was the fourth-fastest time in the world this year, with world record-holder Summer McIntosh owning the top three.

With the next Olympics two years away, Yu is shaping up to be a major medal contender at the 2028 Los Angeles Games.

Last year, she became the youngest medallist at the World Aquatics Championships, where she won bronze for China’s relay team at the age of 12, and has since been earmarked for success in the swimming world.

At the same championship, Yu finished fourth by a small margin in three individual events.

In March, the teen sensation built on her growing reputation with a 200m butterfly victory over seven-time American Olympic medallist Regan Smith at the China Swimming Open.

At the Asian Games, Yu has dominated the pool and showed another glimpse of her immense talent in the 400m individual medley, where she took the lead from the start and finished 3.95 seconds clear of silver medallist Ke Wenxi of China, with Japan’s Mio Narita finishing third.

In addition to grabbing international headlines, Yu has become a sensation at home following her Asian Games exploits.

The story of her introduction to competitive swimming after being spotted by a coach at a water park, and her struggle with interviews, has gone viral on local social media platforms.

At the games, Yu was asked by the media whether answering questions was the hardest part of competing. She replied, with a giggle: “Every time I just want to float off somewhere else.”

Ri Song-gum wins North Korea’s first gold at the games while Chanu finally clinches elusive Asian Games medal in Japan.

North Korean weightlifter Ri Song Gum has broken three world records en route to winning gold in the women’s 49kg (108lbs) competition, which saw India’s Mirabai Chanu win an elusive Asian Games medal by finishing second.

Ri gave North Korea its first gold of the games in Nagoya, Japan, on Wednesday, joining an elite club of four weightlifters who have won three Asian Games gold medals.

The 28-year-old hauled 94kg above her head in the opening snatch discipline – the first official segment of the competition where athletes lift a barbell from the floor to an overhead position in a single motion. The lift was 1kg heavier than the previous world record of 93kg.

Ri followed it up by breaking the world record twice in the 115kg clean and jerk – a two-part movement where a barbell is lifted from the floor to the shoulders and then pushed overhead. The 4ft-7in (139.7cm) weightlifter hoisted 116kg and 121kg above her head.

Ri’s total lift of 215kg obliterated the old world record total by 7kg.

She is the fourth lifter, and first woman, to win three Asian Games weightlifting golds and joined Iran’s Mohammad Nassiri (1966-74), South Korea’s Kim Tae-hyun (1990-98) and Iran’s Behdad Salimi (2010-18), who all won three gold medals. No athlete has won four weightlifting gold medals.

In the same category, India’s Chanu finally won an Asian Games medal at the third time of asking. She won a silver medal at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021.

The 32-year-old is India’s most decorated weightlifter, with three Commonwealth gold medals and a silver to her name, along with multiple global titles.

She lifted a total of 198kg after a snatch of 87kg and a clean and jerk of 111kg, while Indonesia’s Diana Tri Wijayana took bronze with a total of 191kg, comprising 88kg and 103kg.

Chanu’s silver also ended India’s 28-year wait for a weightlifting medal at the games since Karnam Malleswari won silver in 1998.

SACRAMENTO — Three state bond measures are on California’s November ballot. You probably haven’t paid much attention to them. So here’s my read on these big-ticket proposals.

One is a no-brainer “yes.” It would help middle-class Californians buy a new home by allowing them to borrow most of the down payment. And it wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime. That’s Proposition 37.

Another housing measure is probably worthwhile, but gives me pause because it accommodates too many interests in order to attract broad political support. And it burns a barrel of money. That’s Proposition 1.

The third proposal would fund important medical research. But I wince because it was written to largely benefit one institute that was co-founded and is headed by the measure’s chief backer. That’s Proposition 38.

Propositions 1 and 38 combined would add $18.4 billion to the state’s general fund bond debt, which already is about $80 billion, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst‘s Office.

Plus, there is $40 billion in previously authorized bonds waiting to be sold. The new bond proposals would cost the state at least $1 billion annually for 20 to 25 years. Taxpayers are paying about $6 billion annually to retire state bonds.

Bonds are boring, but they’re also tax eaters. So we should pay some attention before voting on them.

“People think about bonds as free money. And, of course, they’re not,” says Mark Baldassare, polling director for the Public Policy Institute of California. “People don’t think bonds are going to raise their taxes.”

But most bonds are repaid by the state’s general fund, the main cash box that finances major programs such as education, healthcare, prisons and fighting wildfires. Bond debt has No. 1 dibs on the money. When revenue runs short — a common dilemma in Sacramento — other programs must be cut or taxpayers are hit harder. So bonds aren’t necessarily tax-free.

Baldassare released a PPIC poll last week that found a majority of likely voters supporting all three bond measures — especially Proposition 37 to ease homebuyers’ down payments.

The pollster noted that fall election campaigns are just starting and opposition arguments could reduce support for the measures.

But there’s no organized opposition to the two housing proposals. And although the medical research measure has some outspoken critics, there’s no money for an opposition campaign.

OK, a few specifics on each measure.

Proposition 37 is a taxpayer freebie, a $25-billion bond repaid solely by homebuyer beneficiaries. Here’s how it would work:

Middle-income people could pay 3% down on their home purchases rather than the normal 20%. They’d borrow the other 17% as a second mortgage and repay it along with the first mortgage.

The proposition defines middle class as household income that’s less than double the median for the area. Statewide, that income ceiling would be around $200,000 but would vary greatly by locale.

The purchased dwelling must be a brand-new home, whether stand-alone or a condo. That’s to increase the housing supply and create construction jobs. Politically, it gains the support of developers and unions.

No vacation home. It must be owner-occupied full-time. And the buyer must be a California resident.

The state’s sale of revenue bonds would create the down-payment pot. Regular lending institutions would arrange the loans and charge minimum fees. Loan repayments would replenish the pot and make it self-sustaining.

This was the brainchild of Bob Hertzberg, a former Democratic Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader from the San Fernando Valley.

Hertzberg tried several times to sell his proposal to the Legislature, but lawmakers wanted to juice it up with their own pet ideas. “I couldn’t get something just focused on the middle class,” he says. So he crafted this citizen initiative.

Proposition 1 proposes $11.25 billion in bonds for a smorgasbord of affordable housing.

This is the political establishment’s creation — Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic-controlled Legislature and housing interests. There’s no organized opposition.

It was dressed up with $1.25 billion in popular CalVet loan bonds for military veterans. They repay their home loans through mortgages, costing the state nothing.

But the remaining $10 billion in bonds would be repaid through the state general fund, costing at least $500 million annually for 25 years.

The measure is mainly designed to generate affordable rentals for poor people. But to assure legislative passage, money was added for affordable student and farmworker housing, plus other goodies.

It’s a lot of money and makes only a small dent in California’s unaffordable housing plague. Moreover, it seems too scattershot.

But it could spare more people from becoming homeless — living in their cars or on sidewalks, ultimately costing taxpayers even more.

Then there’s Proposition 38, the problematic $8.4-billion general fund bond for medical research, including cures for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.

The hang-up for me and others is that the ballot initiative was crafted to virtually assure that half the bond money would go to one outfit, the UCLA-affiliated California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute was co-founded and is headed by the proposition’s originator and chief backer, billionaire Gary Michelson.

“I know opponents want to create a billionaire boogeyman, but isn’t curing cancer and other terrible diseases exactly what we want billionaires to spend their money on?” says Robin Swanson, a campaign spokesperson.

Sure. But being backed by a billionaire isn’t the problem. It’s being written to substantially benefit one research institute that’s led by the billionaire.

Two cancer survivors and political opposites — conservative consultant Jon Fleischman and liberal consultant Steve Maviglio — co-authored an op-ed that declared:

“Imagine either major political party proposing to borrow billions of dollars and writing the qualifications so narrowly that an organization founded and chaired by a principal campaign benefactor appears positioned to collect half the money. The other party would rightly howl. So should voters.”

They should at least be skeptical.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California health clinics accuse influential union and its leader of racketeering in civil lawsuit
Danger zone: Newsom creates panel on AI safety regulation, suggests possible ‘kill switch’
The L.A. Times Special: Union power vs. MAGA politics in California’s schools superintendent race

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

SACRAMENTO — To hear President Trump tell it, the 60% or more of Americans who worried that unchecked artificial intelligence poses a risk to humanity are just a bunch of suckers buying the latest election-rigging conspiracy peddled by his foes.

“The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened?” Trump posted recently, apparently unaware that heat-related deaths continue to rise.

By the end of the week, his circle of sycophants had adopted that language, along with the strange take that Trump alone would be able to control the rise of superintelligence should it occur. David Sacks, often billed as Trump’s AI whisperer, echoed the hoax line at a Politico event, adding that there was an “orchestrated media campaign” meant to “alarm the public.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance called the pleas for regulation from inside the industry, including from CEOs such as Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, a “Trojan horse.” He argued that “Americans shouldn’t be scared of anything,” seemingly backing Trump’s absurd declaration that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!.”

As someone who has covered this issue, let me just say the concern is not a hoax, not a marketing ploy meant to juice the value of companies about to have an IPO, and not a vast and sprawling plot by Trump’s adversaries.

But it is a complicated, fraught problem in a pivotal moment. The president’s confusion and inaction pose an immediate risk of slamming shut our small window of opportunity to make meaningful decisions about a technology that will almost certainly change the course of history and humanity.

So why exactly is Trump demanding this unfettered charge at oblivion, and what are the options for putting guardrails up despite him?

Trump’s reasoning

The pacifying but slightly terrified response of Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark to Trump hints at just how alarmed those deepest in AI development seemingly feel about both the president’s attitude and the unregulated future he demands.

“We’re grateful for the president’s attention,” Clark said on Fox News. “What we’re saying here is we need to get a sensible, commonsense safety framework … and we don’t roll the dice on some kind of accident.”

Or, as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put it, “If the only guardrail AI needs is a ‘strong and smart president,’ we’re doomed.”

Like all things Trump, his position involves money. AI is currently a driving force behind the American economy, and if we just cover every inch of open space with data centers, it could keep an otherwise slumpish outlook bright.

OpenAI and Anthropic are also planning IPOs in the not-distant future.

Because these companies are valued at astonishing, 12-zero amounts and because certain stock listing rules will now require that these companies quickly be included in index funds favored by many pensions and retirement accounts, anything that crashes their value — such as investors’ jitters from regulation — could jam up the stock market.

That could affect the lives (and votes) of average Americans.

So despite the long-term risks, the short-term political benefits of the AI gravy train are substantial for Trump.

Then there is the place where Trump actually has a fair point: China. Current AI reflects the values of its creators. It would be disastrous for the free world if superintelligence were trained to favor authoritarianism.

The logic here is if we don’t build “good,” Western-values AI first, we will be at the mercy of “bad” AI, so the possibility of harming great numbers of people is a reasonable, maybe even necessary, risk.

Picking the best path

But is it? Is there a way to instead pursue both geopolitical dominance and safety?

This is where things get messy, and many folks — oligarchs in particular — become invested in keeping the general voter confused.

There is no consensus on a best course of action because we are in uncharted territory and there is actually no way to reliably predict what happens next.

Picking the best path forward, then, starts with picking a camp, a tribe, an outlook. In the broadest sense, there are three possibilities: We attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag; we all try to play nice, as companies and countries, and create rules on the fly; or we just accelerate at full speed, let it rip and what happens happens.

There are obvious problems with each of those.

As an excellent paper by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. explains, which of those camps a person chooses depends largely on just how imminent the danger feels, how feasible it seems to control development of AI and how realistic it is to bank on cooperation — or whether we believe we should and could aim to just continually win a technology war against humans or machines.

These camps, therefore, have little to do with traditional politics. Voters are feeling this issue on a visceral level, one that only a few years ago would have been deemed paranoid and fantastical, and it’s making for strange bedfellows.

Speaking at an conference this week, avowed lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a pause on AI development because he’s in the camp that believes it’s currently too dangerous to go forward without a plan.

At the same conference, ultraconservative Trump loyalist Stephen K. Bannon made a similar point. He also urged Americans not to trust “anything” said by AI oligarchs, and to reject the idea championed by Trump that slowing down is dangerous or un-American.

“If you’re not accelerationist, you are supporting China,” Bannon said. “If you’re not accelerationist, you want America to lose. If you’re not an accelerationist, you’re bad, dumb and evil. Well, the last week has shown we’re none of that, and now we need the time to make the right decision.”

The issue is almost certainly going to be huge and problematic in the midterms — potentially for both parties.

For Republicans, navigating it means tiptoeing between Trump’s egomaniacal, short-term approach and voters who are increasingly intolerant of it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who regularly refuses to cross Trump, has been clear he doesn’t want Congress taking up the issue — despite calls from MAGA stalwarts such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to do so.

“If you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t,” Cruz quipped during a hearing on Capitol Hill this week during which he opposed waiving some antitrust rules, as AI companies have suggested — a move that could decrease their accountability if something goes awry.

For Democrats, coming out hard for safety should be an easy decision, seemingly popular with voters. But for a party that had made trademarks of infighting, flailing and uncertainty, it remains to be seen if they can muster the unity to capitalize on this silver-platter strife.

For both parties, it also means finding the courage and will to fight the enormous sums of money AI companies are funneling into elections to ensure any regulations are ones they approve. Politico reported that some Democratic strategists are warning to go soft on the issue to avoid angering those election buyers, because it turns out that even companies clamoring for rules only want the ones they choose.

Ultimately, though, it’s Bannon who cut to the chase with the most important point: Trump holds all the power here.

Congress can’t fix this. Regulation won’t be a single bill but years of work, in a moment when maybe we don’t have years. And more important, the national security aspect has to be handled by the president.

Without the U.S. president leading on a national and global solution, nothing meaningful gets done.

Trump’s position isn’t fostering innovation or safety. He’s simply sending a message of indifference, that he doesn’t really care what happens next — to oligarchs, China or American voters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Unrestrained: Inside L.A. County’s system for issuing and enforcing restraining orders
The California angle: Barabak: As Newsom winds down in California, things heat up in Nevada
The L.A. Times Special: AI crisis heightens the stakes of Xi’s visit to Washington

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

There are many states in America where a governor shares the ticket with his or her running mate. Nevada is not one of them.

That, however, is but a small detail.

Joe Lombardo, Nevada’s Republican governor, is seeking election to his second term. His chief opponent is Aaron Ford, Nevada’s Democratic attorney general.

But to hear Lombardo and his allies tell it, Ford’s guru, his doppelganger, his soulmate and political inspiration — if not his actual running mate — is the Democratic governor living next door. It’s almost as if Lombardo is facing Gavin Newsom in November.

Look, there, along the streets of Las Vegas, you’ll see California’s governor on billboards, grinning alongside Ford.

Stop at the gas pump, wince at the pain and ask yourself why? It’s not President Trump and the muddle-headed war he started over in Iran. Blame Newsom.

Higher taxes and more spending? Only if Newsom, er, Ford, has his way.

“It’s official,” a chirpy announcer says in one pro-Lombardo campaign spot. “Shared vision. Shared values. Aaron Ford: Gavin Newsom’s choice for Nevada.”

Lombardo seemed, for a time, the most politically vulnerable Republican governor in the country. Things have looked up. He’s built a big financial advantage over Ford. But anti-Trump sentiments are keeping the Democrat in contention, which is what happens when an incumbent is running shackled to a ball and chain.

Enter Newsom.

A familiar playbook

It’s not at all surprising he would endorse a member of his own party, especially in Nevada, which is holding one of the first contests of the 2028 presidential race. Newsom, if you haven’t heard, has been positioning himself for a potential White House bid for years. Backing Ford is a way of collecting chits, as they say in gambling and politics.

It’s also not surprising that Lombardo would try to deflect from the unpopular Trump by yoking his opponent to Newsom. Select a polarizing member of the opposite party and suggest your rival is their slavish devotee; it’s a strategy as well-thumbed as a Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas road atlas. (Google it, kids.)

In Nevada, the attack can have added resonance when the offending politician is from California, which has long been viewed, by some at least, as an overpriced, tax-happy, left-wing lunatic asylum.

“There’s a tendency in Nevada to worry about what’s called ‘Californication’ and this has gone on quite a while,” said Michael Green, a historian at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who suggested it’s a particular slice of California, not the moderately conservative Central Valley but rather outré San Francisco, that Lombard is trying to convey.

For the governor, Newsom-bashing is a return to form.

Four years ago, as the sheriff of Clark County — that’s Las Vegas — Lombardo said the Democratic incumbent, Steve Sisolak, cared “more about copying Gavin Newsom than governing in the best interest of Nevadans.”

This time, Lombardo has focused on high fuel prices, a particular torment in a vast state with a lot of long, gas-guzzling stretches of rural highway. In March, he sent an open letter to Newsom blaming California’s environmental policies for running up energy costs. (Nevada relies on California for nearly 90% of its transportation fuels, which mainly flow from Southern California refineries to Las Vegas.)

In April, he explicitly blamed “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies” for “driving higher gas prices for Nevada families” and said Ford refused to push back because “he doesn’t want to risk his relationship with his biggest ally.”

Newsom vs. Lombardo

Turnabout being fair play, the Ford campaign has responded by tying Nevada’s governor to the unpopular president.

“Joe Lombardo is endorsed by Donald Trump and is running on a platform of raising costs and is laser-focused on taking care of Trump’s billionaire friends and padding the pockets of greedy corporations,” said spokesperson Tai Sims, who suggested the governor was relying on a “failed MAGA playbook” because “he’s too busy embracing Trump’s cost-raising agenda to acknowledge the economic pain caused by the Lombardo-Trump economy.”

Newsom and Lombardo have also gone at it.

“Since I took office, Nevada has created more jobs than California,” Lombardo boasted in a July posting on X that, of course, tied Ford to Newsom. “As Governor, I’ll never let Nevada become an extension of California’s failed agenda.”

“FALSE!” Newsom’s press team replied, with a Pinnochio-nosed emoji and a link to Federal Reserve data. “Using the same official jobs measure your office cites, California added about 340,900 jobs from December 2022 through June 2026. Nevada added 100,800.”

Lombardo hasn’t just focused on economics. Playing on old animosities, he told a Jewish Republican audience in Las Vegas last month that a certain California governor “wanted to pass two holidays for the Muslim community, agnostic to the Jewish community.” (Legislation that would add Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the list of state holidays is on Newsom’s desk, for him to sign or veto.)

“That’s not going to happen in the state of Nevada,” Lombardo said to applause, and so much for appealing to the better angels of our nature.

In the end, will the forced marriage of Newsom and Ford matter?

Probably not a whole lot. There are doubtless many things that matter more to your typical Nevadan than whether California’s governor hearts the state’s attorney general.

Wait until 2028. If Newsom is on the ballot, then we’ll find out what Nevada truly thinks of its next-door neighbor.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Questions swirl over Trump’s pledge to give $5,000 payouts if GOP wins
The deep dive: Will the economy motivate voters? This Central Valley swing district could be a test
The L.A. Times Special:California provides tax breaks to Hollywood. Why not struggling news outlets?
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

I did my first solo hike during a sunny September, seven years ago. After a summer of feeding and ferrying four noisy teenagers (and their friends) around, I was exhausted. But despite being bone tired, I had barely moved. I yearned, above all, for time on my own, for the chance to walk without interruption (and at the pace I chose), and for the silence of some empty wilderness.

But I was nervous. Not of being on my own, but of what might happen to me with no one around to help (breaking a bone, encountering a psychopath, being chased by a bull, getting fatally lost). I could have found a companion or joined a group, but my need for silence and solitude outweighed my fears.

It seems that many women feel the same: in the UK, the proportion of women solo hiking surged by 27% between 2020 and 2022. In America, 41 % of female hikers report regularly walking alone. And yet many women, although keen to do something similar, feel intimidated. According to researchers at the Munich University of Applied Sciences who are studying solo female walkers, 30% of women interviewed said they would like to hike solo but are hesitant.

In truth, women have long enjoyed a tradition of solo walking. From religious pilgrims to goat herders to 19th-century adventurers, there have always been women wandering, radically alone, through wild landscapes. But for those new to it, I’d say the best way to overcome your fear is to do it – and I’ve learned some simple ways to make the experience fun, not daunting.

That first solo hike followed a French canal. It was beautiful but sometimes felt a little too abandoned. It was also bereft of facilities, and frequently involved a long, complicated walk to my accommodation. So here are some of the things I now look for in a route: no discomfort-inducing stretches of urban wasteland; wide open landscapes (ridgeways, cliffs and hilltops are favourites); excellently waymarked, well-maintained paths (like national trails); navigation-lite routes that follow rivers, (lively) canals or coastlines; and countries/regions with a tradition of hiking.

I do my research with care, and I’ve always returned home exhilarated, revitalised and high on my own bravado. I’ve learned to avoid the trails where I might feel uncomfortable. I know now which landscapes calm me, and which trails are (almost) impossible to lose my way on.

For the last seven years, I’ve walked solo every autumn. Indeed, autumn is the perfect time for a liberating, empowering and restorative (solo) hike. Falling leaves improve visibility, temperatures are pleasant, and the days are still long enough to ensure I can reach my destination before dark. Importantly, there are lots of other walkers around – but without summer’s hordes – and the landscape is autumnally crisp and colourful.

If you’re new to solo walking, start with a single day. If you want to try walking for multiple days, consider paying for your luggage to be transported (or use a specialist tour operator who will plot your route, arrange accommodation and move bags). Otherwise pack as lightly as possible. Take a non-digital map and a stick/walking poles, and let someone know your arrival time. Study every aspect of your route – including transport options and the weather – before you set off.

FOUR GREAT ROUTES FOR SOLO HIKERS

The Bernese Oberland, Switzerland

The Swiss Alps are one of my favourite places to walk alone. Swiss women are keen solo hikers (so no one bats an eyelid at yet another single woman), the waymarking is superb and the scenery is jaw-dropping. Because this is a nation of farmers and hikers, there are always people (and a phone signal) around. And yet – because of the mountainous terrain – there’s often a genuine sense of wilderness and solitude. The Bernese Oberland is overrun with tourists in summer, but come to this Unesco world heritage site in autumn and you’ll be walking, calmly, in the footsteps of dozens of 19th-century women who once came here specifically to hike alone. Base yourself in the car-free villages of Wengen or Mürren, and expect to find farm-cafes with homemade cakes and honesty boxes in the remotest of spots.

The South Downs Way

From Eastbourne
To Kingston, near Lewes
Time 2 days
Distance 19 miles

The UK has plenty of well-kept trails, but top of my list is the (expansive, clearly signposted) South Downs Way. In summer the Eastbourne to Alfriston clifftop stretch heaves with tourists, but in autumn you’ll share the panoramic views – dazzling sea, dramatic chalk cliffs – with a handful of dogwalkers. Just a few steps off the trail are cultural hotspots like the pretty village of Alfriston, Charleston Farmhouse (museum home of the Bloomsbury set), and Rodmell, where you can visit Virginia Woolf’s house. So you’ll never feel completely disconnected.

The Cleveland Way

From Saltburn
To Filey
Time 4 days
Distance 52 miles

The Cleveland Way was the UK’s second official national trail, meaning the route is well maintained, the signage is excellent and the scenery is glorious, covering coastline and windblown moors. The moors can feel bleakly exposed in the wrong weather, so opt for the four-day coastal section, Saltburn to Filey, with its quirky towns and villages. This is Yorkshire so expect plenty of conversation with passing walkers and the chance to feel romantically windswept – an intoxicating blend for the solo hiker who wants to feel alone in nature, but not too alone.

The Fishermen’s Trail, southern Portugal

From Praia da Luz
To Sagres
Time 3 days
Distance 27 miles

The Fishermen’s Trail is far too hot in summer, but when I went (November) the temperature was just right, the sea was warm enough to swim in, and there were enough solo female hikers to feel pleasantly companioned. With some rocky scrambling to make one feel suitably youthful, and sufficient sandy coves to squeeze in a siesta, this route (a chain of old fishing villages) also has abundant, inexpensive accommodation and fresh seafood galore. Like other sea-hugging routes it’s (mostly) impossible to get lost – just follow the coastline.

I’ll leave the last word to writer Mathilde Blind, who (aged 19) walked alone through the Bernese Oberland in 1860 (no phone, no GPS, no bra, no waterproof trousers): “For once I felt truly free.”

Annabel Abbs is the author of The Walking Cure and Windswept: Why Women Walk. She was a guest of InnTravel on its Coastal Algarve and Fishermen’s Trail route, and of MACS Adventures on its Highlights of the Bernese Oberland route.

North Korea, enjoying support in the stands, were up 7-0 by half-time and are the favourites for the gold.

North Korea’s formidable women’s football team, cheered on by several hundred pro-Pyongyang fans in Osaka, Japan, launched their Asian Games campaign with a 10-0 hammering of Bangladesh.

The North Koreans have enjoyed stunning international success at the youth level and start among the favourites for gold in Japan.

They were far too hot for Bangladesh to handle and were seven goals ahead by half-time on Monday.

Striker Ri Song-a, who was born and raised in Japan, was in North Korea’s starting lineup and scored in the second half.

North Korea were cheered on by a large group of red-clad fans, who sang and chanted throughout the match.

The men’s and women’s football teams were welcomed by supporters waving flags as they arrived for the games last week wearing white blazers and pink ties.

More than 100 North Koreans are set to compete in 14 sports at the games, which take place in Nagoya-Aichi and officially open on September 19.

North Korea suspended participation in international sporting competitions during the COVID-19 pandemic, but returned at the Asian Games in China in 2023 and also took part in the Paris Olympics.

North Korea’s women face South Korea in a Group F grudge match on September 21.

The men’s team begin their campaign against China on Wednesday.

SACRAMENTO — President Trump and the Republican Congress have unintentionally provided California state government with the financial means to subsidize — help save — endangered local news reporting.

Now it’s up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to capitalize on the unanticipated gift.

He can sign or veto legislation to end state tax breaks for large corporations paying top executives $1 million-plus salaries and, instead, provide tax breaks for struggling California news outlets employing local reporters.

The state legislation would conform California law to a little-known provision of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that eliminated corporate deductions for execs’ compensation exceeding $1 million.

California newsrooms — print, broadcast, digital — would receive an estimated $43 million in tax credits for employees’ wages. There’d still be a net $15 million left over for a small state revenue boost.

I’ll admit to feeling a bit squeamish about this.

First, it’s a conflict of interest, arguing that a governor — whom my colleagues and I write about often — should shovel public dollars into our profession.

Second, why should state government and taxpayers be asked to subsidize a private enterprise that’s flailing in the marketplace? Especially one that prides itself in being an impartial watchdog over government actions and politicians’ behavior. The dog shouldn’t be begging for food from the critters it watches.

Well, one answer is that state government provides tax breaks for lots of interests, including Hollywood movie studios. We’re allotting $750 million annually in tax credits for films produced in California.

And there’s a bill on the governor’s desk to offer $100 million annually in tax credits for post-production work, such as editing, sound mixing and visual effects.

That’s all fine. What would California have become without a healthy Hollywood? I don’t want to imagine.

Newsom also recently provided $3,500 rebates to first-time electric vehicle buyers, benefiting Tesla and other EV makers. It was “investing in our future,” the governor explained.

OK, but subsidizing local news reporting is investing in democracy. Robust coverage of city halls, school boards, Sacramento politicians and the like is essential for self-government.

And that journalism is in free fall all across America as exploding technology and social media opportunism have altered news consumption, mostly bypassing local communities and often spewing misinformation.

So this legislation, AB 2222 by Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), reaches far beyond just helping the troubled news industry. It’s about more than providing media outlets with financial incentives to retain and hire local reporters. It’s bolstering democracy.

Independent journalism is a pillar of democracy, providing citizens with reliable, fact-based information about how their elected representatives are performing their duties, fulfilling their campaign promises and cozying up to special interests.

You’re not going to glean that information from the politicians. You’re going to get mostly self-serving spin — government propaganda — whether it emanates from the White House, the state Capitol or the local mosquito abatement district.

That’s why the nation’s Founders protected press freedom in the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Of course, that was early in Jefferson’s political career, before he became vice president and later president. He ultimately turned into a harsh press critic. For example: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson, like countless politicians ever since, apparently carried a huge chip on his shoulder because of reporting on his job performance that ticked him off.

Newsom is a master at attracting friendly national news coverage, especially on cable TV. But he naturally shudders at more critical coverage by Sacramento beat reporters.

As of this writing, the governor hadn’t publicly disclosed how he feels about the local reporter tax credit bill.

His finance department, which crafts the state budget, opposed the measure when legislators were considering it. The state would “not [be] receiving any incremental economic benefit to justify the expenditure,” its analysis read.

Again, even if that were true, citizens and democracy would benefit.

Also, the analysis contended, the tax credit would likely “provide windfall benefits” for news media owners “rather than encourage new hiring activity.”

That’s not quite accurate. Anyway, it could discourage layoffs and save reporters’ jobs.

Late last week, the McClatchy newspaper chain — owner of the Sacramento Bee and several medium-sized California papers, plus dozens across America — announced massive newsroom layoffs.

Since 2002, more than 12,000 local journalism jobs have been lost in California, according to the bill’s sponsor, the advocacy group Rebuild Local News. More than 3,500 newspapers have closed nationwide.

Many communities have become “news deserts.”

When that happens, fewer citizens turn out to vote, tax money gets spent more carelessly and political corruption increases.

Under the legislation, California media outlets — big and small — would be granted modest tax credits for each employee covering state and local news. There’d be $20,000 for up to five full-time positions and $15,000 for each of the rest. On top of that, there’d be an additional $15,000 for every new full-time job that’s created. Part-timers would be entitled to $7,500.

“National news outlets would be excluded. So would partisan ‘pink slime’ sites controlled by political action committees,” says Matt Pearce, policy director for Rebuild Local News, a former Los Angeles Times reporter and newspaper guild leader.

It would be the most ambitious program of its kind in the country. New York, Illinois and New Mexico currently offer local news subsidies.

“It’s about civic infrastructure and the foundation of democracy. We’re teetering toward autocracy,” says former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), an ex-mayor who has long pushed for stronger local news coverage.

This bill won’t save local newsrooms. But it may give them breathing room while the big thinkers try to concoct a more profitable business model for democracy’s watchdog.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Architect of billionaire tax tried to ‘extort’ support for the measure and targeted women, union reports find
Money (That’s what I want): Becerra backers with business in Sacramento spend tens of millions boosting his gubernatorial bid
The L.A. Times Special: Will ‘Coxon Day’ save us from AI destruction?

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

The Loose Women panel touched on the recent video showing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new life in the UK.

The ITV star didn’t hold back.

During Monday’s Loose Women, presenter Christine Lampard spoke about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s move back to the UK with their two children after spending six years in America. Recently, the Duchess of Sussex shared a glimpse of their new lives on social media in a compilation of videos.

Christine highlighted that Meghan and Harry have been accused of hypocrisy in the past, having stated they wanted a private life and then giving snippets into their lives online.

The ITV star shared that the Duchess of Sussex has turned the comments off on the post as she asked the panel, “Is it time to let the couple live in peace?”

Kelly Brook commented, “I think when you have to turn the comments off, I think you know that she’s already expecting a backlash. There’s nothing in that video that I wouldn’t share on social media after a lovely weekend in the countryside.”

Meanwhile, panellist Coleen Nolan didn’t hold back on sharing her thoughts as she remarked that people need to leave them alone. She said: “For me, your question on whether we should just leave them alone and let them enjoy life, from my point of view, yes, absolutely.

“For people that are out there constantly criticising, constantly sla****g off, don’t follow it, don’t look at it, block it. Get it off your timeline. If you don’t want to see them, don’t see them, but there are equally people who will love seeing that.”

The ITV star shared she thought it was nice to see and has ‘no issue’ with Harry and Meghan. She added that while there’s an argument to be had about people putting themselves out there, it doesn’t give people the right to slam anybody.

She added: “There are things that I don’t like on social media, I will unfollow it or I’ll block it, or I’ll have my say about someone or something, but it will be to my family around the kitchen table, I wouldn’t dream of doing that on social media.

“So, it really, really offends me, and certainly, they’ve had their fair share. Some say, ‘they deserve it’. Maybe they do, but have that conversation privately. They’ve got people out there that love them, family and all of that, I just think it’s awful, just leave them alone.”

In the sweet video shared online, people got to see their children, Archie and Lilibet, chasing a flock of deer in the countryside.

Another snippet showed the couple holding hands, whilst one clip showed Harry teaching his children how to catch a fish, and another showed Lilibet sitting by a roaring fire.

Loose Women is available to watch on ITV weekdays from 12:30pm.