women

IN just three days, Katie Price’s husband Lee Andrews is due to be released from Dubai’s hell-hole Al Awir prison.

But the news of his imminent return to freedom has emboldened the women who have been caught up in his web of lies and deceit – and now they’re determined to see him locked up for good.

Over the past five months, I have spoken to the women who have survived Andrews, and their extraordinary stories are chilling.

From financial fraud on a life-changing scale to even more shocking allegations, the women painted a terrifying picture of the man Katie chose to marry just weeks after meeting him earlier this year.

For months, the women have shared evidence with The Sun – and the relevant police authorities – in the hope that the law will catch up with Andrews.

Together they stood firm as he desperately tried to smear their reputations, telling me in a long and rambling voice note that one of the women was disturbed and had spent time inside a “mental institution”.

He claimed they were fantasists, liars and angrily declared: “I know you’re a lady and everything, but women can be very harsh.”

I didn’t believe a word he said to me then, and I still don’t now.

But the patience of the women involved is understandably wearing thin.

His arrest in Dubai on a civil matter has, they tell me, been for Andrews just a brief taste of what they hope is to come.

Justice for these women, however, will be a war that will not be easily won.

“Lee is a dangerous man, and the authorities need to act,” one of the women tells me from their home in the US.

“All of the women Lee has conned in the past have come together in a group, and we are determined to fight to get justice.

“It does feel incredibly hopeless at times. No one in power seems to be properly acting. But we’re standing together, and we will do everything we can to make the police act.”

Criminal complaints have been lodged against Andrews by one woman with Hertfordshire Police.

Another of his victims, businesswoman Crystal Janke, reported an alleged theft of £123,000 to cops in America.

The uphill battle they face is the fact that Andrews resides in Dubai and is unable to leave due to a travel ban.

Andrews, ultimately, is able to dodge culpability because of where he is.

Hertfordshire Police confirmed to me they had handed the complaints filed to them to cops in Dubai because the alleged incidents happened in the UAE.

These allegations, to add, are incredibly serious.

They need to see him hauled in for questioning.

But so far, the police there have seemingly failed to act in any way to investigate Andrews, let alone arrest him.

The financial fraud complaint made to cops against Andrews in the US by Crystal is also dangling in the ether.

The police confirmed they can only act against Andrews if he lands on US soil.

And let’s be honest, Andrews isn’t going to be leaving Dubai anytime soon.

From the number of phone calls I had in the days leading up to Andrews’ arrest, the women who have joined forces to try and bring the con-artist to justice are not alone in their plight.

Andrews is alleged to owe vast sums of money to several people in Dubai.

Each individual wants him taken to task, and no one more so than the women whose lives he has irrevocably damaged in one way or another.

“We see ourselves as survivors of Lee, not victims,” one woman tells me.

“But to say the slow progress by the police in Dubai is frustrating is an understatement.

“The complaints are racking up, and nothing is being done.

“Some of us have even gone to the lengths of contacting the police when we know where Lee is and pleading with them to arrest him.

“Repeatedly, we have said, he is at this location, he is wanted for this, please act. And nothing ever seems to happen.

“We have no idea what else to do, but once he is out, we are going to carry on alerting the police, and we won’t stop until they act.”

After he was arrested and sent to the Al Awir prison, authorities confirmed to The Sun he had been apprehended on a private civil matter.

It proved once again that Andrews is a devious liar – after he told Katie he had been arrested for espionage.

“Lee saying he was arrested for spying is nothing new,” one of the women explained to me.

“It’s a claim directly out of his conman playbook.

“He’s said to everyone in this group at some point that he worked for the secret services. He bragged about being in MI5 in the UK.

“Lee would just tell so many lies. He told Katie he was an international arms dealer, too.

“By this point, we don’t think Lee would know what the truth is – even if he slapped him around the face.”

Previously, Andrews denied every claim made against him by the women who spoke out against him.

In the face of the weight of evidence they provided me with, including their bank statements and correspondence with their relevant police forces, Andrews stood firm and tried to paint them as scorned fantasists.

These women are nothing of the sort.

And I, along with my colleagues, will keep banging this drum until Andrews is locked up.

With any luck, they will throw away the key.

When Congress passed the big, ugly bill known as HR 1 last year, most Americans understood it meant cuts to Medicaid, the safety net program millions rely on for medical insurance.

But few Californians realized just how much it will affect the Golden State when its provisions really kick in, starting after the midterms (the Republicans aren’t that dumb) and continuing on in cascading cuts for the next few years.

Millions of Californians — not just low-income folks — are going to feel the effects, whether through a loss of insurance, fewer providers able to keep their doors open, or rising premiums and costs.

“This problem trickles up,” state Senate leader Monique Limón (D-Goleta) told me. “This is not just going to impact the people that have a public healthcare plan. When you see a hospital close, when you see medical providers no longer being able to practice, it is absolutely going to impact everybody, the middle class included.”

Added to the loss of federal funds, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s most recent budget plan (which the Legislature has to debate in coming weeks) includes cuts at the state level. This is in part to contend with the loss of federal money, but also because healthcare costs keep rising and even in this wealthy state, we can’t afford the bills — at least not without some changes.

What those changes are — and who should bear the brunt of them — is a complicated and largely ignored debate happening right now. While our candidates for governor have been grilled on whether they support single-payer healthcare or not, (Becerra is a sort-of, Steyer is a yes) the real question isn’t how is the next governor going to expand access to care — but how are we going to keep the whole system from collapsing right now.

“This is not hypothetical, this is what’s coming down the line,” Limón said.

The problem

About 15 million adults and children, or about 1 in 3 of our state’s residents, rely on Medi-Cal, which is what California calls its Medicaid program.

Through a creative bit of state financing called the Managed Care Organization, or MCO, tax, the federal government has been paying for a big chunk of the costs of that insurance, about $7 billion a year. President Trump’s HR 1 makes that money go bye-bye by greatly reducing the MCO, leaving the state to figure out how to backfill that cash. And that’s just one of the ways the big, ugly bill hurts California. Yes, it’s complicated.

The number of Californians losing health insurance coverage could roughly double in the next four years. Above, a patient undergoes treatment for tongue cancer at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center on March 6, 2026.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Newsom’s budget plan relies in a not-small way on restructuring the MCO tax to fit HR 1’s new rules. But here’s the problem with that — any fix will require approval from the Trump administration, which has repeatedly shown the welfare of Californians is not a high priority. In fact, the Trump administration in March rejected California’s request to update another fee related to hospitals that also generates billions for Medi-Cal.

So maybe Newsom will be able to negotiate a plan that saves the MCO and California healthcare. But wouldn’t it be much better for the GOP, with a presidential election looming, to watch California (and her presidential-contender governor) tumble off a healthcare cliff? Few states rely on an MCO tax the way ours does, which means our pain is going to be far more visible and profound if we lose this funding.

That means if Newsom’s budget is approved by the state Legislature with the MCO fix, the state is taking a gamble. If the feds don’t approve some new version of the MCO tax, “it would have major implications,” Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto told me. She’s a senior policy fellow with the nonpartisan California Budget and Policy Center.

Sort-of solutions

What’s the fourth-largest economy in the world to do? Limón would like to see the state stop subsidizing corporations who pay so meagerly that their employees qualify for Medi-Cal.

“We don’t have the luxury of being able to provide these tax subsidies,” Limón said.

Turns out, 42% of Medi-Cal enrollees are full-time workers, according to a new report by the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Although most big corporations offer some sort of health insurance, it’s often tied to working a certain number of hours (which they then make sure not to schedule) or it has prohibitive costs or other barriers.

In 2022, the Labor Center found, 34% of low-wage workers received their health insurance through employers, compared with 69% of higher wage workers — meaning California is picking up insurance costs because low-wage employers are finding ways out of them.

“Over the decades, Medi-Cal has really undergone a significant transformation. It’s shifted from a program that primarily served the disabled and indigent and elderly folks to one that largely supports folks that work in low-wage industries,” Tia Orr, the executive director of SEIU California, told me. “Medi-Cal has now become a program where folks that work every single day have to rely on it. The idea that someone can work every day and qualify for food stamps and Medi-Cal, it should be eye-opening to folks.”

Right now, she points out, California taxpayers are paying about $7,800 a year for each person on Medi-Cal.

“The corporations that they work for don’t have to pay one dollar of that, right?”

Limón and her Senate colleagues would like to change that. They have proposed the “Fair Share” plan that would impose a tax on the state’s largest and wealthiest corporations whose employees rely on public assistance. It’s more of an idea than a fleshed-out policy at this point, but as ideas go, it ain’t a bad one. It’s been done in Massachusetts, and New Jersey’s governor has suggested it.

In California, it deserves more attention than it’s currently being given.

To be fair, Newsom’s plan also would also limit state corporate tax credits to $5 million, as my colleague Taryn Luna points out, or 50% of a firm’s tax liability, whichever is greater. That change could bring in $850 million next year to state coffers and grow to $1.8 billion by the end of the decade. That’s still not nearly enough to cover healthcare costs.

To add to the drama, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts all this will get worse — that the number of Californians losing health insurance coverage could roughly double in the next four years. The Newsom administration projects federal Medi-Cal changes could push off 44,000 people in 2026-27, growing to 1.3 million people by 2029-30.

That means more people getting sick and dying because they can’t afford a doctor. It means more doctors, clinics and hospitals losing income vital to keeping their doors open, and more emergency rooms being overloaded because it’s the only option.

“The worst is yet to come,” Rachel Linn Gish, interim deputy director at Health Access California, a consumer healthcare advocacy coalition, told me. “If you wait to take action until it gets bad, it’s already going to be way too late.”

She’s right, and however you look at it, a fix should include corporations paying their fair share.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Justice Department sues UCLA for the third time, alleges antisemitism against students
The deep dive: The $400 Million Showdown Between a Billionaire and a California Mayor
The L.A. Times Special: Garden Grove crisis exposes Southern California’s hidden industrial risks

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

Australian Federal Police have not made any arrests but say inquiries are ongoing.

A group of 19 women and children with alleged links to ISIL (ISIS) has returned to Australia, with the government warning that anyone found to have engaged in criminal activity will be prosecuted.

The six women and 13 children arrived from a Syrian refugee camp on Tuesday, with one group landing in Sydney and the other in Melbourne.

It is the second cohort of Australian women and children to return from Syria this month. Responding to criticism over their arrival, the Australian government said it had not assisted them in any capacity.

“These are people who have made the horrific choice to join a dangerous terrorist organisation and to place their children in an unspeakable situation,” Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said.

Australian women began travelling to Syria to marry members of ISIL in 2012, with some allegedly taken against their will.

At the height of its power in 2015, ISIL controlled territory across Syria and Iraq roughly equivalent in size to the United Kingdom.

Australian Federal Police did not arrest any members of the group upon their arrival but said that investigations were ongoing.

The group’s return has sparked anger in some sections of Australian society.

According to local media, a large police presence was deployed at Melbourne airport, where a scuffle reportedly broke out as the group of women and children was escorted out through a side entrance.

Australia is one of several Western countries that have shown reluctance to repatriate citizens who travelled to the Middle East to join ISIL about a decade ago.

Both France and the UK have expressed opposition to allowing former ISIL members to return.

In 2022, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said that France’s failure to repatriate children born to French nationals in Syria violated their right to life and exposed them to inhumane treatment.

Meanwhile, the UK stripped British national Shamima Begum of her citizenship in 2019 on national security grounds.

In February, the Australian government issued a temporary exclusion order against a woman in Syria, preventing her from returning home.

Her child, who was not barred from returning, chose to stay with her.

The order prevents the woman from returning to Australia until February 2028, and her family is currently challenging the decision.

Afzal Ashraf, a visiting fellow at Loughborough University specialising in international relations and security, said the risk posed by people returning from countries including Syria needs to be viewed proportionately.

“There will be some security challenges, because people like this are likely to suffer from issues such as PTSD,” Ashraf told Al Jazeera.

“The fact of the matter is that there are security challenges in Australia and other countries, but statistically speaking, the return of these nationals doesn’t increase that risk very much, while the threat to life from terrorism is far lower than the threat posed by road accidents, for example.”

“That said, these threats can be reduced by providing comprehensive mental health support for returnees and ensuring they are reintegrated into society in a positive way, with follow-up programmes to address any dangerous ideas they may have adopted,” Ashraf said.

“It’s worth remembering that ISIL has killed far more Muslims than Westerners.”

Earlier this month, four women and 13 children arrived in Australia from Syria. Three of the women were arrested upon arrival.

SACRAMENTO — Like millions of Californians, I haven’t voted yet in the primary election. That’s because I can’t decide who should be our governor. Here’s what I’m thinking:

It’s an underwhelming field. But one of these Democratic contenders will very likely replace Gov. Gavin Newsom in January.

Based on the latest polling, a Democrat — probably Xavier Becerra — will qualify for the November general election ballot. That Democrat will face a Republican — very likely Steve Hilton.

It’s inconceivable that a Democratic gubernatorial candidate would lose to a Republican in this polarized, deep blue state. That means we’ll actually be choosing the governor in next Tuesday’s primary. You can dismiss the November face-off as essentially moot.

My mail ballot, like millions of others in California, has been sitting on the kitchen table for weeks.

As of this writing, I only know who I’m not voting for. And that’s either of the two Republicans: former Fox News host Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. That’s not because they’re Republicans. I’ve voted for plenty of Republicans — for governor, senator and president.

But Hilton won’t acknowledge that President Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020. And anyone who doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to Trump and recognize a basic fact of our democracy shouldn’t be trusted as our governor.

Bianco disqualified himself by buying into Trump’s persistent lies about election fraud and seizing 650,000 ballots from last November’s Proposition 50 voting. The sheriff wasted taxpayer resources and, moreover, doesn’t have any vote-counting expertise.

Now for the Democrats:

It has been a disappointing campaign — a missed opportunity to seriously discuss crucial issues such as the need to become more self-sufficient locally on water supply, significantly improve wildfire prevention and regulate the coming AI menace.

I’ve winced during televised debates and TV ads at ugly attacks against opponents.

For a while, I considered casting my vote for the Democrat ranking highest in the polls. I thought that in a large Democratic field, the vote could be splintered and only two Republicans would qualify for November. But that now seems inconceivable because three Democrats dropped out.

Anyway, an individual’s vote is too precious not to be used for the candidate considered best for the job.

These are my thoughts on who that might be:

Becerra, 68. He’s the Democratic front-runner and seemingly the safe choice. Not a huge risk taker. He probably wouldn’t screw up and make things worse. He might even marginally improve some stuff.

Calm and understated. Decent. Likable. He brings an impressive resume with the experience and knowledge to handle the job: a former U.S. health secretary, California attorney general, longtime congressman from Los Angeles and a state assemblyman.

Unfortunately, he has often been too vague about what he’d do as governor. That’s largely because he’s not the sort who rushes into things. He wants to first “scrub” the matter. Not a bad trait.

He should have better answers, however, for accusations that he was derelict in Washington for releasing thousands of undocumented immigrant children to sponsors who exploited them as laborers — and also for a scandal involving his top aide who pilfered Becerra’s campaign account. Becerra said he didn’t know about it. But he should have.

Becerra would be California’s first elected Latino governor. Like many California Latinos, he’s the son of hardworking Mexican immigrants who took advantage of their opportunity to seek the California Dream.

Tom Steyer, 68. Here’s the liberal firebrand who wants to shake up Sacramento.

The question is whether he has the ability and knowledge to pull it off. Steyer wants to split up the private utility monopolies and lower consumers’ electricity bills. And how’s he going to do that? We really haven’t heard.

He’s a billionaire who has never held public office and is trying to start at the top by spending $200 million of his own money to buy into the governor’s suite. California voters have always rejected such candidates.

I’ve got nothing against billionaires. In fact, I think it’s a noble use of their money to participate in democracy and try to fix the state.

But in Steyer’s case, his recent unrelenting attack ads against surging Becerra — now his chief campaign rival — are disturbing and seem like overkill. He’d be better off telling us how he plans to improve our daily lives.

Katie Porter, 52. I find her refreshing, despite a feisty personality that grates on many voters.

She’s a former Orange County congresswoman and longtime professor of consumer law who’s plenty smart.

What I like is she has done her homework, is very conversant on most issues and is specific about what she’d do as governor.

OK, some of her goals are probably beyond financial reach: single-payer healthcare, free college tuition and free child care.

But she’d shake up Sacramento and that’s needed. She’d stand up to special interests. And she’d be California’s first female governor.

Could she work well with the Legislature? Probably well enough, given a governor’s immense power to reward and punish.

Matt Mahan, 43. The centrist San José mayor hasn’t spent enough time in his current job to prove himself to voters beyond the San Francisco Peninsula. And he entered the race too late.

He’s not quite ready. Knock again in a few years.

Antonio Villaraigosa, 73. He might be the best potential governor of the lot.

He understands Sacramento as a former Assembly speaker and urban problems as an ex-Los Angeles mayor. He’s a no-nonsense guy who has been leveling with voters..

But age discrimination is a problem, although he’s only five years older than Becerra and Steyer. And he hasn’t held office in many years. His time is past.

For me, it’s time to pick up my ballot and decide who should be California’s next governor.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Voter guide to the 2026 California primary election
Money, it’s a gas: Billionaire Tom Steyer’s $192.4-million self-funded California gubernatorial bid shatters records
The L.A. Times Special: Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt need Latinos, not Trump

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Rawalpindi, Pakistan – On a cold January morning, Anum Shakoor gallops across a field, wrapped in a black shawl that billows behind her as she charges forward, a 1.8-metre (6ft) lance gripped tightly in her hand.

The 30-year-old has already claimed her first peg. The second lies close ahead.

Her horse tears across the dry earth, kicking up a cloud of dust that hangs in the air as she charges forward. A few metres out, Shakoor lowers the lance, steadying her aim and bracing for impact.

She misses by 2.5cm (1 inch).

A collective gasp ripples through the crowded bleachers. Many onlookers shake their heads. Some look away.

Shakoor exhales and slows her horse to a walk. Around her are the desolate, windswept fields on the outskirts of Rawalpindi in northern Punjab province.

And there are men, most of them wearing turbans. Men with “dhol” (drums) hanging from their necks. And men whose fathers had ridden before them and their fathers before their fathers. The men who take pride in the ancient sport, some of whom perhaps are not ready to accept that women are now participating in an overwhelmingly male “neza baazi”, or tent pegging, a high-stakes sport in which horse riders gallop across a field to pierce a buried wooden target.

The field is lined with thousands of male spectators, gathered to watch the teams of riders charging one after the other at a small wooden peg buried in the ground, trying to pierce it cleanly and carry it forward on their lance.

The event is known as a “mela” in Punjabi, a carnival-like competition typically held on the outskirts of the garrison city.

The beat of drums intertwined with the sharp bursts of the shehnai (oboe), traditionally played in weddings, pierces the cold winter air. Salespeople call out to the crowds from bustling stalls selling cardamom tea and varieties of fried fritters.

Before the competition starts, riders mount their adorned horses, some of which are dressed in embroidered velvet gowns. Others have braided manes or brass bells ringing softly at their necks.

One of the 74 teams competing in this year’s mela is Shakoor’s Bint-e-Zahra Club, Pakistan’s first female-only tent-pegging club. It has three other riders: Eshal Ibrahim and Noor un Nisa Malik, both 16, and Sehrish Awan, a 32-year-old mother of two competing for the first time in a mela.

Shakoor says the club was formed in 2025 after she reached a “frustrating realisation” that female riders practised and played only in mixed clubs. “We wanted to give women riders a stage for training so they can form a community,” she says.

The women are an unusual sight at a competition that has almost entirely male riding teams, mainly male fans and even male musicians.

So when Bint-e-Zahra’s members prepare to make their run, the audience is in for a rare sight. Photographers, vloggers and locals rush to film them, surrounding them from all sides.

Ibrahim is accompanied by her mother, who trails closely behind her, keeping a careful eye on her teenage daughter.

“I cannot even take pictures of her in the crowd,” says Fatima Adeel, who accompanies Ibrahim to every mela. “I am in charge of her. I cannot leave a teenage girl alone in a sea of men.”

Shakoor agrees.

“Any woman who wants to come in this sport should be encouraged so she can gain the respect she deserves in the sport,” she says. “Our society cannot bear a woman’s lead in any field.”

‘No concept of a player’

Several kilometres away, Ayesha Khan, 22, gallops on Sawa, the horse she has ridden since she was eight, for a practice run with her club.

She was 17 when her father encouraged her to try out for the women’s national team. A year later, she was the only woman selected for Pakistan’s under-21 mixed gender team and was sent to South Africa for a tournament to compete against a team that had four girls and one boy.

“I was hit with the realisation of how tent pegging is conditioned to appear masculine in Pakistan. But my father and brothers taught me riding when I was five. I used to be the only child riding a horse between adults,” Khan says, describing herself as “addicted” to riding.

Khan joined the women’s team in 2022 and quickly worked her way up to becoming its captain. That same year, she took the women’s team to Jordan, where it competed against 13 countries.

“We came third,” Khan recalls proudly. “Yet that was the only trip that the Pakistani women’s team competed in internationally. Before that trip, never. After that, never again.”

In 2024, the International Tent Pegging Federation organised an open international competition in Jordan. Pakistan sent a men-only team although the event was open to women. It was simply assumed that only men would want to go.

“In Pakistan, we don’t have the concept of a player,” Khan tells Al Jazeera. “We have the concept of male and female. Unless there is a women-only event, our federation exclusively sends male teams.”

But Khan persisted. At 20, she became the first Pakistani woman to compete against and beat 70 male riders at a mela. Today, she captains Pakistan’s only all-women tent pegging team.

How women entered the sport

The event near Rawalpindi that Shakoor attended was organised by Samiullah Barsa, a 27-year-old United States national of Pakistani origin, as part of his wedding celebrations.

“No wedding is complete without neza baazi,” says Barsa, who is dressed in a blazing red waistcoat and cowboy boots.

His family emigrated in the 1980s from the Punjab city of Gujrat to the US state of Ohio, where they own a stable and host annual melas. Last year, their mela drew more than 2,000 visitors, Barsa says.

Barsa recalls the first time he saw women compete in tent pegging. In 2015, he attended a mela at Kot Fateh Khan in Attock district, an hour from the capital, Islamabad, and the hometown of Malik Ata, fondly remembered as “Baba-e neza baazi” (the father of tent pegging).

Ata was a politician who came from an influential feudal family in Kot Fateh Khan. He was also a legendary equestrian who organised grand melas and invited hundreds of teams from across Pakistan to compete in various equestrian sports, including neza baazi.

At the first such grand mela, Ata invited the Australian women’s tent-pegging team, setting the stage for Pakistani women to embrace the sport.

In 2021, the Equestrian Federation of Pakistan, established by Ata, sponsored six girls to train under a South African coach. Khan was among those who made the journey to South Africa. She credits Ata for laying the roots of female participation in Pakistani tent pegging.

Barsa says Ata’s contribution to the sport cannot be denied and it was time for women to have their own teams.

“Everywhere along the world, women and men have separate competition. For instance, in football or in cricket, have you ever seen women competing against men?” he asks. “When female teams lose against male teams, they lose hope and don’t come forward.”

But has it been easy for women to pursue the sport?

Not really, both Khan and Shakoor say.

‘I never gave up’

Shakoor says there is tremendous social pressure on girls and women to conform to roles defined by the patriarchy.

“My mother has told me multiple times that I have to get married. But since I am part of such a manly sport, she worries how will I get good proposals. My sister did so too, but I never gave up,” she says.

“My brother stood up for me and told my mother that I am excelling in my passion. He asked her to let me live my life.”

Khan is relatively young, so marriage is not a concern for now. But she has heard relatives whisper to her mother: “It is probably just a phase. She should focus on her studies.”

Before going to a mela, Khan tries to find out details about the organisers. With the events often spanning two or three days, she also asks whether there are separate enclosures for women. Most riding fields have none or few restrooms or spaces for prayers for women.

In Pakistan, tent pegging is mainly played in northern Punjab, where villages and spacious fields stretch along the Ravi River, allowing the horses to freely run.

Khan says many girls have reached out to her wanting to pursue tent pegging. But most of them don’t have family support. And then there are financial and structural obstacles, which compound women’s lack of access to the sport.

“Not everyone has the privilege of owning a horse, especially women, who are already restricted by society,” Ibrahim says.

Even if you are able to own one, there is a significant cost attached to their upkeep. A horse’s monthly feed averages 30,000 to 35,000 Pakistani rupees ($107 to $125), which is nearly the monthly minimum wage in Punjab. Caretaker fees and rental charges more than double that amount.

“It’s a class thing. Everything related to horses is,” Khan says. A sporting horse costs about $1,500 in Pakistan.

Shakoor agrees. She says she was able to buy a horse after saving from her monthly salary as a manager for a global microfinance network. “You can’t put a price on passion,” she says, using a Punjabi saying.

She says she puts her horse before everything, even her own meals or health. “If I am sick, I do not care about my medicine,” she says. “But I lose sleep if my horse is sick.”

But the high cost of the sport also means many opportunities are lost. Shakoor says she has missed several tent-pegging events because she could not afford to haul her horse across cities for multiple days of competitions.

“Had I had any financial support through sponsorship, I would not have missed those events,” she says.

For Barsa’s event alone, Shakoor’s team spent more than 100,000 rupees ($358), which included the cost of transporting five horses, their feed and lodging.

Similarly, at the national tent pegging trials, every rider must bring their own horse, a rule that shuts out anyone who cannot afford transport, let alone own a horse.

Awan, the 32-year-old mother of two children, used to ride horses as a hobby and began visiting melas to observe how tent pegging was played. Intrigued by the sport, she reached out to Shakoor on Instagram, asking to become a member of Bint-e-Zahra.

In recent years, videos featuring female riders have gained millions of views on Instagram and TikTok, sometimes surpassing their male counterparts. Khan and Zoya Mir, the vice captain of the national tent pegging team, run joint TikTok and Instagram accounts, Equestrians In Green, where they post about their sporting victories.

Some videos show the women playing neza baazi in slow motion, picking up a peg mid-gallop or emerging from clouds of dust dressed in their club’s gear, often set to trendy music and paired with captions that challenge the stereotypical association of horse riding with men. Some of these videos have millions of views.

But the social media visibility also comes at a cost.

Khan recalls a viral video of women riders wearing turbans at a mela, causing a backlash from veteran male riders who claimed “women were polluting the sport.”

The turban, traditionally worn by men as a mark of their social position as well as a defining part of a horse rider’s identity, takes on an added significance in neza baazi. For some, women wearing it is seen as a challenge to a space long associated with male authority.

But the riders at the Rawalpindi mela push ahead despite the vitriol. They wear their turbans with pride – Awan tying hers over a red niqab that covers half of her face while Shakoor has hers pulled low, the way her mentor taught her.

Shakoor pulls up a photo from her Instagram account, which has more than 8,000 followers. Two riders wearing turbans pluck a peg side by side. The dip of their lances, the slight sway of their bodies, the moment of lift are all nearly identical.

“This is a picture of me with my mentor Chaudry Nazakat Hussain, my true inspiration,” she says. “He encouraged me to create Bint-e-Zahra.”

Last year, a mela held in Jathli in Rawalpindi’s Tehsil Gujjar Khan had 50 participating teams with nearly 200 riders – all male except Shakoor, Ibrahim and Malik. Representing the Bint-e-Zahra Club, Shakoor fought her way into the last seven in the team captains’ round, which is a recent addition in melas in which the captain of each club runs for a position.

Shakoor, the only woman among the final seven qualifying riders, did not secure a position but considers being included a feat nonetheless. “In the captains’ round, horses are assigned to riders randomly. This minimises odds of performing better. A sportsman is known for their skill, not their horse,” she says.

Of all the lessons the sport has taught her, Shakoor says the most valuable has been courage.

“This is a sport of the brave. If you don’t have the heart for it, it’s not for you,” she says. “Passion and dedication have no gender. … We don’t want to prove we are better than men. We only want equal respect.”

A Loose Women panellist spoke about her health problems after rushing for help before the live show.

Loose Women panellist Jane Moore has revealed she rushed to medics for help before a live show.

The panellist joined Christine Lampard, Judi Love and GK Barry on Friday’s programme, where the presenters were discussing dentist appointments.

At one point after a break, Christine teased: “Do you fear losing your teeth as dentists warn they’re overwhelmed?” before jokingly adding: “Jane is here to tell us all about nearly having to rush a dentist onto the studio floor, that was only a couple of weeks ago… it was touch and go, wasn’t it?”

Laughing it off, Jane explained that she had turned up to the studio one morning, and as she was eating, a tooth “fell” into her mouth.

“I thought, ‘What the hell’s that?'” she went on, saying the others had been laughing at her during their morning meeting.

Jane continued: “So I then had to get on a bike and go to the dentist in the middle of the meeting, he was on holiday!

“Anyway, it was a whole thing, so I came back with the tooth, got some gummy stuff and literally put it in.

“People might have noticed – I’m normally quite gobby – [but] I barely said a word. I thought, if I say anything slightly emphatic, my tooth is going to go!”

She added that her loose tooth resulted from receding gums, and she’s now waiting to get it properly fixed after a temporary solution.

This comes after fellow ITV star Kate Garraway made an emergency dash to a dentist after her teeth fell out moments before Good Morning Britain.

She later took to Instagram to explain she’d had an “unfortunate collision” resulting in two front teeth getting cracked.

She said: “Letting you in on the horror behind the scenes on Monday’s show…

“After an unfortunate collision with a taxi window at the weekend I cracked my two front teeth caps.. of course. They then fell out just before going on air.

“All I can say is it’s hard to appear young and cool in front of a whole new team of trendy producers when you are reduced to gluing your teeth on with denture fixative at three in the morning!!!”

Kate continued: “An emergency trip to the dentist means now I have a temporary set of fake teeth … but they are soooo massive.

“Just hoping they hold for @gmb tmrw from 6am with @richardmadeleyofficial – glue at the ready!”

Loose Women airs weekdays from 12.30pm on ITV1 and ITVX.

Tuesday night, America voted in primary elections and the big winner was President Trump.

One after another, his enemies — and by that I mean anyone who has ever done anything other than grovel — were defeated in elections across the country.

Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican, was perhaps the most high-profile to go down in flames. Massie, you may recall, joined with his California Democratic colleague Ro Khanna to campaign for the release of the Epstein files, which made Trump big-mad since his name is in them a lot.

The Trump-endorsed candidate Ed Gallrein won instead.

“You are ruled by the Epstein class that cares nothing about you,” former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, also a victim of Trump’s ire, posted on social media after Massie’s loss. “Tonight the future of the Republican Party was destroyed.”

But was it? Or is it simply now crystal clear that it is a party that will follow its leader, no matter the consequence — even personal ruin? And if Trump still wields this much power over his base, what does it mean for the November general election?

“Republicans are united behind President Trump,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels told Politico. “While the media tries to manufacture division, Republicans remain focused on delivering results for the American people and building momentum heading into 2026.”

As much as I’d like to believe Greene has a point (I can’t believe I’m saying that), all signs instead indicate Pels is, at least mostly, right — the Republican party is alive and well, by Trump’s standards, anyway, and may be gaining momentum for a November none of us will ever forget.

Tuesday’s proof

Gallrein wasn’t the only Trump-backed Republican to win voter approval. Trump also saw his candidates win in places including Idaho, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Georgia.

And in Texas, Trump threw down another retribution bomb by endorsing state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. That race will go to a runoff next week, with Paxton’s chances significantly boosted.

And in case there’s any doubt on why Trump is choosing his favorites, just check out his reasoning in his own social media post for that endorsement. Spoiler: It has nothing to do with the good of the country or even the Grand Old Party.

Paxton, Trump wrote, is “someone who has always been extremely loyal to me,” even trying to help Trump overturn the 2020 election results. Meanwhile, Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough.”

So personal loyalty is the name of the game, and Republicans seem more than willing to play it.

Still, there has been some chatter that ousted lawmakers including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who just lost his primary to a Trump candidate, could gum up the works for Trump in their remaining months. Cassidy voted with Democrats this week on a war powers resolution to at least slow down Trump’s Iran offensive.

Personally, I wouldn’t bet on it. Recent polls have shown Trump’s approval ratings to be down in the dumps, but not with Republicans. They still love this guy.

A poll by Echelon Insights this week found that 74% of GOP voters view Trump favorably. That’s about the same percentage of people who love Costco and NASA, and who doesn’t love Costco and NASA?

Add to that a Wednesday poll from Quinnipiac University that found that while 64% of voters disapprove of the way Trump is handling the economy, 73% of Republicans actually approve — for real. They are OK with $6 gas and beef priced like gold.

Granted, that’s down from 88% of Republicans loving this economy a month ago, but still, three-quarters of Trump’s base backs this dumpster fire of financial mismanagement and looting.

In the same poll, 80% of respondents said congressional Republicans should be doing more to work with Trump, while 13% said they should be standing up to him.

Folks, Republicans are not turning away from this president — they are embracing not a party, but his one-man rule, and doing it with a big, warm bear hug.

Get to November

What does all that mean for the November election? Not a whole lot of good for Democrats, but I’ll start with one possible bright spot: Texas.

Yes, Texas — where, if Paxton does beat Cornyn, Democrats will do a happy dance. That’s because Paxton is seen as the more extreme candidate, plagued by scandal, and would be running against the increasingly popular everyman-preacher man James Talarico. If Talarico prevails, he would be the first Democratic to win a statewide office in the Lone Star state since the 1990s.

But on the national front, there is very little reason to believe any Republicans will break with Trump, as voters or candidates. That means it will come down to gerrymandering and independents, neither of which is especially hopeful for Democrats.

In the Echelon poll, 68% of independent voters said they believed the country was on the “wrong track,” with more than one-third citing the economy as their most important issue. The Quinnipiac poll found that only 26% of independent voters who responded approve of how Trump is handling the job of president.

But.

Both polls found independent voters also did not approve of the job Democrats are doing in Congress — almost three-quarters had a bad impression. Despite all of the middle-ground voter animus toward Trump and those he backs, Democrats apparently have done almost nothing to capitalize on it.

The takeaway is that the voters who will decide November — at least in the remaining places where maps are not rigged — really don’t like any of their choices, and may just hold their noses and vote for whoever seems least-worst.

If he finds a way to bring prices down, that could be Trump‘s GOP.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump’s Spring Revenge Tour Routed G.O.P. Foes. But Fall Headwinds Loom.
The deep dive: A gray wolf has entered Sequoia National Park for the first time in a century
The L.A. Times Special: San Diego attackers’ hate manifesto targeted many groups, sought ‘destruction of political system,’ sources say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

Petr Vlachovsky, ⁠a Czech women’s football club coach who filmed players in changing rooms, has been banned for life.

European football’s governing body says it has issued a lifetime ban ⁠to Petr Vlachovsky, ⁠a Czech women’s football coach who secretly filmed his players.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, UEFA’s Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) said it had decided to ban Vlachovsky “from exercising any football-related activity for life” following an investigation into allegations of potential misconduct.

“The CEDB further decided to request FIFA to extend the abovementioned ban on a worldwide level and to order the Football Association of the Czech Republic to revoke Mr Petr Vlachovsky’s coaching licence,” the statement added.

Czech media reported that the coach was convicted in ⁠May 2025 and initially received a suspended one-year prison sentence and a five-year domestic coaching ban for filming FC Slovacko’s players in changing rooms, the youngest of ⁠whom was 17. According to the indictment cited by the Czech media, Vlachovsky confessed and expressed regret.

Vlachovsky had also previously served as coach of the Czech women’s Under-19 team.

“This is a deeply serious and distressing matter which came to light ⁠in 2023 and had a significant impact on our club, ⁠and above all on the players affected,” a spokesperson for FC Slovacko told the Reuters news agency.

“From the moment we became aware of the allegations, the club acted immediately, terminated its cooperation with the former coach, and ⁠cooperated with the relevant authorities.

“Throughout this process, the club has regarded itself as an injured party and has treated the ⁠matter with the utmost seriousness, sensitivity and respect for ⁠those affected.”

Football players’ union FIFPRO welcomed the ban as well as UEFA’s request for world football governing body FIFA to impose an international ban on Vlachovsky.

“This outcome sends a strong and necessary message that abusive and inappropriate behaviour has no place in football and ‌that ‌safeguarding the wellbeing of players must remain a priority at every level of the game,” FIFPRO added in a statement.

The woman whose harrowing story is the basis for ITV’s John Worboys drama Believe Me has said the show should be shown to the police so that they will treat women better – but it shouldn’t take TV for change to happen

Anyone who wants to know what many women’s worst nightmare looks like should watch ITV’s latest true crime drama Believe Me. It follows the true story of three women who were raped by a London taxi driver and how many people, including the police, refused to believe them. Ahead of the show’s final episode, one of those women has said she thinks all police should be shown the TV show so that they can learn from it. It’s a brilliant idea that could lead to real change, but it poses a question – why can a TV show change everything, whilst the very real, very harrowing story behind it changes nothing?

There are certain things women are told to do to avoid being the victims of sexual assault and rape. Don’t go out late at night and if you are out late, get a cab home – it’s safer. Except in 2009, it very much wasn’t. John Worboys has been convicted of attacking 16 women who got into his taxi and is thought to have committed more than 100 rapes and sexual assault. They got into his cab thinking that they would be safe there and learnt in the worst way possible that ‘safe’ doesn’t really exist.

READ MORE: ITV confirms Believe Me replacement as Rivals legends’ new showREAD MORE: John Worboys ‘cowering in fear’ of prison attack after ITV’s Believe Me drama

And what do you do when you’re entire sense of safety has been ripped away from you? You turn to the police. Those whose job it is to make wrongs right, to investigate reports of crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. The three women at the heart of this story – ‘Sarah’, ‘Laila’ and Carrie Symonds (the only one whose real name was used) – do just that. Only they don’t get justice. They get belittled. They get interrogated. They learn that their red nail polish is enough to make those who are supposed to listen to them decide they are promiscuous and ‘asking for it’. Red nail polish. The same colour I painted my nails when I was 12 and Kate Middleton wears to church at Easter.

When I watched the show, I was caught, as I so often am, between rage and resignation. I was shaking with fury at how the police refused to listen and in the same moment, utterly exhausted. Exhausted by being angry, exhausted by being scared, exhausted by knowing that less than 3% of reported rape cases result in charges and the constant realisation that this hasn’t changed much before and isn’t likely to change in the future.

And yet, even before the final episode of Believe was released on 18 May, I was seeing a call for the police to do better all over social media. The woman who was in the inspiration behind Sarah went on Good Morning Britain to tell Susanna Reid about why the show should be shown to police officers. She argued that if they had the effects of police ineptitude laid before them – in this case, the many, many women Worboys raped in the months between Sarah’s report and his arrest – they might be better going forward.

We know from past TV shows that well told dramas that capture the public attention can lead to change. Just look at Mr Bates vs the Post Office. After that show, a petition to have Paula Vennells CBE stripped was signed by more than 1.2million people and the whole case became such a huge news story that the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, announced new legislation to exonerate the convicted subpostmasters. A TV show led to a change in the law.

Similarly, though it was not based on a true story, Adolescence was immediately met with calls from the now Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, for it to be screened in schools so that young boys can learn about the dangers of the manosphere.

There is a trend here where real life stories about traditionally marginalised groups – such as women and the working class – being treated badly by those more powerful than them are given little attention until TV shines a light on them. The systemic problems that are highlighted by these true stories are swept under the rug until television sweeps them back out again.

Here’s the message that sends: if you are from a marginalised group and something awful happens to you, don’t expect anything to change unless millions get to watch it happen to a fictional version of you on the country’s biggest TV networks. If you can’t get a BAFTA winning show out of your experiences, then, I’m sorry, but those with the power to change things aren’t listening.

It’s very Black Mirror, isn’t it? We’ve come to a place where people don’t matter unless there’s an element of entertainment thrown in. That being said, how many avenues for change do we really have?

Protests haven’t yet worked for ending violence against women. The protests after Sarah Everard was murdered sparked an inquiry, which in turn led to to James Cleverly announcing vaguely that police officers charged with “certain offences” would be automatically suspended from duty. Many women I know felt at the time that this was the equivalent to a pat on the shoulder and a ‘there, there, it’ll be alright’. Similarly, politicians are being hindered by internal party conflicts. Jess Philips, one of the biggest advocates for ending violence against women, resigned from her post in the cabinet amid calls for Keir Starmer to step down.

The people who are supposed to fight for us can’t. The routes we’re supposed to take to fight for ourselves don’t work. At least ITV dramas get our stories out there and into the spotlight. At least, when there are cameras, lights and someone calling action, somebody finally hears what we’ve been screaming all along.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

In too many parts of the world, giving birth still comes with more fear than hope: a clinic without electricity, a nurse without supplies, a mother who knows that giving life may cost her own. These fears are not merely emotional, they are borne out by the facts. Every two minutes worldwide, a woman dies while giving life. Every year, nearly five million children do not live to see their fifth birthday. A toll that will rise if aid cuts continue. The Lancet medical journal estimates that by 2030, more than 14 million additional people could die, including 4.5 million children under five – the equivalent of erasing a city the size of Abuja, Brasilia or Rome.

The true measure of global progress is not found in financial markets or summit declarations. It is found in whether a woman survives pregnancy and childbirth, whether a child is vaccinated and nourished, and whether an adolescent can grow up healthy, safe and hopeful. When women, children and adolescents thrive, societies are stronger, economies are more resilient, and nations are better prepared for the future. When they are failed, the costs are measured not only in preventable deaths and suffering, but in lost human potential on a massive scale.

This is why investing in women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health is one of the most important investments any government can make. The evidence is overwhelming. Closing the gap in women’s health alone could add at least $1 trillion to the global economy every year by 2040. Every dollar invested in childhood vaccination or adolescent mental health returns about $20 over a lifetime – in healthcare savings, in productivity, in lives that go on to build something. Healthy women anchor families and economies. Healthy children grow into workers and citizens. Healthy children and adolescents are better equipped to participate in society, build livelihoods and shape more stable, prosperous futures.

Yet health systems around the world are being pushed to breaking point by aid cuts, debt, conflict and shrinking fiscal space. In 2025, official development assistance fell by 23 percent – the largest annual drop in history. In more than 50 countries, health workers are losing their jobs and training pipelines are breaking down. In some places, maternal care, vaccination and emergency response have been cut by 70 percent. At the same time, sexual and reproductive health rights are under intensifying political attack, putting hard-won progress at risk.

Women and girls bear the heaviest burden. In 2023, six in 10 maternal deaths worldwide were in countries in conflict or fragility. In fact, a woman living in a conflict-affected country is five times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than her counterpart in a stable country. Too many women still lack access to quality maternal healthcare, contraception and essential reproductive services. Too many girls face violence, discrimination and barriers to healthcare that limit not only their well-being, but their freedom and future. When budgets tighten, women and children are too often the first to feel the cuts and the last to be protected.

This is not inevitable. It is a matter of political choice.

In South Africa, we are working to strengthen primary healthcare, expanding equitable access to quality services, investing in the health workforce and building a more inclusive health system that reaches those most in need. We understand that progress in health is inseparable from progress in equality and development. A society cannot prosper if women are denied care, if children are left unprotected, or if adolescents are excluded from the services and opportunities they need to thrive.

In Spain, a public national health service has delivered universal coverage and one of the world’s lowest maternal and infant mortality rates. We believe – with vision, determination and solidarity – that what we have achieved at home can be achieved globally. This is why Spain’s Global Health Strategy 2025–2030 places equity, resilient health systems and sexual and reproductive health rights at the centre of our international action, and why we are working to raise the global ambition on sustainable development financing and to defend gender equality as a democratic and development imperative.

At the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in Sevilla last year, through the Sevilla Commitment and the Sevilla Platform for Action, we helped focus international attention on debt distress, sustainable investment and reform of the global financing architecture.

These issues may appear technical, but their consequences are deeply human. They determine whether health systems can recruit and retain workers, whether medicines reach clinics, whether women can access care safely, and whether children and adolescents are given a fair chance at life.

We must also be unequivocal in defending sexual and reproductive health and rights. These rights are not secondary, and they are not negotiable. They are central to dignity, equality and public health. No woman or girl should be denied access to life-saving care because of politics, poverty or discrimination. No society can claim to value justice while tolerating persistent gender-based violence or the systematic erosion of women’s autonomy and rights.

The question before the international community is therefore not whether we can afford to invest in women, children and adolescents. It is whether we can afford not to. The answer is clear. The long-term costs of inaction – greater instability, deeper inequality, weaker economies and millions of preventable deaths – are far higher than the cost of acting now. Higher than the cost of keeping the lights on in that clinic.

This is the spirit in which Spain is joining the Global Leaders Network, which brings together 12 heads of state and government committed to advancing the health and rights of women, children and adolescents. But this effort must not stop with us. The challenges are too large, and the stakes are too high, for leadership to remain limited to a few countries.

We need more governments to step forward, to protect essential health services, invest in frontline health workers, defend sexual and reproductive health and rights, and ensure that financing reforms deliver for the people who need them most. We need more leaders to recognise that women, children and adolescents are not a peripheral concern of global policy. They are its clearest test.

This is a moment for political courage. A moment to choose investment over retreat, solidarity over indifference, and action over complacency. Above all, it is a moment to recognise a simple truth: if women, children and adolescents are not at the centre of our decisions, then the future will not be fair, stable or sustainable. But if they are, then a better future remains within reach.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

SACRAMENTO —  The Democrats’ mantra this election year — especially among wannabe governors — is that the richest Californians should “pay their fair share.” But by any objective measurement, they already do.

I’m referring to state taxes, not federal. It’s a valid argument that the most prosperous Americans should kick in more to the federal government, particularly after President Trump and the Republican Congress lowered taxes for the wealthy, who already had a pretty good deal.

But it’s a different story in California, where state government lives off the well-heeled. Yet, never-satisfied liberal Democrats and public employee unions constantly cry for more.

In fact, an unexpected surge of $16.8 billion in state tax revenue, mostly due to the stock market boom and capital gains earnings, is bailing out Gov. Gavin Newsom and allowing him to claim a balanced budget as he prepares to depart Sacramento and run for president in 2028.

The state Franchise Tax Board recently reported which income groups pony up the most taxes. The more money you earn, the steeper your income tax burden. Of course, that’s the way it should be. But California pushes its progressive tax system to the extreme.

We’ve got by far the highest state income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%.

In 2024, the latest year for which there’s complete data, the top 1% of California taxpayers accounted for 40% of the total state income tax revenue, the FTB reported. But they earned just 24% of the taxable income. To be in the top 1%, your annual earnings had to be at least $973,000.

The top 0.1% kicked in 21% of the tax, while earning 12% of the income. To be in that megarich class, you needed annual earnings of at least $4.7 million.

By contrast, middle-class families with incomes between $73,000 and $139,000 paid 9% of the state’s income tax take.

This doesn’t mean we should weep for the rich and demand more from the struggling lower middle class.

But the problem with Sacramento living off the wealthiest taxpayers is that they’re unreliable. Their fortunes flourish in boom times and fall when the economy busts. When the stock market sneezes, California state government catches pneumonia.

If the state treasury is overflowing, Democratic lawmakers tend to spend freely, expanding programs and creating new ones. Then when the cache inevitably shrinks in bad times, the policymakers’ usual response is to essentially turn their eyes.

Rather than sharply whack spending and raise taxes, they gimmick up the budget with borrowing, deferred spending and crossed fingers. And they dig the hole deeper.

For decades, under Democratic and Republican governors, we’ve sorely needed to update our archaic tax system to make it less volatile and more dependable.

A reform that makes lots of sense is to extend the sales tax to services primarily used by businesses. They could deduct the cost on their federal tax returns. And California state and local governments would steadily collect several billion dollars annually. Some income and sales tax rates could even be lowered.

California also has the nation’s highest state sales tax rate at 7.25%. Combining state and local sales tax rates, we have the seventh-highest at 8.99%.

Taxing deductible business services makes sense to many politicians — but only privately. They’re too weak-kneed to seriously consider it in public. There’d be winners and losers and high political risks.

When Xavier Becerra, the current Democratic front-runner in the June 2 gubernatorial primary, entered the race a year ago, I asked him about extending the sales tax to services, as all other states do. He wanted nothing to do with it.

“We need to stabilize our tax system in California with a more steady source of revenue,” he told me. “But I’m not a fan of the sales tax to begin with. It lands on working families.”

He was not interested in exploring a possible tax on services that didn’t hit working families.

Becerra, a former California attorney general and U.S. health secretary, added: “Before we start exploring new taxes, we should explore existing budget spending. We have to scrub the budget.”

In revising his new budget proposal last week, Newsom proposed $5.1 billion in modest tax hikes on businesses — even as unanticipated revenue was surging. He asked the Legislature for a limit on corporate tax credits and a tax on digital software.

He also proposed to trim $3.7 billion from Medi-Cal healthcare for the poor.

Newsom proposed spending $349.9 billion in the next fiscal year and asserted that budgets would be balanced for 18 months. But after that, he and practically everyone else in Sacramento foresee deficit spending without extensive fiscal restructuring.

But you don’t hear a peep about that from leading Democratic candidates running to replace Newsom. Most are talking about imposing significantly higher business taxes to pay for new or expanded programs.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer wants to close “the corporate tax loophole.” What he’s talking about is gutting Proposition 13’s property tax breaks for commercial holdings. He’d make it easier to reassess when partners sell their portions of a property — a commonly called “split roll” that would treat commercial property differently than residential.

That was tried in 2020 and rejected by voters.

Steyer also supports the billionaire tax that’s expected to be on the November ballot. It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires.

To their credit, no other gubernatorial candidate supports this misguided proposal. Practically all the $100-billion windfall would flow solely into healthcare while causing fed-up super wealthy to flee the state.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter would raise taxes on the most profitable corporations to pay for free child care and college tuition. They’re both good causes but of questionable fiscal feasibility right now.

Rather than pushing rich investors and job creators out of state, we should be encouraging them to stick it out in California and continue to pay their fair share.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Who won and who lost in Thursday night’s California gubernatorial debate? Our columnists weigh in
TikTok dough: The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear
The L.A. Times Special: Steyer campaign staffer linked to video of rival Katie Porter berating staff

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Several women sexually violated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have come forward to report the war crimes committed against them by the M23 rebels amid the ongoing war in the country. The women spoke to Human Rights Watch researchers, but asked to be kept anonymous out of fear of retribution from the predators. 

The international organisation documented it in a report the atrocities committed by the rebels and Rwandan soldiers against the Congolese women. The report, published on May 13,  revealed how the duo summarily executed men and raped women during raids on civilian communities. Victims described being raped under threat of death and at gunpoint in their homes or in fields while searching for food, according to the HRW report. The attackers assaulted or killed relatives who attempted to stop them from sexually violating women. The absence of operational healthcare services in Uvira during the violent operations deprived survivors of crucial medical attention, including access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV infection.

A woman who was allegedly raped by a combination of the M23 rebels and Rwanda soldiers in Uvira told  HRW researchers about the hell she was put through by the invaders in Uvira. 

“They stripped me completely naked, tied my hands behind my back with my clothes and then raped me. They continued doing so for a long time, and when my husband tried to intervene, they took him outside our house and shot him dead, ” the woman whose identity is being withheld in order to maintain her dignity told HRW.

The woman eventually lost consciousness and later consulted a health professional, receiving analgesics and a post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) kit. She says she still suffers from a persistent infection. The woman is one of eight individuals identified in the recent HRW report. 

According to the report, survivors of the atrocities identified their torturers as M23 combatants and soldiers of the Rwandan army, notably because they spoke the Kinyarwanda language and wore uniforms of the Rwandan army. They also carried military hardware which could easily be recognised and linked to the Rwandan army. 

Another woman cited in the report revealed how she was sexually violated on the same day, while she was working on her farm in Katala, situated in Uvira territory. She said two fighters approached her, one of them pointed a gun at her and declared in Kinyarwanda: “If you don’t do what I tell you, I will kill you”. The men, whom she identified through their Rwandan army uniforms, then went ahead to rape her. She eventually went to the Kavimvira health centre in Uvira for treatment, but she received no medical attention.

A third woman revealed that she was also sexually assaulted in December when she went to search for food, as provisions have been dwindling since the arrival of the M23 rebels in the zone. She said a Congolese and a Rwandan assaulted her sexually.

“The Rwandan man said he wanted to kill me, but the Congolese said ‘no, rape her’,” the woman revealed. She said after having been raped, she was afraid to go to a hospital for treatment and rather opted to go buy drugs from a pharmacy which only sold antibiotics to her. She stated that she continues to experience pain and has ongoing bleeding, but she has been unable to undergo medical tests, including an HIV test. 

Another woman told HRW that she was sexually assaulted on January 3, 2026, while she was on her farm on the periphery of Uvira. She said an M23 combatant and a Rwandan soldier who were pretending to be searching for water accosted her, and one of them ordered, “If you shout, we will kill you”, adding that they had not been with a woman for over six months, during which time they were in the bush. Since the rape incident, she has been bleeding and sick.

The woman revealed that during the occupation of Uvira by the M23 rebels, hospitals were not providing treatment for sexual violence, so she did not benefit from the medical kit necessary within 72 hours following sexual violence.

“In all the accounts rendered, the survivors underlined the almost total absence of accessible health services during the M23 and Rwandan occupation, and in particular, the absence of post-rape treatment at the appropriate time, as well as adequate treatment for wounds and infections provoked by sexual violence. Other essential services, including psycho-social support, the collection of proofs and judicial assistance were also not available”, the HRW report reveals.

The United Nations Population Fund, on its part, notes that sexual violence committed by the belligerent parties in the Eastern DR Congo has increased, with more than 80,000 cases of rape reported between January and September 2025, which is a 32 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2024.

The sudden and chaotic cuts in international aid introduced by the American government at the beginning of 2025 abruptly halted emergency medical treatment and various forms of support for thousands of survivors of sexual violence.

The survivors have been confronted by a bigger risk of contracting HIV or unplanned pregnancies because the clinics and hospitals in the Eastern DR Congo no longer have stocks of post-exposure prophylactic (PEP) kits, which were hitherto mostly supplied by projects financed by the United States. These kits are supposed to be administered 72 hours after exposure in order to prevent infections like HIV.

The strategic town of Uvira has, since the M23/AFC rebels occupied Bukavu at the beginning of December 2025, become the provisional capital of South Kivu province despite the signing of the Washington Accords by Felix Tshisekedi and Paul Kagame in the presence of Donald Trump. Supported by Rwanda, the M23/AFC rebels launched a rapid offensive, resulting in the capture of the town.

Three political ads meant to break through our collective indifference caught my eye this week, as we come down to the wire on the June 2 primary election.

Each one says less about the candidates involved, and more about this moment in politics and where the races for California governor and L.A. mayor may be headed. Each ad also hints at deeper issues that haven’t quite reached the water-cooler conversation level, but maybe should.

Becerra blunder

The first ad that grabbed my attention was a quick-turn by San José Mayor and gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan (still stuck in single-digit polling numbers), who jumped on Xavier Becerra’s first major mess-up.

Becerra chastised KTLA interviewer — on camera — not to give him too many hard questions because, “This is not a gotcha piece, right?”

That left a lot of folks wondering about his temperament and transparency, something rival Katie Porter knows a bit about.

The video went viral, and Mahan mashed it up with now-infamous clips of Porter walking out of a different interview earlier in the campaign cycle.

The result was a fast, funny, pointed jab that made both Becerra and Porter look prickly and unaccountable. For Porter, that damage was done long ago. But this moment for Becerra, the very-slim-margin front-runner, could have sticking power.

New polls, which likely don’t account for the impact of this gaffe, have Becerra edging up in a lead over Tom Steyer or maybe just tied. If Becerra is leading, it’s not by much, and he’s not a shoo-in by any means.

The bigger issue is that there are many hard questions that Becerra will likely need to answer if he does make the general election — questions he’s largely been dodging with pat answers.

This week, one of the lobbyists charged in a scheme that allegedly stole more than $200,000 from one of Becerra’s old campaign accounts will appear in court again.

She’s apparently been working on a plea deal, so it’s likely either that will be formalized, or the case will move forward to a trial. Becerra is not accused of any wrongdoing and told my colleague Dakota Smith that he had testified before the grand jury in the case.

But Becerra has also said he was aware that up to $10,000 a month was being paid out of a dormant campaign account to manage that money, since his role as the Health and Human Services Secretary made it illegal for him to be involved directly.

The question that seems relevant in this age of fraud-and-waste panic is who pays $10,000 a month to have someone watch over a dormant account and doesn’t think that’s excessive? Becerra may have been an innocent victim, but $120,000 a year is a lot of money to pay someone to babysit a largely unused stack of cash.

If Becerra does make it through to the primary and faces Hilton or potentially Steyer, both successful businessmen, expect this lack of financial acumen to be an issue — a hard question that is fair to ask of the person who wants to run the fourth largest economy in the world.

Steyer backers

Speaking of money, the second ad (or sort-of ad) that caught my attention is tied to Steyer, the billionaire who has spent more than $100 million of his own money in this race.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Steyer’s campaign has been paying influencers to post support of him online. The account mentioned in the Bee’s report seems to have removed those videos, but others have archived some of them.

These posts are meant to decidedly not feel like advertisements, but just organic support from Steyer supporters. Steyer’s is far from the first campaign to do this and won’t be the last.

Trump, Kamala Harris, Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA — all of them have courted influencers, paid or unpaid, to reach voters, especially young ones. California is one of the few states with a law that tries to regulate some of this type of content, but it’s not a strong law.

While there may be nothing shocking in Steyer’s digital strategy, it should alarm us on the larger level of having a healthy democracy. We’ve largely forgotten the black hole of delusion that millions of Americans fell into during the pandemic era from online misinformation brokers. Remember QAnon?

Influence campaigns are shockingly powerful, and growing in sophistication by the minute. While Steyer’s efforts may be run-of-the-mill, it’s an area of political communication that demands greater transparency and regulation.

Pratt problems

Which brings us to Spencer Pratt, and the ad (ads, really) that caught everyone’s attention — the AI-generated mini-movies that blatantly steal the “Batman” and “Star Wars” intellectual property and which have earned so much viral attention that the mayor’s race can now fairly say it’s got national reach.

Pratt did not make these ads, but he’s reposted them, and millions have watched. Though it may seem obvious they are made by artificial intelligence, they are not identified as such.

Pratt has portrayed himself as angry with what he’s sees as Bass’ failure after the Palisades and Eaton fires — a fair criticism that many share. He’s made his own ads highlighting how his family is forced to now live in an Airstream trailer, though TMZ reported Wednesday that Pratt has actually been camping out at the Hotel Bel-Air, where rooms were starting at $1,420 a night this week. (Pratt disputes this reporting and said Wednesday that he doesn’t live anywhere.)

Though parody is protected speech, one of the AI videos Pratt has promoted ends with a crowd, including a child, pelting L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris with fruit until they flee.

Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, posted online that it was “maybe the best political ad of the year.”

I disagree. While a certain segment of conservative white male voters might find it hilarious to pelt women of color until they run in fear, I’m pretty sure there are some messages in that missive that aren’t getting the scrutiny they deserve.

The links between hate speech and political violence are well documented. Outrage and action are tied, but now increasingly removed from reality. How AI — especially AI depicting political rivals as unhinged, evil villains — will affect voters, and democracy in general, isn’t yet understood.

I doubt these ads on behalf of Pratt will change the minds of many voters, but they do change politics.

And not for the better.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Ex-gubernatorial candidate Stephen Cloobeck interfered with witness in girlfriend’s case, authorities say
The deep dive: How a fast food taco showed us who Steve Hilton really is
The L.A. Times Special: A bombshell fraud case takes the spotlight in California’s high-stakes race for governor

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

SACRAMENTO —  Here’s what the Democratic candidates for governor aren’t telling us: While promising the moon, they’ve avoided saying how they would keep paying for all of Sacramento’s current costly programs.

Termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have dug the state into a deep financial hole, and it faces severe deficit spending through the next governor’s first term.

The only honest solution is an unpopular mix of program cuts and tax increases, plus a focused, earnest and unlikely effort at making government more cost-effective and efficient.

The worst option would be the easy one that got Sacramento into its current mess: gimmicky budgeting that includes excessive borrowing, program delays rather than outright eliminations and fudged numbers.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek recently estimated “the state faces structural deficits running from $20 billion to $35 billion annually.”

He warned the state’s financial commitments funded by its revenue “[are] not sustainable” and added that mopping up the red ink “will likely require at least some — if not significant — spending reductions.”

The analyst pointed out that since 2019, under Newsom, state general fund spending has risen by $100 billion to $248 billion in the governor’s latest budget proposal in January. About 70% of the growth went to maintaining existing services and 30% was for expanding or creating new programs.

“In retrospect,” Petek continued, “the state could not afford to sustain its existing services while funding … expansions and new programs.”

Last week, the analyst reported some good news coupled with bad. He estimated a $25-billion boost in unanticipated revenue, driven by artificial intelligence enthusiasm and “the related stock market boom.” But, he added, “these surging revenues likely are not sustainable.”

The analyst said the stock market appears to be “in a speculative bubble, rivaled only by the dot-com boom” (that led to the Great Recession) “and the Roaring ‘20s” (that ushered in the Great Depression).

“The state should be prepared for revenues to be tens of billions lower within one or two years.”

Newsom will get another crack at legitimately balancing a budget on Thursday when he revises his spending proposal for the next fiscal year.

You can’t really blame the governor’s wannabe Democratic successors for dodging this fiscal thicket. Program cuts and higher taxes don’t attract voters. Moreover, the subject is weedy and boring. For that reason, I suspect, moderators didn’t even delve into it during three recent televised gubernatorial debates.

Regardless, budget-crafting is a governor’s most sacred duty and the source of much of their power. It would help voters to know where the candidates stand. Right now, they’re in hiding.

Former state Senate leader Don Perata, a Democrat, posted this last week about the chronic deficits:

“Apparently, candidates find this untroubling or maybe someone else’s worry. None … even mentioned it during those juvenile television ‘debates’ and the hundreds of millions spent on campaign commercials.”

Instead, various contenders have been promising voters a Santa’s sleigh of goodies: state-run single-payer healthcare, free childcare, partial no-tuition college, suspension of the gas tax, no state income tax for people earning under $100,000 and generous subsidies for Hollywood filmmaking.

Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and former Orange County congresswoman Katie Porter have been touting single-payer healthcare, an idea pushed by politically potent nurses unions and Democratic progressives. Private insurance would be eliminated and, under most proposals, so would the popular Medicare. The state would manage all medical insurance — more efficiently and at less consumer expense, advocates insist.

But this concept seems far beyond the state’s financial reach and operational capability. Its cost could exceed twice the current state budget. And I shudder to think of our state bureaucracy trying to handle healthcare for 39 million people. First, get the DMV working right and the botched bullet train rolling.

For many years, underdog gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa — a former Los Angeles mayor — has called the single-payer notion “snake oil.” In a CNN debate last week, he termed it “pie in the sky.”

Centrist San José Mayor Matt Mahan chimed in, asserting: “The candidates who are fighting for single-payer don’t know how to pay for it, and they’re not being honest about it.”

Practically everyone jumped on new Democratic frontrunner Xavier Becerra — former state attorney general and U.S. health secretary — for seemingly being unable to specify whether he’s for or against single-payer.

“I’ve been consistent for over 30 years,” he said, trying to explain that he favors Medicare-for-all as “the most efficient way that we can do healthcare.”

It was a silly waste of debate time. They were arguing over oranges and lemons — both citrus, but different. Becerra should have just made clear that he’s opposed to single-payer and supports a separate version of universal healthcare: Medicare-type coverage with a supplemental private insurance option for all Californians. If that’s indeed what he favors.

Mahan bragged that he’s “the only candidate in this race who is calling for a suspension of the gas tax.” It’s a highlighted Republican talking point. But no other Democratic candidate advocates suspending the tax because it’s a screwy idea.

The roughly 60-cent-per-gallon state gas tax pays for filling potholes and more serious road repairs and improvements. Moreover, the next governor won’t take office until January. Suspending the tax then — even if the Legislature approved — wouldn’t reduce today’s soaring pump prices.

My take on the debates:

Becerra survived. He’s refreshingly calm but needs to be more crisp.

Steyer was articulate and may have attracted Bernie Sanders fans.

Porter is a talented debater, but seemed overly defensive about her past hot temper.

Mahan was fine, but he just got off the bench and it’s late in the game.

Villaraigosa was straightforward as usual, and finally had a broad audience.

All should bone up on budget-balancing and tell us their thinking.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How MAGA Sheriff Chad Bianco is shaking up the 2026 California gubernatorial primary
The other must-read: Tom Steyer tries to sell voters on his own personal change
The L.A. Times Special: Abortion access just took another blow. California wasn’t spared

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

May 8 (UPI) — Australia has charged three women linked to ISIS with crimes against humanity after they returned home from Syria.

They had allegedly moved to Syria to be part of the Islamic State caliphate in Syria, but once it fell, they were in refugee camps guarded by Kurdish guards. They were part of a group of 13 people who were returned to Australia. It’s not yet clear if other people returning to Australia will face charges.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in February that he would not allow the refugees to repatriate to Australia.

Kawsar Ahmad, 53, and her daughter Zeinab Ahmad, 31, appeared in a Melbourne court Friday. Kawsar Ahmad was charged with four counts of crimes against humanity. Police allege she went to Syria in 2014 and kept a female slave in her home. Zeinab Ahmad faces two similar charges.

Another adult child of Kawsar Ahmad, Zahra Ahmad, arrived in Melbourne Thursday, but was not arrested.

Janai Safar, 32, appeared in a Sydney court and was charged with entering and remaining in a declared conflict zone and joining ISIS. She returned to Sydney Thursday with her son.

Safar’s lawyer, Michael Ainsworth argued for her release on bail, saying her alleged offenses happened when she was 21, and she has been in a refugee camp for nine years.

“This young lady … lived in truly horrific conditions in these refugee camps for many years,” Ainsworth said. “She has significant community ties here in Australia, she’s one of seven children. There’s a place for her to live.”

The Australian Federal Police said Kawsar Ahmad moved to Syria with her husband and children in 2014 and was complicit in buying a female slave for $10,000, “and knowingly kept the woman in the home.”

Zeinab Ahmad allegedly also traveled to Syria and kept a female slave in the home. A slavery conviction can bring up to 25 years in prison.

Federal police assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism Stephen Nutt said Thursday night that planning for the return of people from the Middle East began in 2015.

“Australian joint counter-terrorism teams methodically investigated all Australians who travelled to declared conflict areas and will ensure those who are alleged to have committed a criminal offense are put before the courts,” Nutt said.

In the ancient days of 2022, when the Supreme Court sledgehammered abortion rights with the Dobbs decision, the (Republican) party line was that the issue had returned to where it belonged: the states.

Fast forward to 2026 and it would now seem that the antiabortion crowd, faced with the aggressive pro-choice response of states such as California and lethargy on the part of the Trump administration to do more toward implementing a national ban, is no longer satisfied with that outcome.

They are now out to stomp on California, and a handful of other reproductive health sanctuaries, to ensure that what happens inside our borders fits their ideology.

“It’s strategic, it’s targeted,” Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “Even if you’re in a ‘blue state,’ you’re not safe.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next week whether to take up the abortion issue again, in a case that could end medication-only procedures as we know them.

That would force women into a less-safe regimen with a lower success rate that would almost certainly lead to more complications — and therefore more controversy. Even in California, which would not be spared by what the court could do, and whose policies are central to the case.

Let’s break it down.

Union members, immigrant rights supporters and anti-Israel demonstrators participate in a May Day rally and march in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

(Robyn Stevens Brody / Sipa USA via Associated Press)

Rogue California

After the Dobbs decision, 11 states passed near-total bans on abortions.

Six other states put early time limits on the procedures, and others passed bans in the second trimester, leaving women in much of the South and the Great Plains with no access to in-person care for hundreds or even thousands of miles.

In many of those places, those bans include making it illegal to receive abortion-inducing medications in the mail from states such as California. But that’s a hard law to enforce unless you go around opening lady-mail.

In recent years, the number of U.S. abortions arranged through telehealth and mailed medication has skyrocketed to more than a quarter of all procedures, though the often illegal nature of this route probably means the number is higher but underreported.

To protect the doctors and providers who are prescribing and sending these medications, California and other states have passed numerous laws to make it easier and safer — from allowing the prescriber to remain anonymous to shield laws that ensure those providers can’t be penalized or extradited to other states for prosecution, though some states are trying.

Earlier this year, Louisiana (a state with a full ban) tried to extradite a California doctor with no luck. Gov. Gavin Newsom gleefully denied that request, promising to “never be complicit with Trump’s war on women.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during the annual March For Life at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Rogue Louisiana

In the Supreme Court case, Louisiana is thinking bigger — and expressing antiabortionists’ frustration with the Trump administration. The state is suing Trump’s Food and Drug Administration because it allows mifepristone, one of two medications used in abortions, to be prescribed via telehealth.

“Patients and these states with bans and extreme restrictions have relied on providers in blue states, abortion access states, to really help provide care,” Timmaraju said. “And this is a way to stop that.”

Antiabortion groups had hoped (and pushed) Trump to simply have the FDA remove its approvals of mifepristone, but Trump ain’t that dumb. Despite all his promises on the campaign trail, the administration would prefer to kick the can instead of the hornet’s nest on this one, especially before the midterms — since most Americans support abortion rights. So the FDA has said it’s “studying” mifepristone, which could take awhile.

Louisiana is claiming it had to spend $90,000 in taxpayer money to help two women who sought medical treatment after medication abortions (though it has not said they received the medication in the mail).

That’s a real harm, it argues, and gives them standing to sue the FDA to stop mifepristone from being prescribed by telehealth at all, claiming the FDA hasn’t done its due diligence to ensure that’s safe and it makes them really sad that they can’t stop women from ordering it.

The FDA has remained “completely silent on this point because the Trump administration doesn’t want to get involved,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and expert on reproductive law.

“It’s totally one of the signs that the antiabortion movement is in an open rebellion, and is using the federal courts to express that because the political branches have been pretty non-responsive,” she said.

The Contemplation of Justice statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday in Washington.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Supreme Court lifted a stay Monday imposed by the 5th Circuit that stopped mifepristone from being tele-prescribed. So it’s available until at least May 11.

After that, who knows. It’s up to a court that has proven it’s no friend to reproductive rights.

It’s an issue with real consequence for Trump. If the court takes the case, the midterms must contend with abortion. If they don’t, the pressure on Trump to do so sometime intensifies. But its also an issue with real consequence for Californians.

Consequences in California

In California, there are 22 counties without an abortion clinic, Ziegler points out. In the far north of the state, women without access to telehealth abortions would be little better off than those in Louisiana if mifepristone by mail is stopped.

Instead, women would probably be forced to use the second medication, misoprostol, alone. This single-drug regimen has a lower effectiveness rate than the combined drugs, meaning more women will have to seek out secondary care — often in places where even in-person care is hard to come by. That could lead to more real harm, and therefore more high-profile cases of botched abortions to fuel a further ban on misoprostol.

Steve Hilton takes an interview after the California gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

And then there’s the fact that Newsom won’t be governor for much longer, and it will be up to the next chief executive to protect in-state providers from extradition. The top Republican contender, Steve Hilton, has previously said he would allow Louisiana to grab our California doctor if he were in charge.

Those kinds of threats have a chilling effect, both Ziegler and Timmaraju said. If enough providers are scared of the consequences of providing telehealth — or any — abortions, a ban becomes self-imposed.

Even in California.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Immigration crackdown souring Orange County’s view of Trump, poll finds
The deep dive: ‘How the Fight Over Israel Is Playing Out Inside MAGA
The L.A. Times Special: Who won the California governor debate on CNN? Here’s what our columnists say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

The U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation Monday into Smith College, an all-women’s institution in Massachusetts, for admitting transgender women.

The probe by the department’s Office of Civil Rights will look at whether the college violated Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding discrimination based on sex in education.

The move is the latest by the Trump administration — whose rhetoric has frequently included attacks on trans people — to limit transgender rights in the U.S. The administration has said that Title IX prevents trans women from participating in women’s sports, suing several states and launching investigations into schools for not complying.

Smith College, a private liberal arts school founded in 1871, has admitted trans women since 2015, along with many other elite women’s colleges.

The school’s admission policies drew attention and sparked on-campus activism in 2013, when a trans high school senior was denied acceptance because her gender identity did not match the one on her financial aid forms.

Its website now says that “any applicants who self-identify as women; cis, trans, and nonbinary women” are eligible to apply to the school. Advocates have supported the shift over the years, saying that women’s colleges were founded to educate those marginalized because of their gender.

The number of women’s colleges in the U.S. has declined from more than 200 to just 30 as of fall of 2023, according to the Women’s College Coalition.

A college spokesperson did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

According to the Department of Education in a news release, Title IX contains an exception that allows colleges to be all-male or all-female, but it only applies “on the basis of biological sex difference, not subjective gender identity.”

The investigation into Smith College stems from a complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights in June 2025 by the conservative legal group Defending Education.

“DE and its members oppose, among other things, discrimination on the basis of sex in America’s K-12 schools and institutions of higher education,” the organization said in a news release.

During the Biden administration, new Title IX regulations were issued to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. However, those were struck down by a federal judge in January 2025 who decided the rules had legal shortcomings.

Ding writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Across America, 53 women have served as state governors. But not one in California. What gives? Aren’t we supposed to be enlightened out here in this cutting-edge state?

In fact, 14 women currently are governors in all sorts of states — north, south, flyover and Pacific coast. Big, midsize and small. Red, blue and purple.

We stand out with a huge black mark.

Voters have a chance to erase the ugly spot this year with Katie Porter in position to possibly be elected California’s first female governor.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Porter should be elected just because she’s a woman.

What I’m saying is that this is an opportunity to elect a perfectly qualified woman. If a male opponent is considered better suited for the job, fine. But first, let’s give her a good hard look and listen to her ideas. Maybe she’s too liberal — or not liberal enough. Perhaps too feisty and brusque than some unfairly find acceptable in a woman.

Independent polling shows that Porter basically isn’t getting any more support from women voters than she is from men.

I queried my best source on such matters: my daughter, Karen Skelton, a longtime political operative who has served stints in the Clinton and Biden White Houses. Why aren’t more women rallying around Porter?

“There was a time when women were excited to support women just because they were women, fueled by the historic prospect of electing ‘the first,’” she said. “But if anything has been proven in the last two presidential elections where women ran, it’s that identity politics does not work….

“It has to be more than her identity as a woman to get her elected.”

Yep. In my view, Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn’t very likable in 2016 and ran a lousy campaign. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris also lacked popularity. And she was dealt a losing hand by aging President Biden when he took too long to step aside.

Harris, a former U.S. senator with a long history of electoral success in California, would have been the heavy favorite to become the state’s first female governor if she had run. But she declined, opting for a possible third presidential bid in 2028.

Porter, 52, is a UC Irvine consumer law professor and former Orange County congresswoman who increased her statewide name familiarity by running unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2024.

Running for governor, she has been forthright and specific on what she’d try to achieve in Sacramento. She’d probably shake up the place.

One goal that should appeal to young families is free childcare. How’d she pay for that, I asked.

“Well, how do we afford public schools, roads, everything else, right?” the single mother of three answered, implying it’s about priorities. “The reason we don’t fund childcare, but we do fund other things, is because we expect women and mothers to do childcare for free or for pennies.”

She was scurrying along leading the Democrat pack last fall until tripping over two videos that displayed a hot temper.

In one, she threatened to walk out of a TV interview when a female reporter repeatedly asked how she expected to gain the votes of President Trump’s supporters. An irritated Porter said she didn’t need their votes, and she was right — but also rude.

In the other video — an oldie — then-Rep. Porter was shown yelling at a young female aide to “get out of my f— shot” during a videoconference with a Cabinet secretary.

Porter says she apologized to the staffer that day and they worked together for years afterward. And following a recent televised debate, Porter says, the former aide texted her congratulations and added that if she still lived in California, she’d vote for her.

The TV reporter, Julie Watts of CBS, was a moderator of a campaign debate last week and tossed some prickly questions at Porter and the other candidates.

“I was very calm and answered all the questions,” Porter notes. “I showed people I can do better” than the TV interview she has apologized for many times.

Porter has never completely recovered from the harmful videos. But she’s running close to two other Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — in the June 2 primary.

“If a man had done the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about it,” asserts Valerie McGinty, founder and president of Fund Her, an organization dedicated to electing women.

Several women agreed.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who has endorsed Porter, points to the late beloved, oft-profane legislative leader John Burton of San Francisco as an example of a double standard.

“Not a woman in American politics could get away with titling their autobiography ‘I Yell Because I Care,’” she says. On the book’s jacket cover, Burton is pictured speaking to a crowd with two raised middle fingers.

“People expect women to be strong but not too harsh,” Petrie-Norris says.

OK, but why do women get elected governor in other states, but not in California?

Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, says the vast amounts of money and human resources needed to win in humongous California make it especially difficult for women. They usually haven’t been included in the political pipeline long enough, she says, to build a hefty donor base, acquire elective office experience and gain statewide name recognition.

Three women have dropped out of the current race because they weren’t gaining ground. But it’s hard to argue it was because of any gender hurdles.

Previously, three women won their party nominations for governor but lost in November: Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Kathleen Brown in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and Republican Meg Whitman in 2010. None lost because of any double standard. It just wasn’t their year politically.

But California has elected three female U.S. senators — Democrats Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Harris.

And nearly half the state Legislative seats are held by women.

It’s conceivable this year that California finally enters the 20th century — let alone the 21st — by electing our first female governor.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Coded messages, ‘red boxing’ and other allegations in California’s testy race for governor
Money (That’s what I want): Billionaire-tax backers say they have enough signatures to qualify for ballot
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California primary election

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

CHRISTINE McGuinness is reportedly growing close to a Strictly star and Olympian after opening up about having sex with women for the first time.

Mum-of-three Christine, 38, who finalised her divorce from ex-Top Gear host Paddy, 52, in 2024, is getting close to Olympic boxing star Nicola Adams, 43, according to The Mail.

Christine and Nicola attended The DIVA Awards 2026 recently, which is an event which celebrates the achievements of LGBTQIA women and non-binary people.

An onlooker told the paper: “They were inseparable and looked like they were a couple.”

The pair now also follow each other on social media.

Nicola split from her partner of seven years, Ella Baig, in March 2025.

Read More about Christine

‘I KISSED A GIRL’

Christine McGuinness opens up about having sex with women for first time

racy reveal

Christine McGuinness reveals secret to ‘controlling sex drive’ & bondage romps

The Sun reached out to both Christine and Nicola’s representatives for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

This comes after Christine opened up about dating women last week.

“I would love to have a wife one day,” Christine explains on new podcast It Started With A Kiss.

“Not like a legalised marriage, but like a blessing, a celebration of love.

“I’ve been there, done it, spent an absolute fortune and probably aged about ten years throughout it all.

“I don’t want to do that again.

“I would love to just be saying, ‘This is my wife.’”

Elsewhere in her chat, Christine said: “I’m a sucker for a stud and a masc.

“I swear they come for me.

“This one date, well, it wasn’t a date, it was when I did the whole hotel thing and not the whole date thing.

“Because I didn’t want to ever just meet someone and it just be sex, but then kind of did find myself in a place in life where I was like, ‘Do you know what? I actually do just want to do that.’

“I’ve been married, I’ve had situationships, I was single, I was celibate for six months, and with all of that, I just had a moment of, ‘Do you know what, I wouldn’t mind just meeting up with someone and just seeing how it goes.’

“So I got to this hotel and I’m thinking, ‘This is just sex, it’s fine.’

“She was very, very beautiful, like that perfect, pretty, handsome, like masc stud type woman, really gorgeous, dark skin, like she had everything.”

Christine adds: “We’re just chatting away and she said that she was a Gold Star Lesbian.

“So I’m like, love that, love a Gold Star Lesbian.

“I went, ‘Stop . . .  because you might be a Gold Star Lesbian, but I’m a Five Star Lesbian.’”

Of her first kiss, Christine is just as open, saying: “The first time I kissed a woman, again after my husband and no disrespect to him, it had been a while.

“I remember that first kiss just being so soft and so nice and so feminine.

“I knew I always felt it and it wasn’t something that I was worried about never doing again because when I married, I married for life, genuinely.

“But I was really happy that I was doing it again.

“And I’m really happy that now I am dating women again and that I am having fun.

“I’ve got some of the best stories, some of the wildest memories, like the craziest experiences that only I and one other person would ever know.”

Christine chose to speak about wanting to date men and women after signing up to E4 TV series Celebs Go Dating in April last year.

It came after Christine and Paddy announced their separation in 2022.

Eight candidates for California governor shared a stage for 90 minutes Tuesday night, their second of three scheduled debates before the June 2 primary.

My colleagues Gustavo Arellano and Mark Z. Barabak joined me to decide who the winner was, or if there was a winner at all.

Arellano: The real MVP in this debate? State Supt. Tony Thurmond.

He brought up his family story — child of a Panamanian immigrant who lost his parents young, someone familiar with “government cheese” as sustenance growing up — in a way that didn’t sound forced or pedantic.

He usually stayed within the time limits that were barely enforced by moderators. And he kept knocking down Chad Bianco again and again, drawing applause when he brought up the Riverside County sheriff’s takeover of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Thurmond is the only gubernatorial candidate currently holding a statewide position, a former Richmond City Council member and Assembly member. “Elect someone with a lived experience,” he told the audience in his closing statement.

So why has Thurmond polled so low again and again to the point that he keeps not getting invited to debates and therefore not getting in front of California voters?

California has never elected a Black governor — in fact, the state is notorious for not voting in Tom Bradley in 1982 even though polls showed him leading George Deukmejian all the way to Election Day (the phenomenon of voters telling pollsters what they think they want to hear instead of what they actually feel is now known as the Bradley Effect).

As California’s Black population keeps shrinking, it would’ve been wonderful to see Thurmond do better than he has.

Chabria: Gustavo is spot on with his take on Thurmond. He came across as polished, capable and knowledgeable. But also, he’s just too far down in the polls for any kind of comeback.

In my mind, though, Xavier Becerra was the clear winner. No, he didn’t blow the other candidates away.

But he landed more than one punch that will almost certainly be on social media feeds for weeks to come, especially when he went at Republican Steve Hilton. Early on, he called President Trump “Hilton’s daddy.” Later, he quipped at Hilton, “We don’t need a talking head for Fox News to tell us how the government works.”

The debate was chaotic in more than one moment, but Becerra managed to get more than his share of airtime and use it wisely. Tom Steyer, the other Democratic front-runner, mired himself in wonk-talk. He wanted to get deep into policy, and got lost in complicated issues such as oil refineries.

Steyer didn’t have a single memorable line, though his closing statement did redeem him somewhat. He called himself the “change maker,” and promised, “if you want change, there is only one person on this stage they are afraid of” — they being tech titans, oil companies and other gods of industry.

It was the same for Katie Porter and Matt Mahan, who didn’t do anything wrong, but also, didn’t break out.

But those back-and-forths of Becerra and Hilton are priceless because they’re quick and shareable. I won’t be surprised to see voters drift Becerra’s way, even if only a bit.

Barabak: No runs, no hits, no errors. Seven men — and one woman — left standing.

I didn’t see, or hear, anything that seems very likely to drastically shake up or dramatically reorder the governor’s race. No breakout performance that will launch any of the candidates into clear-cut front-runner status. No major gaffes to leave any of the contestants sprawled on the killing floor.

So to that extent, I would score Becerra as the evening’s (modest) winner. He’s clearly having a moment, surging from political near-death to the top tier in polls. (Though, let’s be clear, it’s still a muddle, with several candidates bunched in the 15%-20% support range.)

There have been suggestions Becerra needs to show a bit more fight and he did so Tuesday, in particular taking on Hilton. Some of his jabs seemed a bit forced and stagy. (That line about Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”)

Better, as Anita noted, was the jab from the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden cabinet secretary about a Fox “talking head” explaining how government works.

I found Porter to be crisp and authoritative on policy; Steyer to be repetitive (I’m the only change agent on this stage, look how much money is being spent to stop me — though it’s a small fraction of the sum he’s sunk into his vanity-cruise campaign); Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa to be largely afterthoughts, and Bianco to have all the warmth and appeal of the grouchy old man telling kids in the neighborhood to get off his damn lawn!

The Riverside County sheriff seemed not to be running for governor of California, but rather mayor of MAGA-ville, a strategy apparently intended to nab one of two spots in the June primary, allowing him to go on to crushing defeat in November.

I agree that perhaps the night’s most surprising performance came from Thurmond. The state schools superintendent is mired in bare single digits in polls and only just made the debate stage after being left out of last week’s meetup in San Francisco.

His chances of being California’s next governor are somewhere between zero and nil, which is why he escaped serious scrutiny. That said, he made the most of the 90 minutes on stage, laying out his compelling up-from-poverty life story and seeming to relish taking on Bianco in particular.

Too little, too late. But Thurmond certainly acquitted himself well.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ‘This is like the Russian mafia’: L.A. judge elections see unusual drama
The deep dive: Gavin Newsom wants to break up with Elon Musk. Tesla is making that difficult.
The L.A. Times Special: John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

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