LAS VEGAS — “You know, I was thinking,” Gwen Stefani said, looking out at the crowd before her on Wednesday night at Sphere. The singer was maybe an hour and a half into the first show of No Doubt’s monthlong residency at the dome-shaped venue just off the Las Vegas Strip, and now the moment had come for the hit that changed everything for this once-scrappy ska-punk band from Orange County.
“I was thinking about this next song, and I was thinking about Anaheim,” she continued. “Do you know where Anaheim is?”
Share via
The song, of course, was “Just a Girl,” which Stefani said she wrote “out of pure innocence in a time where I was just becoming aware of myself and my surroundings.” She added that she’d always assumed she’d outgrow the song — that someday it would feel disconnected from the life of a woman who went on to become a pop star with a clothing line and a gig on TV. Here she was, though, about to do “Just a Girl” for 20,000 or so fans eager to sing along.
“You tell me if you think it’s still relevant,” she said.
In a built-to-please town where old hits are welcome on any stage — not least Sphere’s, which these days also hosts the Eagles and the Backstreet Boys — the crowd’s verdict was no surprise. Yet this was a more committed look back than might have been expected, with a loose narrative arc tracing No Doubt’s ascent (rather than its peak) and a set list filled with deep cuts well beyond the catchy singles that once blanketed KROQ and MTV.
Beneath a massive wraparound screen that flickered with vintage camcorder-style footage from the early 1990s, the group played “Excuse Me Mr.” and “New” and “Total Hate ’95”; Stefani and her bandmates — guitarist Tom Dumont, bassist Tony Kanal and drummer Adrian Young — did “Trapped in a Box,” “End It on This” and “The Climb,” which No Doubt heads on the internet say they hadn’t performed live in nearly three decades.
Then again, for one of those decades, No Doubt wasn’t performing at all. The band made its ballyhooed comeback in 2024 at Coachella, where it delivered a punchy, compact set of hits and brought out Olivia Rodrigo for a guest spot that demonstrated Stefani’s influence — musical, attitudinal, sartorial — on the generation of female pop stars that came after her. (At Sphere, Stefani’s taste in plaids and animal prints was clearly still casting a spell among her admirers.)
No Doubt’s Sphere residency is scheduled to run through mid-June.
(John Shearer)
The takeaway from Coachella was that the band had worked itself back into fighting shape; Stefani, in particular, seemed eager to prove that her years doling out niceties on “The Voice” and dabbling in country music with her husband, Blake Shelton, hadn’t dulled her edge. Here, the band went further, using Sphere’s state-of-the-art environs to imagine itself back in a dingy club or student union.
There were big visual moments, including a simulated trip through a crumbling amusement park — the “Tragic Kingdom” of the group’s breakout 1995 LP — and a bit with a stories-tall cartoon Stefani towering over the room in her fishnets and combat boots. And even with all of the obscurities, it’s not as though No Doubt skipped its best-known songs: “Bathwater” and “Spiderwebs” were bouncy yet propulsive, while “Underneath It All” and “Hella Good” showcased the players’ nimble rhythmic interplay. Stefani’s voice was at its pleading best in “Don’t Speak,” one of the great pop ballads of the last 30 years, and “Simple Kind of Life,” which was accompanied by a video starring Stefani and Kanal acting out some episode from their ancient romance.
Before “Ex-Girlfriend,” which Stefani wrote amid her doomed marriage to Gavin Rossdale of Bush, the singer said, “It gives me — what is it? The PTSD. But because I absolutely adore you guys, I’m gonna suffer.”
Yet this was the chapter of No Doubt’s story — basically the apex of its popularity — that the band seemed least interested in exploring on Wednesday. The impression you got was that Stefani and her pals hadn’t come to Vegas to cruise or to gloat or even to soak up the easy adulation that’s always on offer here; weirdly, they’d come to remember the struggle.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said his administration is “moving forward aggressively” to continue laying the groundwork for a giant tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to replumb the state’s water system.
“We got to move faster. Move faster,” Newsom said to regulators during a speech Thursday at a conference held by the Assn. of California Water Agencies. “We all have to be held to a higher level of accountability.”
California’s 40th governor provided a chronological look back at his water policies since taking office in 2019 and asserted the need to continue his effort to modernize state infrastructure to provide for cities and farms into the future.
Newsom cast the tunnel as a “climate adaptation project,” noting that climate change is projected to shrink the amount of water the state can deliver with its current infrastructure.
With his term expiring at the end of the year, Newsom acknowledged that he will soon “pass the baton” on water policy to the next governor. Democrat or Republican, that person could decide the fate of his signature water project.
“The Delta Conveyance, if we had it last year alone, would have provided enough water, in terms of what we could have captured with an updated system, enough water for 9.8 million Californians’ needs for over a year,” Newsom said. “We’ve got to get that done.”
Water has been a focus of the Newsom administration since his first day in office, when the governor took his cabinet to Monterey Park Tract, a rural Central Valley community that lacked access to safe drinking water.
Described by Newsom as “the forever problem” in California, water policy is also among the most politically contentious issues in the state.
The tunnel would create a second route to transport water from new intakes on the Sacramento River to the south side of the Delta, where pumps send water into the aqueducts of the State Water Project.
The project is particularly acrimonious, drawing out geographical battles between north and south and thorny fights between officials who want to build the tunnel and environmentalists and Delta residents seeking to protect the local ecosystem and their way of life.
Newsom and other supporters have said the tunnel would protect the state’s water system as climate change intensifies severe droughts and deluges. Opponents call the project a costly boondoggle, arguing it’s not necessary and would destroy the Delta.
It’s been mired with regulatory hurdles and other challenges for years.
The State Water Resources Control Board is considering a petition by the Newsom administration to amend permits so water could be tapped where the tunnel intakes would be built.
There have also been other complications. A state appeals court in December rejected the state’s plan for financing the project, and the California Supreme Court in April declined to take up the case. The state Department of Water Resources said it still plans to issue bonds to finance the project.
Other court challenges by Delta-area counties and environmental groups are also pending.
Whether the project is ultimately built may hinge on whether large water agencies, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, decide to participate and pay for its building.
State officials have said that the tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project, ultimately would be paid for by participating water agencies.
The state estimated in 2024 that the tunnel would cost $20.1 billion, while opponents say it could cost three to five times more than that.
In the last seven years, California has invested $11 billion in water infrastructure, Newsom said.
The Democratic governor reflected on other parts of his water policies, saying he has prioritized securing funds to provide clean drinking water to more communities where Californians live with contaminated tap water.
He said while there has been progress in bringing safe drinking water to more communities, there is still “a lot more work to be done.”
Newsom touted his administration’s investment in replenishing groundwater in the Central Valley and its efforts supporting plans to build the Sites Reservoir near Sacramento.
Newsom said the Sites Reservoir is critical for the state’s future, and he indicated some frustration about the pace at which it’s advancing.
“We’ve got to do the groundbreaking at Sites,” he said. “If you can’t agree to an off-stream investment in this world of weather whiplash, we’re as dumb as we want to be.”
He said his administration has also made progress on environmental projects including restoring wetlands around the shrinking Salton Sea, removing dams on the Klamath River, and developing a strategy to help salmon, which have suffered major declines in recent years.
Touching on issues that generate heated debate, Newsom talked about a controversial plan for new water rules in the Delta that relies on so-called voluntary agreements in which water agencies would contribute funding for wetland habitat restoration projects and other measures.
Newsom described the approach, called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, as a solution to break away from the traditional conflict-ridden regulatory approach and improve the Delta’s ecological health.
“Got to maintain the vigilance on these voluntary agreements. At peril, we go back to our old ways,” he said.
Environmental advocates argue that the proposed approach, which is widely supported by water agencies, would take too much water out of the Delta and threaten native fish that are already in severe decline.
Newsom said climate change is increasingly driving “weather whiplash” in California and that the state must prepare. He noted that his tenure included the extreme drought from 2020-22, followed by extremely wet conditions in 2023, which revived Tulare Lake on thousands of acres of farmland.
He said the state needs to manage water differently because the effects of climate change have been apparent over the last several years: “The hots were getting a lot hotter, the dries were getting a lot drier, and the wets were getting a lot wetter.”
MINNEAPOLIS — A man who sprayed vinegar at Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar at a town hall meeting in Minneapolis pleaded guilty to assault Thursday in federal court after reaching a deal with prosecutors.
Anthony Kazmierczak, 55, is awaiting sentencing.
Kazmierczak, dressed in bright orange jail clothing, gave only a fragmentary explanation Thursday of the Jan. 27 assault, which came as the city was already on edge after the fatal shootings of two people by federal agents during a White House crackdown that brought thousands of immigration officers to Minnesota.
After being asked what he remembered of the assault, he told U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen: “It’s fuzzy.”
Kazmierczak, who was in the audience during Omar’s January town hall, leaped up when the representative called for the ouster of then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He sprayed liquid from a syringe as court documents say he shouted that Noem would not resign and that Omar was “splitting Minnesota apart.”
Security officers tackled Kazmierczak, who told them the liquid was vinegar.
“I didn’t want anybody to think she was in danger,” he said Thursday.
Omar, who was not injured, continued with the town hall after the arrest.
Authorities later determined he’d sprayed her with a mixture of water and apple cider vinegar. He was charged with assaulting a U.S. officer.
Court documents say Kazmierczak, a critic of Omar who has made online posts supportive of President Trump, told a close associate several years ago that “somebody should kill” her.
Omar, a refugee from Somalia, has long been a target of Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. After she was elected seven years ago, Trump said she should “go back” to her home country. He has described her as “garbage” and said she should be investigated.
Trump has also accused Omar of staging the attack, telling ABC News, “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”
On Thursday, Kazmierczak told Ericksen that he was being treated for Parkinson’s disease, and that he’d been diagnosed with ADHD, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and a form of post-traumatic stress.
After his arrest, his then-attorney said that he did not have access to the medications he needed for Parkinson’s and other serious conditions.
Minnesota court records show that Kazmierczak, who was convicted of felony auto theft in 1989, has been arrested multiple times for driving under the influence and has had numerous traffic citations. There are also indications he has had significant financial problems, including two bankruptcy filings.
In social media posts, Kazmierczak had criticized former President Biden and referred to Democrats as “angry and liars.” Trump wants the U.S. to be “stronger and more prosperous,” he wrote.
Threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years, peaking in 2021 following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters before dipping slightly, only to climb again, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Capitol Police.
The NCAA announced Thursday that it will expand its two March Madness tournaments by eight teams each next season, a long-expected move that will drop more games into the first week of the highly popular and lucrative showcase without substantially changing its overall form.
The new, 76-team brackets will jam eight extra games — for a total of 12 involving 24 teams — into the front half of the first week of the men’s and the women’s tournaments. It will turn what’s now known as the First Four into a bigger affair that will now be called the “March Madness Opening Round.”
The 12 winners will move into the main 64-team bracket that will begin, as usual, on Thursday for the men and Friday for the women.
It is the first expansion of the tournaments in 15 years, when they were bumped to 68 teams each.
The NCAA said it will distribute more than $131 million in new revenue to schools that make the tournament. That money will come via expanded TV advertising opportunities for alcohol, the likes of which were previously restricted. It said the value of the rights agreement will increase $50 million each year on average over the course of the six years.
Most of the eight new slots are expected to go to teams from the power conferences that were already commanding the lion’s share of entries in the bracket. Two years ago, the Southeastern Conference placed a record 14 teams in the men’s bracket. Last season, the Big Ten had nine.
Keith Gill, the chairman of the Division I men’s basketball committee, called the expansion “a nice way to create some access but make sure we have the bracket we all love when we start Thursday at noon.”
The move is a product of the times, which includes massive expansion — the Atlantic Coast Conference, for instance, has grown from nine to 17 teams since 1996 — and the reality that mid-major schools with top-notch players will often see them plucked away by programs with bigger budgets and the ability to pay them through revenue sharing.
Cinderella? There will still be room for those stirring runs in the tournaments, though not a single mid-major advanced past the first weekend of either tournament the last two seasons.
This is hardly a concern of the decision-makers anymore, who will point to TV ratings that traditionally spell out fans’ preference for the likes of Duke and North Carolina over St. Peter’s and San Diego State, especially once the Sweet 16 starts.
What matters more to the biggest schools is that their teams have a chance to compete in what remains the best postseason in college sports and that they aren’t iced out by lower conference champions who earn automatic bids.
“You’ve got some really, really good teams who are going to end up in that 9, 10, 11 [seed] category that I think should be moved into the” 64-team bracket, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said last year in discussing how he favored expansion.
Also, the money. The new beer and wine money will add to what the NCAA can distribute in “units” that are earned for placing teams in the bracket and then for every round those teams advance. Last year, that amounted to about $350,000 per unit for the men’s tournament. The Big Ten made nearly $70 million from both tournaments, won by conference members Michigan [men] and UCLA [women].
Leaders in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC have all acknowledged that smaller programs help make March Madness what it is, all the while steadily expanding their own power in NCAA decision-making. That brings with it the tacit threat of fracturing the single thing the NCAA does best — the basketball tournament.
This move might forestall that. What it isn’t expected to do is drastically change the TV deal beyond the advertising.
The current deal for the men’s tournament is worth $8.8 billion and runs through 2032. Adding a few extra games between mid-level Power Four teams on Tuesday and Wednesday won’t change that much.
One reason this took as long as it did was the NCAA negotiations with CBS and TNT, which themselves have been in negotiations over their own ownership.
The more drastic option of expanding the tournament to 96 teams or beyond would involve adding an extra week to a tournament that has thrived in part because of the symmetry of a six-round bracket that gets whittled down over three weeks.
That basic shell began in 1985, with only slight tweaks, the latest of which came in 2011 when it was upped to 68.
WASHINGTON — The first baby boomer on the Supreme Court hit a milestone on Thursday, becoming the second-longest-serving justice in history at a time when his influence has never seemed greater.
Once an outlier on the nation’s highest court, Justice Clarence Thomas has become a towering figure in the conservative legal movement over the last decade as he helped secure landmark rulings on abortion, voting and Second Amendment rights.
The only justice with a longer tenure is liberal William O. Douglas. Thomas would overtake Douglas in 2028 if he remains on the court — and there’s no sign he plans to retire anytime soon.
“I think he’s more energized and excited now than when I first met him,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who served in Republican President George W. Bush’s administration after his time as a Thomas clerk three decades ago.
Thomas was confirmed in 1991 after contentious hearings that included sexual harassment allegations. More recently, his acceptance of luxury trips has raised a storm of ethics questions. He’s nevertheless gone from near-silence at oral arguments to asking the first questions and penning a landmark ruling expanding Second Amendment rights.
Following the appointment of three conservative justices by Republican President Trump, Thomas is now the most senior member of a supermajority that’s also overturned abortion as a constitutional right, ended affirmative action in college admissions and sharply limited the Voting Rights Act.
“The court has radically moved in his direction over the course of his time on the court,” said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan. Thomas’ seniority means he can decide who writes an opinion if he’s part of a majority that doesn’t include Chief Justice John Roberts, a factor that can nudge other votes behind closed doors, Karlan said.
Off the bench, Thomas’ sphere of influence also includes his large, close-knit network of former clerks, who have served in the Trump administration and are increasingly filling out the ranks of federal judges.
“That is an important legacy that he will leave,” said Sarah Konsky, director of the Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “Even as justices’ own time on the court winds down, significant influence lives on through their clerks.”
That’s not to say Thomas’ time on the court is up. In a recent speech, Thomas tied the nation’s highest ideals to a conservative vision of limited government — and launched a broadside on progressivism seen by critics as unfair and inappropriate. In the room at the University of Texas, though, it earned a standing ovation.
Thomas, who became the second Black member of the court, now has a tenure that tops 34 years, putting him ahead of Justice Stephen J. Field, who was appointed by Lincoln before the end of the Civil War and served as the only 10th justice until 1897.
For Thomas, 77, it’s a long way from the hearings at which his nomination by Republican President George H.W. Bush was nearly derailed by allegations that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill, a charge he forcefully denied.
Thomas has more recently come under scrutiny for lavish, undisclosed trips from a GOP megadonor and the conservative political activism of his wife, who backed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The justice has said he wasn’t required to disclose the trips he took with friends and ignored calls to recuse himself from cases related to the election.
On the court, though, recent years have also brought perhaps the most significant work of his career, especially a 2022 opinion he wrote that found people generally have the right to carry a gun in public. The justice did not respond to a request for comment on his tenure.
His own jurisprudence has changed little over the years, said Scott Gerber, author of “First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.” Even as the majority moves his way, he’s continued to write dissents that get noticed.
“He’s incredibly consistent,” Gerber said. Once known for solo dissents, “now he writes majority opinions.”
Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell, and I guess Shohei Ohtani is human after all.
Are you a true-blue fan?
Get our Dodgers Dugout newsletter for insights, news and much more.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
I’m writing this on Tuesday evening because my youngest daughter, Hannah, whom I’ve mentioned numerous times in this newsletter, is getting married this weekend. I won’t be able to do a newsletter for next Monday, and I didn’t want everyone to wait a week and a half for the next newsletter.
So, hopefully nothing huge happened on Wednesday. But if it did, and it’s not mentioned here, now you know why.
Heading into Wednesday’s game, Shohei Ohtani was hitless since April 27. That’s a long time without a hit. So what happened?
—At one point, Ohtani was going to hit and pitch Tuesday, but the Dodgers changed their mind Monday and had him only pitch.
—“Definitely not results,” Dave Roberts said of how he made that decision. “It’s a little bit more body language and just watching the player. … We’ve certainly enjoyed the fruits of him doing [both], which he will continue to, at times. But I think for me, it’s a start by start kind of read-and-react situation.”
—Ohtani: “I do feel like over the course of my career it’s just a reality that I’m not exactly hitting at the best of my ability at this time of year,” Ohtani said last week through interpreter Will Ireton. “At the same time, as a player, I do want to be better and get to that position where I’m feeling really good. It’s a balancing act of the two.”
—Ohtani has become pull-happy. He was hitting the ball to the right side 53.4% of the time entering Monday, compared to 43.2% last season, according to Statcast.
—“It’s more about timing and feel for him, backing up the baseball,” hitting coach Aaron Bates said. “When he gathers correctly and hits through the baseball, obviously we’ve seen what he’s capable of doing. But just kind of managing his at-bats right now, trying to get to the big part of the park.”
As of right now, this is Ohtani’s worst offensive season since 2020, when he hit .197. Let’s take a look at his OPS+ numbers since he began playing:
He usually hits fine this time of year. Of course, this season he is also trying to pitch full time. But he hit fine when he was a full-time pitcher with the Angels. Sometimes, players just go through slumps. There’s no reason to believe Ohtani won’t break out of this slump. And if Ohtani went four for four with three homers Wednesday, then I reverse jinxed him.
Stats explained
Every year I get emails from readers who only follow the Dodgers and not baseball in general. They want to know how to calculate various stats and wondered if I could put together a glossary of terms. This seems as good a time as any to do so. Some of you, maybe most of you, probably already know these things, but there are different levels of baseball knowledge among the subscribers, so let’s put us all on the same page. And if you want, you can save this newsletter to refer back to. These definitions come from mlb.com.
Pitching
GF: Games Finished. The number of times the pitcher was on the mound during the final out.
ERA: Earned Run Average. The number of earned runs times nine then divided by the number of Innings Pitched.
CG: Complete Games. When the pitcher throws the entire game without any relief.
SHO: Shutouts. A complete game thrown by the pitcher where the losing team did not score.
Saves. Earned by a pitcher when a. He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team. b. he is not the pitcher who earned the win (W). c. he meets one of the following criteria: 1. He came to the mound with a lead of three runs or fewer and pitches at least one inning. 2. He came to the mound with the tying run on base, at bat, or on deck. 3. He pitches effectively for at least three innings.
IP: Innings Pitched. A pitcher with 4.2 innings pitched had four full innings then retired two batters in his fifth inning of work.
ER: Earned Runs. Earned runs are those which scored without the aid of an error, a catcher’s interference call, or a passed ball.
R: Runs Allowed. A total number of runs, earned or not earned, that scored.
K: A strikeout by the pitcher.
Balks. A call against the pitcher for making an illegal motion that the umpire views as an attempt to deceive a baserunner.
Hold. Awarded to a relief pitcher who enters with the lead, retires at least one batter, and does not relinquish the lead.
K/BB: Strikeouts to Base on Balls Ratio. Strikeouts divided by base on balls.
K/9: Strikeouts per nine innings. The number of strikeouts averaged during every nine innings of work. Strikeouts times nine divided by innings pitched.
BB/9: Walks per nine innings. The number of walks averaged during every nine innings of work. Calculated as walks times nine divided by innings pitched.
ERA+: A pitcher’s ERA adjusted to reflect home ballpark and league average. A pitcher with an ERA+ of 100 is a league average pitcher. An ERA+ of 110 means the pitcher’s ERA is 10% better than the league average. An ERA+ of 90 means that the pitcher’s ERA is 10% worse than the league mean.
FIP: Fielding Independent Pitching. FIP is similar to ERA, but it focuses solely on the events a pitcher has the most control over: Strikeouts, walks, hit-by-pitches and home runs.
For example: If a pitcher has surrendered a high average on balls in play, his FIP will likely be lower than his ERA. Balls in play are not part of the FIP equation because a pitcher is believed to have limited control over their outcome.
The formula: The “FIP constant” puts FIP onto the same scale as the entire league’s ERA: ((HR x 13) + (3 x (BB + HBP)) – (2 x K)) / IP + FIP constant.
Hitting
AB: At-bats. Number of times a player batted, excluding walks, sacrifices, catcher interference, or being hit by a pitch.
Plate appearances: The number of times a player batted.
Runs Batted In. Given to a a batter when a runner scores due to a base hit, a sacrifice, being hit by a pitch, during an infield out (but not during a double play), or a fielder’s choice.
Sacrifice Fly. A fly ball hit with less than two outs, fair or foul, that is caught but allows one or more baserunners to tag up and score.
Batting Average. The player’s total number of hits divided by their total number of at-bats.
OB%: On Base Percentage. Determines what percentage of a player’s plate appearances resulted in him reaching base safely. Calculated by adding hits, walks and hit by pitch then dividing that by the player’s at-bats, walks, sacrifice flies and hit by pitch.
SLG%: Slugging Percentage. Calculated by taking the total bases (singles + 2 x doubles + 3 x triples + 4 x home runs) then dividing it by the number of at-bats.
AB/HR: At-Bats per Home Runs. Calculated by dividing the number of at-bats by home runs.
AB/K: At-Bats per Strikeouts. Calculated by dividing the number of at-bats by strikeouts.
OPS: On-Base Plus Slugging. On-base percentage added to slugging percentage.
OPS+: OPS adjusted to reflect league and ballpark conditions, like ERA+ for pitchers. OPS+ is scaled so that 100 is a league average player. Formula: 100 x (OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG – 1)
BABIP: Batting Average on Balls in Play. BABIP measures a player’s batting average exclusively on balls hit into the field of play, removing outcomes not affected by the opposing defense (namely home runs and strikeouts).
For example, a hitter who goes two for five with a home run and a strikeout would have a .333 BABIP. He’s one for three on the balls he put in play.
The formula: (H – HR)/(AB – K – HR + SF)
BABIP can be used to provide some context when evaluating both pitchers and hitters. The league average BABIP is typically around .300. Pitchers who have allowed a high BABIP is considered to be pitching with “bad luck.” Over time, they’ll see fewer balls in play fall for hits, and therefore experience better results in terms of run prevention. The same applies for batters who have seen a high or low percentage of their balls in play drop in for hits.
Up next
Friday: Atlanta (*-Chris Sale, 6-1, 2.14 ERA) at Dodgers (Emmet Sheehan, 2-1, 5.23 ERA), 7:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020
Saturday: Atlanta (Spencer Strider, 0-0, 8.10 ERA) at Dodgers (Roki Sasaki, 1-3, 5.97), 6:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020
Sunday: Atlanta (JR Ritchie, 1-0, 3.63 ERA) at Dodgers (*-Justin Wrobleski, 5-0, 1.25 ERA), 1:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020
Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
The budget carrier had been in talks with the US government about securing a rescue deal to save it from collapse, but in early May announced its liquidation.
The airline said on its website it had “started an orderly wind-down of our operations, effective immediately”.
TWO holiday destinations are losing their Virgin flights until next year.
The major airline has confirmed that flights to both Dubai and Seattle will no longer go ahead this year.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
Virgin’s Seattle and Dubai flights have been paused until next yearCredit: AlamyFlights to Dubai have been suspended by a number of airlinesCredit: Alamy
Flights to Dubai are off the cards for most airlines right now, with the Iran war putting the winter sun destination on the no-travel list.
Virgin Atlantic had already suspended flights from London Heathrow to Dubai, but has now confirmed they would not go ahead until winter 2027.
It comes as its London Heathrow flights to Riyadh were cancelled entirely after just a year.
The airline is also suspending flights to Seattle until March 27, 2027.
A Virgin spokesperson said: “Unfortunately, we have taken the difficult decision to temporarily suspend our seasonal service to Dubai for the winter 2026 season, while services to Seattle will also be temporarily suspended for the winter 2026 season only, before resuming in March 2027.
“Customers can continue to travel to Seattle with our partner Delta Air Lines who will offer daily services from London Heathrow.”
“We’d like to apologise to any affected customers and will be contacting them with their options which include rebooking or a refund.”
The airline is instead adding more flights to two of its destination in Africa.
From October 25, there will be 11 weekly flights to Cape Town, as well as 10 a week to Johannesburg.
They added: “The updated flight schedule enhances convenience for travellers, with earlier morning arrivals into South Africa allowing passengers to maximise their time on the ground, and later evening departures offering a more seamless overnight journey to London.”
Events: Men’s baseball gold medal finals, women’s basketball gold medal finals, men’s soccer gold medal finals, swimming preliminary and tennis quarter final mixed doubles
Thoughts: ”My uncle made a spreadsheet. The tickets are for me, my uncle, friends and I’m hoping to take my nephew as well. I was 10 years old at the 1984 Olympics and got to go to gymnastics, swimming and closing ceremonies, and my nephew will be 10 in 2028. I know L.A. is going to have an amazing Olympics, we are Los Angeles! Ten million creative, beautiful people, always dreaming and we know how to wow people. I can’t wait and hopefully traffic is smooth, a glamorous sequel to ’84.”
WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”
The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana,Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.
The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.
“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”
For now, California’s response is far from settled.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) cautioned against “accelerating a race to the bottom.”
(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)
The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.
“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”
What California decides — and when — will matter at the national level. With 52 congressional seats, no state has more to offer Democrats in a redistricting war. But experts, lawmakers and party officials say the path forward is more complicated than the calls from Washington suggest.
California could see 48 blue seats, out of 52
That’s in part because California already acted. In 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, which drew new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. The new maps, which could yield as many as 48 Democratic seats out of 52, are already in effect, and voters have begun receiving their mail-in ballots.
Going farther is not currently on the table — at least not yet.
“We have yet to fully win the seats in the map that was drawn in 2025. It seems a step too far to say we’re going to go back to the drawing board and redraw the map,” said Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party.
Hicks said it doesn’t mean the issue could not become part of a future discussion, but he said Democrats in other states should not look past what California has already done.
“We’re trying to pick up 48 of them. How much more do you want us to pick up? You want us to make it 52 blue? Well, you all should get into the fight,” Hicks said. “You all should pick up some seats. Let’s all do this together, because California cannot do it alone, it will take the rest of the country.”
Others are not convinced the most aggressive option makes the strategic sense in California.
Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting consultant who drew California’s Proposition 50 congressional maps, said the push for a 52-0 delegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a partisan map would perform in the state over time.
“A 52-to-zero map would have the potential of backfiring,” Mitchell said. “In 2026, we could pick up 52 seats. But then in 2028 or 2030 — a bad year for Democrats, let’s say — Democrats lose 11 of those seats. You’ve drawn these districts so demonically to a Democratic advantage in a good year that in a bad Democratic year, they don’t have the ability to withstand the challenge.”
Ruling could jeopardize state’s voting rights law
The political debate over congressional maps has so far dominated the conversation in Washington. But legal scholars and redistricting experts say the ruling could also have consequences in California’s city hall, school board and county supervisor races.
The justices’ ruling, decided by the court’s conservative majority, says states cannot consider race to create majority-minority electoral districts while allowing them take partisan interests into account.
“A purely partisan map is actually more defensible now than one drawn with racial considerations,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “It turns the world on its head.”
The ruling now puts at risk any district drawn at any level of government that relied on the Voting Rights Act to justify its boundaries, Hasen said.
And in California, that uncertainty extends to districts drawn under the state Voting Rights Act, which extends protections for minority voters beyond the federal law, he said. The state law was not directly at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, but Hasen argues the court’s reasoning could provide new legal grounds to challenge the state law as potentially unconstitutional.
Cities including Santa Monica and Palmdale have faced lawsuits alleging their at-large City Council elections diluted the Latino vote. Palmdale settled its case and agreed to switch to district-based elections; Santa Monica’s case is ongoing. Hasen argued that the cities, as well as other bodies, such as school boards, could now return to court to challenge whether district maps drawn as a result of the California Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.
“That has not been tested yet,” he said, but he fears the same arguments made to challenge the federal Voting Rights Act could be made against the state law.
At the state level, Republican strategist Matt Rexroad sees the ruling affecting the California Legislature as well. He argues the boundaries drawn for the state Assembly and Senate districts are racial gerrymanders.
“Those legislative lines, I would argue, are unconstitutional,” Rexroad said. “And those lines are probably going to change by 2028.”
But Rexroad’s biggest concern goes beyond any single set of maps: It is the future of California’s independent redistricting commission, the nonpartisan body he has spent years defending.
A threat to independent redistricting
Rexroad sees a scenario in which the national political environment gives California Democrats little incentive to return the map-making power to the commission. If Republican states continue to aggressively redraw maps, Democrats will have another justification to keep power in the Legislature’s hands, the same argument made to pass Proposition 50, he said.
“I don’t think the California redistricting commission has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is right now,” he said.
J. Morgan Kousser, a historian who has testified as an expert witness in voting rights cases for 47 years, said California’s commitment to the commission may depend on how aggressive Republican states act in redistricting.
“If we go back to an all-white South in Congress, California may not go back to a fairness standard,” Kousser said. “It may not disarm. It may rearm.”
Mitchell, the redistricting consultant, said that he hopes California and other states choose the path of disarmament and that there is a national push for independent commissions in every state.
“This isn’t good for anybody,” he said. “This was all basically a nerd war over lines that didn’t actually improve any districts anywhere.”
On one of her previous visits to Los Angeles, Argentine filmmaker Lucrecia Martel found herself having a smoke on Hollywood Boulevard.
There, while she stepped over the famous concrete-embedded stars, an unhoused man struck up a conversation with her.
“He kept explaining to me that he was poorly dressed because he was currently living on the street after someone robbed him, but he had written a screenplay,” Martel, 59, recalls in Spanish over coffee on a morning in April at a West Hollywood hotel.
“He told me they had stolen a watch from him — not a Rolex but a known brand,” she continues. “The whole time he was trying to convince me he was a millionaire who just so happened to be on the street because of random circumstances.”
One of Latin America’s most indispensable storytellers, Martel is fascinated by how prevalent that dream still is in L.A. — that movies can change your life overnight.
“That particular fantasy is par for the course in this city,” she says, though she’s not above it. It’s the reason she’s back to promote her first documentary, “Our Land,” out Friday.
Unhurried when it comes to her output, Martel has only made four fiction features, among them 2001’s “La Cienaga” and 2008’s “The Headless Woman” (returning to theaters this month in a new 4K restoration). Her biting and formally audacious narratives examine class, politics and — a speciality — the interiority of women through enigmatic portraits of psychologically complex individuals.
“Our Land,” a piercing indictment of the enduring wounds of colonialism, chronicles the murder of Indigenous Argentine activist Javier Chocobar in 2009 and the prolonged trial of the perpetrators in 2018.
Chocobar was shot during a confrontation with armed men over land in the Tucumán province of Argentina where the Chuschagasta Indigenous community has lived for many generations. Martel explores the killing not as an isolated event in her country’s recent past but as part of a long history of dispossession.
“Racism is a foundational element,” she says of her homeland. “The only consistent thing in Argentina, from the country’s birth to the present day, is the rejection of Indigenous people.”
In Argentina, Martel explains, public education has indoctrinated the population into believing Indigenous people no longer exist. Yet many Argentines proudly claim a connection to the Europeans, Italians in particular, who arrived in the country in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
“When giving speeches, our presidents always say, ‘We are a country of immigrants,’ or ‘We came from the boats,’” says Martel. “They use metaphors like these because deep down Argentines feel much more indebted to European immigration than to our Indigenous population. But more than half of the people in Argentina have Indigenous ancestors.”
In 2020, Chocobar’s three convicted murderers appealed their guilty verdicts and were set free. “Our Land” premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September 2025, which brought renewed attention to the case. A month later, the sentence was upheld and two of the men returned to prison (one died in the interim).
Martel believes that outcome was a response to her film. “Communities wage the fight but cinema helps,” she says.
“I believe that we must use cinema for its enormous power to alter perception and not soothe the rich,” Martel says. “It’s not about delivering a message but rather about showing how an idea functions.”
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
For over 14 years, Martel worked on “Our Land” on and off. This time included periods when she focused on 2017’s “Zama,” her masterful period piece following a Spanish official in 18th century Argentina “who doesn’t want to be American,” she says, referring to the continent. In her mind, both “Zama” and “Our Land” come from the same impulse to dissect colonialism.
As part of her research process, Martel and her team created a detailed archive of documents related to the case that the Chuschagasta community now has at its disposal. Over the years, Delfín Cata, one of the Indigenous men present during the attack, would call Martel. He never asked about how her film was going, but the director sensed he was tacitly checking in on her progress, hoping that she was not losing faith.
“That was a confirmation that, beyond my own interest, there were people who needed this film,” she says. “I felt the immense satisfaction of knowing I was doing something that would be concretely useful.”
For Martel, the question of whether she was the right person to make this film (one she got in Venice) seems unfair. “It’s wrong to prevent a human being from speaking about their own history because they are not a woman, because they are not Black, or because they are not Indigenous,” she says. “It’s better to make mistakes trying to understand something than not to try at all. The chances of making a mistake are enormous in a film, no matter how good your intentions are.”
A key piece of evidence in the Chocobar case, prominent in the film, is a video that one of the attackers filmed, presumably expecting the Indigenous community to react violently, to justify firing his gun at them. The Chuschagasta men that faced them weren’t armed. As used by their aggressors, the camera functioned as a weapon.
Hollywood feels incompatible with Martel’s sophisticated, confrontational movies rooted in her country’s troubles. By Martel’s own admission, it doesn’t feel like a fit for her.
“I would have to force myself to create something outside my own country, outside my own language,” she says. “And that doesn’t really appeal to me.”
Still, Marvel Studios famously asked to meet with her when seeking a director for 2021’s “Black Widow.” Martel says she was among many directors they contacted, but she was curious to take the meeting even if she knew nothing would come of it.
“They wanted to do it over Zoom and I happened to be here in Los Angeles,” she remembers. “I told them I could come in, because I wanted to see what the whole process was like.”
Martel describes the month she spent in L.A. — an eye injury prevented her from flying home sooner — as a “lot of fun in the end,” even if no blockbuster emerged from it. More recently, another Hollywood offer did tempt her, but she ultimately passed.
“It was a good book suggested to me by an actress of undoubted talent,” Martel shares, careful to avoid names. “I considered it, but you very quickly have to picture yourself spending three years or at least a year and a half living in the United States making a movie. I have a thousand things in Argentina to worry about.”
Still, Hollywood, and its significance to moviemaking, has a singular, unnerving allure on her. Two of Martel’s favorite movies set in L.A. are David Lynch’s nightmarish “Mulholland Drive” and Robert Aldrich’s psychodrama “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?”
“There is something ruthless and utterly devoid of sanity at the heart of this film industry, and I’ve never felt that darkness as clear as in ‘Mulholland Drive,’” she says. “How can an industry that handles so many millions [of dollars] and such impeccably dressed famous people be so full of lunatics? That film captures that perfectly.”
And occasionally, she thinks, a big production breaks the mold, such as Todd Phillips’ “Joker,” which won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 2019 when Martel served as jury president — a controversial choice.
“It certainly had an impact on me,” says Martel. “I didn’t vote for it, though. I had another favorite, a Chinese film that stood no chance of winning.”
Phillips, she thinks, created a premonition for what was to come. “For me, the real killer clowns are Trump, Milei or Orbán,” Martel says, referring to polarizing leaders. “They expose themselves to ridicule and spout all sorts of nonsense. Those are clowns. And I think that movie captured that.”
Not one to mince words, Martel elaborates on the relation of Joaquin Phoenix’s social outcast turned supervillain and President Trump.
“The origin of the Joker is social resentment,” she says. “Trump holds no resentment toward society because the system gave him everything. But he has exploited the people who do harbor resentment. That is where you see the kind of clown he is, one who knows how to use people.”
Artificial intelligence, far-right ideologies, voracious capitalism — all of it makes Martel alarmed, seeing it as pushing us collectively to the brink of collapse. But there is hope, she thinks.
“What we have invented is very dangerous but we can dismantle it,” she says. “That is the only thing I’m betting on, that, at some point, a consensus will emerge and we’ll go, ‘Let’s not do this.’”
“I believe that we must use cinema for its enormous power to alter perception and not soothe the rich,” she says. “It’s not about delivering a message but rather about showing how an idea functions.”
She points to one of her subjects in “Our Land,” an Indigenous man who told her he loves the 1959 Charlton Heston epic “Ben-Hur,” a passion she does not share but understands.
“That’s a blow for all of us who make auteur cinema,” Martel says with a laugh. “That feeling that ‘Ben-Hur’ evoked gave him the strength to continue fighting for his community’s territory.”
The night before our interview, Martel rode around L.A. on a scooter holding onto a friend. These days she uses a cane to help her with mobility. “The city has great light,” she says, still open to being surprised by it.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in New York unsealed a suicide note Wednesday purportedly written by Jeffrey Epstein in July, 2019, before a failed suicide attempt soon after he had been taken into federal custody on sex trafficking charges.
The disgraced financier would ultimately die weeks later in the same New York facility in what was ruled a suicide.
While the note’s authenticity has not been established, it contains an apparent reference to a line from a 1931 Little Rascals film that Epstein had used in at least two email messages, according to the trove of Epstein documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice this year in response to the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act.
In the short handwritten note released Wednesday, Epstein allegedly wrote, “They investigated me for month — Found nuthing!!!”
The note concludes, “Whatcha want me to do — Burst out cryin!! No Fun – Not Worth It!!”
It was a phrase Epstein had used before.
In a September, 2016, email to his brother, Mark, he wrote, “whtchoo want me toodo — bust out crying” in response to news that their cousin had become a grandfather.
And in another message the following year to his childhood friend Terry Kafka, Epstein wrote, “Whatcha want me todo/bust out cryin,” in response to a message from Kafka about being nostalgic
Epstein’s brother and Kafka did not immediately responded to requests for comment.
The line is an apparent reference to a 1931 Little Rascals short film “Little Daddy,” in which the character Stymie says, “Well, what do you want me to do, bust out crying?” when another character says that it will be their last breakfast together.
The note emerged from the court records of Epstein’s onetime cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione, a former police officer who is serving four consecutive life sentences for a 2016 quadruple murder.
The note itself was not included in the millions of pages released by the Justice Department.
In 2020, “60 Minutes” disclosed a note Epstein reportedly wrote days before his August, 2019, death that included complaints about his conditions and similarly concluded with the phrase “No fun!!!”
Journalist Katie Phang sued acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche for allegedly failing to comply with the requirements of the Epstein files law passed last year, which required that the documents be released in their entirety within 30 days, with reasoning provided for any documents not released.
The department released the files after the deadline passed and has faced criticism for removing or not releasing some documents and simultaneously failing to redact the names of numerous Epstein victims while redacting the names of some of Epstein’s friends and associates.
Just hours after Golden Tempo returned to the racetrack at Keeneland for the first time since his victory Saturday at Churchill Downs, DeVaux posted a statement on X.
“After much thoughtful discussion as a team, we have decided that Golden Tempo will bypass the Preakness Stakes,” the statement read.
“We are incredibly appreciative of the excitement and support surrounding the possibility of a Triple Crown run. The enthusiasm from racing fans, our owners, and our entire team has meant more to us than we can properly express. Golden gave us the race of a lifetime in the Kentucky Derby, and we believe the best decision for him moving forward is to give him a little more time following such a tremendous effort. His health, happiness, and long-term future will always remain our top priority.”
The Preakness, set for May 16, is the second leg of the Triple Crown, followed June 6 by the Belmont Stakes, which for the third straight year will be contested in Saratoga, N.Y. Since 1978, the only horses to sweep all three races are American Pharoah in 2015 and Justify in 2018.
Golden Tempo is the second straight horse and third in the last five years not to run in the Preakness. Sovereignty, who did not participate last year, won the Belmont and later the Travers and was voted Horse of the Year.
Unlike in the past, trainers almost never run horses with just two or even three weeks’ rest. That has prompted talk that the Preakness — which has been run 14 days after the Derby since 1950 — and Belmont could be moved back to allow horses more time between races. Sports Business Journal reported last month that the Preakness was “set to make a historic shift to one week later,” though many trainers have said that won’t make a difference.
DeVaux was asked the day after the Derby if having the Preakness four weeks after the Derby would make her decision easier.
“I mean, it would make anyone’s decision easier, but that’s not the Triple Crown,” she said. “So, the Triple Crown is hard to win for a reason. And I appreciate the history of it.
“You know, the horses are definitely different. They’re not built the same. They’re not trained the same as back then, but current times have shown that it can be done with the right horse.”
There is no shortage of horses aiming for the Preakness, which is limited to 14 starters. One of those — and the likely favorite if he runs — is Crude Velocity, who won the Pat Day Mile on Saturday at Churchill Downs in just his third career start. But trainer Bob Baffert, who has won the Preakness a record eight times, has yet to decide whether he wants to run the horse in two weeks.
“I’m still on fence,” Baffert said Wednesday via text. “Tempted but I’m not leaning yet.”
The Daily Racing Form reported Ocelli, the maiden who finished third in the Derby, is now expected to run in the Preakness. Trainer Whit Beckman told the Form he had Ocelli jog Wednesday and “he looked better than great.”
Added Beckman: “You wouldn’t know this horse ran Saturday. He’s made of something different. Every indication he’s given me is to point to this race. … We’re having fun, the horse is having fun. If everybody’s having fun, why stop the fun?”
According to a news release from the Preakness, other horses under consideration who didn’t run in the Derby are Chip Honcho, Corona de Oro, Crupper, Express Kid, Great White, Iron Honor, Napoleon Solo, Pretty Boy Miah, Silent Tactic, Taj Mahal, Talkin, Talk to Me Jimmy and The Hell We Did.
The Racing Form reported jockey Jose Ortiz, who rode Golden Tempo to his Derby win, will ride Chip Honcho in the Preakness.
WASHINGTON — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is appearing Wednesday before a House committee investigating sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as lawmakers seek answers for Lutnick’s contact with him in the years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.
Lutnick, a member of President Trump’s Cabinet, is the latest powerful political figure to appear before the House Oversight Committee. He has previously given contradictory statements about his relationship with Epstein, but he says he has done nothing wrong and welcomes the closed-door interview with lawmakers.
Still, the transcribed interview presented a test of how much scrutiny lawmakers will apply to powerful men who kept company with Epstein even after it was known that he had solicited prostitution from an underage girl. Trump’s Republican administration has tried unsuccessfully for more than a year to move past the issue.
Lutnick is the highest-ranked official in the Trump administration, besides Trump himself, to be named in the case files on Epstein. Trump has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said he ended their relationship years ago.
Several Democrats have called for Lutnick to resign, and a few Republicans, including Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, have said he should at least testify before the Oversight panel.
Lutnick has downplayed his ties to Epstein, who was once his neighbor in New York City. Under questioning from Democrats during an unrelated hearing earlier this year, he described their contact as a handful of emails and a pair of meetings in 2011 and 2012.
But that admission came after he had previously claimed on a podcast last year that he had decided to “never be in the room” with Epstein following a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.
In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state sex offense charges in Florida, including soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.
“I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with him,” Lutnick told senators in February when he was asked about Epstein during a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
But Lutnick, who was previously the head of brokerage and investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald, actually had an hourlong engagement at Epstein’s home in 2011. His family then visited Epstein’s infamous private island in 2012 for lunch.
The federal release of case files on Epstein also showed that the two had kept in contact through email. Lutnick in 2018 emailed Epstein about a proposed expansion of a museum in their neighborhood that would have blocked the view from their homes. Epstein also gave $50,000 to a 2017 dinner honoring Lutnick, while Lutnick invited Epstein to a 2015 fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. In 2013, they both invested in the same business venture.
The White House has continued to express support for Lutnick, who was one of the biggest boosters of Trump’s sweeping tariffs strategy. He has been close to Trump for years and helped fundraise for his 2020 and 2024 campaigns.
The House Oversight Committee is also scheduled to hear testimony on May 29 from Pam Bondi, who was pushed out from her job as attorney general last month.
Epstein died in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
In June 2017, with President Trump newly installed in office for the first time, one of the biggest battles with the administration was about oil. He’d just named the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, as his secretary of State, even though great reporting — in this newspaper among others — had recently shown that the company knew all about, and lied all about, climate change as far back as the 1980s.
Back east, the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts were trying to take the oil giant on, initiating investigations of the company to try to hold it accountable. Environmental advocates and consumer groups were pressing hard for California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris to join in, and she seemed to be considering it. Then she left the office to assume her new U.S. Senate seat, and the decision fell to her replacement, Xavier Becerra — now a leading candidate for California governor.
As I wrote in these pages at the time, it was a great test for him, and a great curiosity that he was staying silent, “since the rest of Sacramento is hard at work dealing with climate change.” I was not the only one who noticed. Seventy thousand Californians signed petitions demanding action. Eight California representatives in Congress — including Jared Huffman and Ted Lieu — sent him a letter demanding a “vigorous” inquiry and pointing out that it was particularly important because the newly elected Trump administration was clearly favoring the oil industry. “California has led the world in responding to the dangers of climate change, and we know that it will continue to do so,” they wrote. “You now have a leading role in that effort.” But ultimately Becerra did not have a leading role, or indeed any role at all: He punted, as this editorial page pointed out. What Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now trying to do by statute — immunize the big oil companies from prosecution for climate liability — Becerra accomplished by sheer silence.
In the years since, of course, California has paid a huge price for our inaction on climate. Just looking at wildfire, there were of course the great blazes that Los Angeles County will never forget in 2025, but also the 2020 August Complex fire in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, the 2021 Dixie fire up north, the 2017 conflagration across Napa and Sonoma counties, the 2017 Thomas fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, the 2018 Camp fire that devastated Paradise — the list goes sadly on and on and on.
Meanwhile, Big Oil and its friends at Big Utility have racked up huge profits, and Californians have faced ever higher bills. An unhobbled oil industry played a huge role in reelecting Trump in 2024 and in taking us to war with Iran.
And through it all, during his years as attorney general, Becerra did little or nothing to help. As I said all those years ago, it’s a mystery why, though I fear the mystery gets clearer with each campaign funding filing over his long career. As California’s top prosecutor, he took big donations from oil industry giants such as Chevron, and also from energy companies Sempra and Southern California Edison. As a member of Congress, he took larger checks from Pacific Gas and Electric and Edison International.
This time around, as he seeks the governor’s office, Chevron has maxed out its contributions to his campaign, the first time they’ve found a gubernatorial candidate to back in a decade. Meanwhile, across the country, leading progressives have signed a pledge refusing fossil fuel donations. Another gubernatorial contender, Katie Porter, is among them. Needless to say, Becerra is not.
The California chapters of Third Act — a group of Americans over 60 that I helped found — canvassed their members last month and issued an endorsement of Tom Steyer, on the grounds that he had worked hard over the years to address energy and climate issues. Instead of taking money from Big Oil, he’s given money, time and counsel to those of us volunteering in the fight against the industry. In fact, I think that whether one is most concerned about lowering utility bills with clean energy or protecting California’s forests, beaches and insurance rates from the global warming threat, he’d be the most climate-conscious elected official in America.
But Third Act was also founded to help protect our democracy. And that means disconnecting public policy from campaign donations. We need leaders who will do the right thing for us, not for their donors. Steyer has called on Becerra to return his donations from Big Oil. That would be a start, but it doesn’t really make up for the wasted decade we’ll never get back.
Bill McKibben is the founder of Third Act and the author, most recently, of “Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance for the Climate, a Fresh Chance for Our Civilization.”
Tom Steyer is trying to sell himself to voters as an agent of change.
He has vowed to take on entrenched political and economic forces to create affordable housing, make the wealthy pay more in taxes, lower energy bills and protect the environment.
But perhaps the biggest change he is selling is his own.
The hedge-fund billionaire turned climate activist has faced criticism throughout his campaign for past investments in coal plants and private prisons, to name a few, that helped build his fortune and gave him the means to spend more than $150 million of his own money in his quest for the governor’s mansion.
Steyer’s prolific spending has blanketed the airwaves with television ads and helped propel him near the top of an unsettled gubernatorial field in the polls.
The 68-year-old San Franciscan has helped put many Democratic candidates in office as one of the party’s biggest political donors in the past two decades, but has never held public office himself.
He spent more than $340 million in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, but dropped out after placing third in the primary in South Carolina, where he had invested heavily.
There is a long tradition of wealthy, self-funding candidates, and the results are mixed at best. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg spent more than $260 million to win three terms as New York City mayor. But he spent more than $1 billion on a 2020 presidential bid and lasted only four days longer in the race than Steyer. Two years later, real estate developer Rick Caruso spent more than $100 million in an effort to become Los Angeles mayor but lost handily to Karen Bass.
Hoping for a better result in his current race, Steyer has staked out a position as the most progressive candidate in the field — touting an endorsement from the Bernie Sanders-affiliated Our Revolution. He’s picked up other key endorsements, too, from the California Teachers Assn., California Nurses Assn. and numerous environmental groups.
But he faces the challenge of convincing enough liberal voters to support a billionaire with controversial past investments the same year a tax on billionaires, currently enjoying strong support, is poised to be on the November ballot.
“This election is about who you can trust to fight for you,” former Rep. Katie Porter said during an April 22 gubernatorial debate in San Francisco. “One candidate is a billionaire who got rich off polluters and ICE prisons and is now using that money to fund his election.”
Steyer said he understands the broad concerns about his wealth and is willing to vote for the billionaires’ tax in November.
“I know that people are skeptical of billionaires, and I’m skeptical of billionaires,” Steyer said Tuesday in an interview with The Times. “But if you look at this race, I’m the only progressive in the race. I’m the person who’s taking on the corporate special interests.”
He pointed to the millions spent by a super PAC supported by the real estate industry and Pacific Gas & Electric — which Steyer has pledged to break up to bring down utility costs — as evidence that he is the candidate most feared by moneyed interests in the state.
“The companies that are running up the costs are fighting like hell, because that’s how they make their money,” he said. “But somebody’s got to stand up to them.”
The departure of former Rep. Eric Swalwell from the race last month after sexual assault allegations doesn’t appear to have resulted in a major surge of support for Steyer. Rather, it is Xavier Becerra, the former Health and Human Services secretary, who seems to have gained momentum.
But veteran California pollster Mark Baldassare said that he hasn’t counted out Steyer yet.
Tom Steyer, in 2013, as he was campaigning against the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
(David Paul Morris / Bloomberg)
“It would be easy to say that he’s reached his peak, except for the fact that there are so many undecideds and Steyer has so many resources at his disposal,” said Baldassare, the statewide survey director for the Public Policy Institute of California.
Steyer has poured at least $875 million into federal and state political committees since 2010, according to an analysis conducted for The Times by OpenSecrets, and federal and state campaign finance records. That total includes the nearly half a billion dollars he has spent on his two races.
In 2013, Steyer left his investment firm and launched NextGen Climate, a progressive political action group geared toward addressing climate change. He has given nearly $270 million to a super PAC affiliated with the group, which was later renamed NextGen America.
The committee has spent tens of millions of dollars on campaigns opposing fossil fuel interests and supporting progressive candidates, though Steyer’s financial support for the group has decreased as he has run for office.
The billionaire also established his climate bona fides by opposing the Keystone XL pipeline during the Obama administration, which became a national proxy fight over climate policy, and by backing environmental ballot measures in California.
Among them was a $5-million investment in 2010’s “No on Prop. 23” campaign, which defeated a conservative effort to overturn California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction law.
Two years later, Steyer invested about $29.5 million in Proposition 39, a winning measure to recoup money from corporate tax breaks to help pay for clean energy projects.
Privileged upbringing and a ‘desire to compete’
Steyer’s unconventional path to politics began with a privileged upbringing on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He studied at the elite Buckley School and Philips Exeter Academy before attending college at Yale University, where he captained the men’s soccer team and graduated in 1979.
After a brief stint on Wall Street, he got a master’s degree in business administration at Stanford University, where he met his future wife, Kat Taylor. They wed on the Stanford campus in 1986.
Steyer worked hard — very hard — at making money.
He was one of several “Wall Street Prodigies” featured in a Wall Street Journal profile from the same year he was married.
Steyer’s work began at 5 a.m. in the office and he seldom took days off — he fretted he wouldn’t have time for a honeymoon.
He eschewed the trappings of wealth — driving an eight-year-old Honda — motivated instead by a “desire to compete, excel and keep struggling to do better.”
Steyer began cutting political checks soon after, but his real emergence as a major political donor came during the 2004 presidential campaign, when he pledged to raise more than $100,000 for John Kerry’s campaign and was talked about as a potential political appointee at the U.S. Treasury Department in a Kerry administration.
Steyer hired Kerry to join his sustainable investment company Galvanize in 2024. Steyer stepped down from the company before entering the governor’s race.
The year 2004 was pivotal for another reason.
A group of students at his two alma maters, Yale and Stanford, along with those at a handful of other elite universities, began a campaign to pressure the endowments at their institutions to stop investing with Steyer’s hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management.
They cited concerns about some of the firm’s investments, including a coal burning plant in Indonesia and a joint venture between Farallon and Yale to pump out water from an aquifer in Colorado adjacent to the Great Sand Dunes National Park.
“Stated simply, we do not want our universities to profit from investments that harm other communities,” the students wrote in an open letter to Steyer. “We are concerned about the impact some of Farallon’s recent investments have had.”
Steyer told the students he appreciated “the importance of the issues that you raise,” but defended his firm’s work, saying that it acted “responsibly and ethically.”
Looking back on that time now, Steyer said it was a turning point.
“I think that experience really was a wake-up call to me,” he said. “It’s when I started to very seriously consider leaving Farallon. I really felt like if I was going to be the person with my values, I was going to have to leave and be independent and do what was right.”
Three years later, Steyer and his wife began their initial pivot to public service, opening a bank in Oakland that would cater to low-income customers
Tom Steyer, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, greets people at an event in Des Moines, Iowa, in 2019.
(Scott Olson / Getty Images)
But this initial venture highlighted the inevitable collision course between Steyer’s burgeoning activism and his firm’s investments.
At an event that year with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, Steyer and Taylor pledged $1 million in loans to support vulnerable people in Oakland facing foreclosure in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis.
Left unsaid was the fact that Steyer’s firm had extensive financial ties to San Diego’s Accredited Home Lenders, one of the biggest subprime mortgage lenders in the country.
The transformation to climate activist
Steyer and his wife began writing bigger philanthropic checks and in 2010 took the Giving Pledge, promising to donate at least half of their wealth before they died.
In 2009, they gave $40 million to endow the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford, the first of several multimillion-dollar gifts to Stanford and Yale to support climate-focused ventures. They pledged $7 million to create the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, also at Stanford, in 2010. It closed last year after its endowment came to an end.
And in 2011, the couple donated $25 million to Yale to help establish an Energy Sciences Institute focused on developing sustainable energy solutions.
But even as Steyer undertook his public transformation from investor to climate activist, his firm continued to make decisions out of step with his newfound commitment.
In 2011, for example, the firm purchased 1.8 million shares of BP, a year after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in which a BP-operated project dumped nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Steyer resigned from the firm at the end of 2012, though he still has millions of dollars invested in the firm .
Environmentalists have largely been willing to forgive Steyer’s past investments.
“There’s no question he’d be the most knowledgeable and committed climate advocate that’s ever held really high office in America,” climate activist and author Bill McKibben recently toldPolitico.
While the nonprofit California Environmental Voters hasendorsed both Katie Porter and Tom Steyer in the race, Steyer, in particular, has “taken on Big Oil dollar for dollar, toe to toe, and beaten them,” said Mary Creasman, the group’s chief executive.
“He has made this his career and his investment and his passion, so it’s authentic, and voters see that,” she said.
Leah Stokes, an associate professor of environmental politics at UC Santa Barbara, said she’s impressed by Steyer’s climate track record and progressive campaign platform, noting that he’s been an active presence in California’s climate movement for more than 15 years.
That includes not only his work on ballot initiatives and clean energy technology, but also his focus on biodiversity loss and carbon sequestration at his 1,800-acre TomKat Ranch in Pescadero, where researchers are studying regenerative agriculture.
But Steyer has also played a role in elevating climate into a national political issue — including in the early 2010s when it wasn’t a “politically hot topic,” Stokes said.
“He has been willing to spend an enormous amount of his personal money on elections on climate — whether it’s propositions, whether it’s himself running for president on basically a climate platform, whether it’s the Next Gen giant voter turnout campaign,” she said. “I think he has recognized … that politics is where we have to invest our time if we want to make a difference on the climate crisis.”
Despite concerns raised about Steyer’s early investments into fossil fuels through Farallon, Stokes said she’s more apt to criticize candidates who are taking money from oil companies today, such as Becerra, who accepted a $39,200 donation from Chevron for his gubernatorial campaign.
She was also heartened by the fact that Pacific Gas & Electric has funded a $10-million PAC opposing Steyer, because she said it indicates that he aims to hold utility companies accountable for skyrocketing electricity prices amid soaring profits.
“We could actually have a shot here at having somebody who cares about climate change, who wants to hold utilities accountable, who wants to hold big polluters accountable,” Stokes said. “That would just be transformative.”
Energy costs weigh heavily on voters
Steyer’s focus on climate issues and energy affordability could also be a strategic boon in the governor’s race.
Sixty percent of voters in the state see climate change as a major threat to the country and believe that the government is not doing enough to address it, according to polling from the Public Policy Institute of California.
“Californians connect the dots between what’s going on with extreme climate and wildfires and climate,” said Baldassare, the institute’s survey director.
Recent polling has also shown that voters are very concerned about energy affordability and rising utility costs, with 13% of Americans naming it as the most important financial problem facing their family — a 10-point increase from last year, according to an AprilGallup poll.
Overall, energy costs tied housing costs as the second-biggest concern following the high cost of living, the poll found.
In November, Democrats who campaigned heavily around energy affordabilityswept the field in key races in New Jersey, Virginia and Georgia. Residential electric prices increased nearly 11% between January 2025 and this February, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“Voters are supporting candidates who are leaning into these issues,” Creasman said.
Wieder reported from Washington and Smith from Los Angeles.
While the specter of la migra continues to haunt the city, far more crushing are problems that affect everyone — affordability, housing, traffic, pollution. Maybe Soto-Martínez and his colleagues should double down on fixing those things first and sell their message better to voters instead of picking up a new issue?
I know the first-term council member comes from a good place. His parents were formerly undocumented, just like my dad, and he has been a fierce advocate for immigrants going back to his labor organizing days. I have friends without legal status and others in the DACA program for people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. I think giving them, as well as green card holders and others with papers, a chance to participate in elections is a righteous idea.
But to paraphrase the Book of Ecclesiastes, there’s a time and a place for everything. In 2026, Angelenos should be focused on electing people and approving initiatives that will improve the city for everyone, not a narrow plank benefiting a slice of the population.
So I called up Soto-Martínez and challenged him to convince this doubting Tomás.
He hopes his proposal will reach the City Council later this month for a vote on whether to place it on the November ballot. If voters pass the measure, it goes back to the council to decide when — if ever — to enfranchise the immigrants.
The proposal, already vilified in conservative media, isn’t as radical as it seems. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, but there’s a well-established history of their participation in local ones, including in Vermont and Maryland. They can already vote in L.A. neighborhood council elections, and in San Francisco school board elections if they have a child in the district.
Besides, L.A. has long led the way in weaving undocumented immigrants into the fabric of civic life.
This is a sanctuary city where Mayor Karen Bass has stood up to President Trump’s xenophobia. Where eight of the 15 council members are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho — himself formerly undocumented — has striven to make local schools as welcoming as possible (Carvalho is on paid leave after the FBI raided his home and office earlier this year). Even the LAPD learned decades ago that it’s better to embrace undocumented immigrants than castigate them for their lack of legal status.
“If you’re contributing to this economy, you should have the right to decide who represents you,” Soto-Martínez told me.
Fair point. But isn’t thumbing our noses at Trump asking for more of what he has already inflicted on L.A., making life even more miserable for undocumented immigrants? Could he use the noncitizen voter rolls as a list of whom to deport? Besides, doesn’t extending the franchise to noncitizens give fuel to his crazy conspiracies about stolen elections?
“You always hear, ‘Don’t poke the bear, don’t instigate them,’ but that’s not how you deal with a bully,” Soto-Martínez replied. “They’re coming at us already. While they’re removing people’s right to vote in the Supreme Court, we’re expanding it. … And it has nothing to do with Trump. It’s about fairness.”
Tell that to Trump.
I mentioned that Santa Ana — a city far more Latino than Los Angeles, though not as liberal — decisively rejected a similar measure in 2024. Soto-Martínez’s fellow Democratic Socialist council members, Ysabel Jurado and Eunisses Hernández, have voiced their support for his measure. But I wonder whether the full council will move it along to voters in a year when some members, including Soto-Martínez, are running for reelection.
I couldn’t get a comment from Bass. Councilmember Nithya Raman, who’s running against her, said in a statement that Soto-Martínez’s push “is worth taking seriously” but that it’s “critical to getting this right, and we must not make decisions lightly or quickly.”
“We’re going to have to organize,” Soto-Martínez acknowledged. “But we live in a political moment where it’s the right conversation to have about what this city stands for.”
Avance Democratic Club President Nilza Serrano at Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights in 2022.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
He’s going to have to convince people like Nilza Serrano. She’s president of Avance, L.A. County’s largest Latino Democratic club, and heads the California Democratic Party’s Latino caucus. Serrano is no wokosa — she supported Rick Caruso in the last mayoral election and is now siding with Bass.
While Serrano thinks Soto-Martínez is on to something, she said that voting rights for noncitizens are a nonissue for the people she’s trying to get to the polls for the June primary and November general elections. The economy and Trump’s deportation deluge are more on their minds.
I asked if Soto-Martínez’s proposal would cheapen citizenship for people like her. Serrano and her family came here legally from Guatemala in the 1980s before becoming U.S. citizens, a process that took years.
“Not for me,” she replied. “But it’s hard to say for others. I’d have to do a little bit more research.”
“Isn’t San Francisco already doing it?” the Navy veteran cracked.
I thought Hernandez would go on an anti-liberal rant, but.…
“I believe there’s a strong argument,” he said, “that if someone has established residency and is a member of the community and suffered the consequences of whatever local policies will be enacted, they should have a say in who gets elected.”
Did the ghost of Joaquin Murrieta, California’s original avenging Latino, suddenly possess Hernandez? To make sure I was hearing right, I asked again if noncitizens voting in L.A. elections is a good thing.
How could he support that, as a Trump-voting Republican?!
“We have to be pragmatic,” he replied. He approves of noncitizens voting in L.A. neighborhood council elections, because that’s true local control.
He understands that allowing them to vote in municipal elections might come off as an insult to the memory of civil rights activists who lost their lives fighting for that right for Black Americans. But U.S. citizens are already taking it for granted, he noted — turnout in the November 2022 L.A. mayoral election was a pitiful 44%.
“Maybe noncitizens will appreciate voting more than citizens,” he said.
I’m still not fully convinced that Soto-Martínez’s push is wise right now, but I like that he’s being careful.
“We need to get in the weeds of this,” he said of the City Council’s deliberations, which he characterized as attempting to ensure maximum benefit and minimum fallout.
People heading to Yosemite to escape urban congestion fumed this weekend as they waited in a seemingly endless line of cars at the park entrance.
Inside, they circled aimlessly around full parking lots, scanning for empty spots instead of majestic views.
Near the summit of Half Dome, on the infamous steel cables hikers use to ascend the final stretch of bare granite, another traffic jam formed, trapping people hundreds of feet in the air, according to social media posts.
Even before the summer rush, California’s most visited national park is seeing big crowds — the most people in a decade, according to National Park System data.
Critics of the free-for-all are blaming the influx on the Trump administration for abandoning a reservation requirement that, for the last few years, has helped control the number of visitors and preserve a sense of natural tranquility.
California’s nine national parks drew a record 12 million visitors in 2025, up more than 800,000 from the previous record set in 2019. Yosemite accounted for more than a quarter of those visits.
This year, the pace continues, with more than half a million visits to Yosemite so far. In March, the park recorded 236,000 visits, up more than 45% from the same month a year earlier.
Yosemite National Park is enormous, covering more than 1,100 square miles on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Even at the height of summer, an adventurous soul willing to hike a bit can spend weeks in the park and rarely see another person.
But Yosemite’s most famous and Instagrammable vistas — the towering, 3,000-foot granite wall of El Capitan, the thundering spectacles of Yosemite and Bridalveil falls — can be enjoyed from parking lots and picnic benches in the relatively cramped confines of Yosemite Valley.
Visitors don’t even have to get out of their cars to gaze in wide-eyed wonder at sights they will probably remember for the rest of their lives.
And that’s the problem.
Traffic in the valley, especially on summer weekends, had become legendary by the end of the 2010s, inspiring think pieces with headlines such as “Inside Yosemite’s Traffic Meltdown” and “The Siege of Yosemite Valley.”
In June 2020, to limit crowds in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the park introduced a controversial system requiring a reservation before entering.
That left a lot of would-be visitors frustrated, but those lucky enough to snag a reservation were treated to the most peaceful, serene Yosemite Valley experience in years.
Since then, the reservation system has been tweaked repeatedly as administrators searched for a sweet spot between welcoming more visitors and retaining the peace of the great outdoors.
In February, the Trump administration, which had already slashed the national park system’s staff by about 25%, scrapped the reservation system and replaced it with “targeted management” of crowds.
“We are committed to visitor access, safety, and resource protection, and will continue active traffic management strategies to ensure a great visitor experience,” Yosemite Supt. Ray McPadden said at the time. “While reservation systems are one valuable management tool, our data demonstrates that a season-wide reservation requirement is not the most effective approach for the coming season.”
A crowd of tourists gather to take pictures of the Yosemite Valley on March 23, 2025, in Yosemite National Park.
(George Rose / Getty Images)
But the new approach is already getting harsh reviews, and the busy season hasn’t even begun.
During “Firefall” in February — an annual phenomenon when sunlight lands on the water cascading from Horsetail Fall, making it glow orange and red, like molten lava — the crowds were reportedly nightmarish.
“I spent over an hour stuck in traffic leaving the park, and exiting felt more like leaving a major sporting event than it did visiting a national park,” Mark Rose, a senior program manager for the National Parks Conservation Assn., a nonprofit devoted to protecting the park system, wrote in a blog post.
“I saw an ambulance stuck in standstill traffic announcing over a megaphone for pedestrians and vehicles to move out of the way,” Rose wrote. “The views were incredible, but I don’t think I’d ever go back without a reservation system in place.”
It left Rose worried about a return to the bad old days of Yosemite traffic, when visitors would wait forever just to get to the gate, pay the $35 entrance fee and then run into road blocks, with signs turning them away because the valley was too crowded.
“That was not an unusual situation,” Rose said. “To wait in line for close to two hours to get into the park and then just be stuck driving around for hours trying to find any parking at any location within the park.”
Over the weekend, the wait in traffic to simply get through the park entrance was an hour and a half, according to Lorena Calvillo from Fresno, who posted pictures and video of the traffic on Yosemite National Park’s official Facebook page.
And once she got in?
“Gridlock. Cars everywhere. People everywhere. No parking. No space,” Calvillo wrote.
“This all comes right after the reservation system was lifted … and honestly, it showed,” she added. “Officials were literally telling people to avoid the Valley.”
Another visitor, Richard Smekal, posted about the conga line of climbers who packed onto the cables leading to the Half Dome summit. He shared a photo of the cables empty when he arrived at 9 a.m., and another taken two hours later.
“After I got down, I turned around and took the second photo,” he wrote. “The line was a continuous stream of people, barely moving — basically at a standstill.”
The cables can be deadly, especially in thunderstorms, when they become a slippery lightning rod. Being stuck there in a human traffic jam is a nightmare many experienced hikers and climbers would do anything to avoid.
A spokesperson for Yosemite did not respond to requests for comment.
Traffic is at a standstill on the Yosemite Valley floor in the summer of 2017 while a bus lane is empty and off-limits to visitors at Yosemite National Park.
Chris Clarke had gone the traditional route, pitching for three years at USC after starring at Newbury Park High, then toiling for six more seasons in the Chicago Cubs’ minor league system after being a fourth-round draft pick in 2019.
But his big-league dream abruptly became a wake-up call last August when the Cubs released him a week before his wife gave birth to their first child. No more paychecks. No more health insurance.
“It was surreal,” Clarke said. “In fact, it was so incredible, I didn’t feel anything. My body went numb. There was a moment in the third inning when everybody was screaming. I couldn’t hear myself talk.”
It was the most people ever crammed into Kyle Field, the nation’s fourth-largest college stadium, trailing only Michigan (107,601), Oregon (106,572) and Ohio State (102,780).
Clarke pitched for the opposing team, the Texas Tailgaters, one of five squads created by Bananas founders Jesse and Emily Cole that serve as touring partners to face the yellow-clad star attraction. All six teams practice at a complex in Savannah, Ga.
The game in College Station attracted the largest crowd in the Bananas’ six-year history, and Clarke shined, striking out five in four innings. He also entertained, as all players in the Banana Ball Championship League are cheerfully required to do.
“The amount of joy it brings to fans and even people online, it’s really something,” Clarke said. “There definitely is a winner and a loser — which holds some weight — but for the most part, fans are there because it’s a really good show.”
Clarke, a 6-foot-7 right-hander, was the third overall pick in the inaugural Banana Ball draft held in November. Tailgater coaches contacted him beforehand to gauge his interest and he told them, “Pick me.”
March 2019 photo of former USC pitcher Chris Clarke during the 2019 Dodger Stadium Classic.
(John McGillen/USC Athletics)
That level of bold fits right in. Banana Ball is fast-paced, hilarious and maximizes fan engagement. It features innovative rules: Fouls caught by fans count as outs, for example, and batters who walk get to run the bases until all nine defensive players have touched the ball. Choreographed dances, acrobatic tricks, a pitcher on stilts and other antics keep the entertainment flowing.
“I like to think of every game as a stepping stone to the next show,” Clarke said. “Whether it goes well or is terrible, we will make it better for next time. Banana Ball is a relaxed culture, so when it comes to the entertainment stuff, there is no fear of failure. We are seeing what works and what doesn’t.”
Guest stars are frequent and on Saturday, the Bananas sent Texas-grown YouTube sensation Tyler Toney, a member of the sports comedy troupe Dude Perfect, to the plate as a pinch-hitter. Clarke struck him out on four pitches: a called strike, a swinging strike, a ball Clarke purposely launched high into the stands for laughs, then strike three swinging on a cut fastball.
It was a rare humbling moment for Toney, who, with fellow Dude Perfect members Cody Jones, Garrett Hilbert, and twins Cory and Coby Cotton, generates more than $20 million annually from YouTube, merchandise and tours.
Clarke had watched Dude Perfect videos religiously when he was at USC and was starstruck to meet them in person.
“Dude Perfect is the reason I failed econ twice,” he said. “I watched every single Dude Perfect video. To meet them and shake their hands was fun. It was the only moment in my life where I was a fanboy.”
He’s also a breadwinner again for his family. The burgeoning popularity of Banana Ball has made the gig more lucrative than playing in the minor leagues.
“I’m making five times as much and playing half the time,” Clarke said. “My contract is also for 12 months of the year. In affiliated baseball, it’s only six months. So, there’s that. I’ve never met anyone in baseball who has had the luxury to spend time with a newborn child. To come to Banana Ball and actually feel like there is respect, a culture and guidelines, that was something I hadn’t experienced.”
It is also giving him notoriety. Twenty-five Banana Ball games this year are being streamed on the ESPN app and Disney+, with select games airing across ESPN networks and ABC. The first Bananas broadcast on ABC will take place at Autzen Stadium in Eugene, Ore., June 27 and 28. The games have been sold out since October.
Highlights from Saturday’s game flooded social media and traditional outlets alike. Family friends and former teammates reached out to Clarke. What was it like pitching in front of 100,000 people? Are you improving your dance moves?
“The entertainment side of it takes pressure off performance,” he said. “Performing well is still very much there, but there is a level of relaxation that makes it easier.”
Clarke admits he thinks back to USC and the 2019 season, when he posted a stellar earned-run average of 1.03. He also occasionally misses the heightened competition and quest to make the major leagues of affiliated baseball.
He pitched two seasons in triple A and is only 27. Would he leave Banana Ball next year if an MLB team offered him an invite to spring training?
“I’m not in a situation to close any doors,” he said. “That’s the mindset that got me here. I wanted to investigate Banana Ball and I told them I’d give them a full year for us both to evaluate it. Either way, I think it’s a win. Just comes down to what’s best for my family.”
Meanwhile, more games in packed stadiums await. In addition to a handful in football stadiums against the Bananas, the Tailgaters will play three games a week against other Banana Ball League teams throughout the summer, mostly in minor league baseball stadiums from Tulsa, Okla., to El Paso, Texas, to Nashville, Tenn., to Charlotte, N.C.
Exponentially larger crowds than those venues are accustomed to are a given.
WASHINGTON — White House economists estimate that President Trump’s deals with pharmaceutical companies to drop some of their U.S. prescription drug prices to what they charge in other countries could save $529 billion over the next 10 years.
The analysis obtained by the Associated Press includes the first economy-wide projections behind a policy at the core of Trump’s pitch to voters going into November’s midterm elections for control of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have been doubtful about the savings claimed by Trump and these new numbers are likely to trigger additional questions about the data.
Cost-of-living issues are at the forefront of voters’ concerns and higher energy prices tied to the Iran war have deepened the public’s anxiety. Trump has tried in part to address affordability concerns by focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations.
“Now you have the lowest drug prices anywhere in the world,” Trump said at a Friday rally before a crowd of seniors in Florida. “And that alone should win us the midterms.”
The analysis was done by administration officials for the White House Council of Economic Advisers. They also estimated that federal and state governments could save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade because of what Trump calls his “most favored nation” policy on drug prices.
Few of the details of the deals struck by the Trump administration and 17 leading pharmaceutical companies have been made public, making it hard to independently verify the projected savings. The White House analysis sought to estimate the prospective savings as more medications come onto the market and fall under Trump’s framework — with one model in the report tallying the possible savings at $733 billion over a decade.
Trump and his Department of Health and Human Services have touted his drug-pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law. Democratic lawmakers have challenged the administration’s claims of savings. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 17 Senate Democrats in April proposed a measure requiring the administration to disclose the terms of the agreements signed by pharmaceutical companies.
“If these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public?” Wyden said when announcing the measure. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his team would share details that didn’t include proprietary information or trade secrets.
The White House said it has not shared the text of the agreements because they include highly sensitive data that could move financial markets.
The potential savings estimated by the Trump administration would be substantial as Americans spent $467 billion on prescription drugs in 2024, according to the most recent government data available. The analysis is premised on the idea that foreign countries would also pay more for their prescription drugs, which would diversify drugmakers’ sources of revenue and preserve their ability to innovate with new treatments.
Outside economists have caveated that any savings might not flow directly to patients, many of whom already pay discounted prices for their drugs through their insurance coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office in October 2024 estimated that a plan similar to what Trump ended up adopting could reduce prescription drug prices by more than 5%, though the decrease “would probably diminish over time as manufacturers adjusted to the new policy by altering prices or distribution of drugs in other countries.”
The scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats, who counter that any price reductions would be offset by higher costs for prescription drugs not covered by the “most favored nation” framework. One of their main critiques is that pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.
In April, staff working for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released an analysis that looked at 15 of the companies that have agreed to this drug-pricing plan and found that their combined profits jumped 66% over the past year to $177 billion. The report noted that the tax cuts Trump signed into law last year “exempted or delayed many of the most expensive drugs” from price negotiations with Medicare.
The Trump administration has countered that they consider Sanders’ critique to be flawed, saying that it’s based on the list prices for pharmaceutical drugs instead of the actual price that patients pay.
AFTER five years of being shut-off, one small island off the coast of Montenegro is set to reopen, as is its luxury resort.
Called Sveti Stefan, the pretty spot has been closed for half a decade due to backlash from locals.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
The island of Sveti Stefan has been closed since 2021Credit: AlamyThe luxury retreat on the island will reopen its doors in JulyCredit: Aman
Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.
A few miles away from Montenegro‘s town of Budva is the small and beautiful island of Sveti Stefan which is home to a luxury resort, Aman Sveti Stefan.
The hotel is accessible only to its guests who have to walk across a small strip of land which connects it to the mainland.
But the hotel closed back in 2021 due to a dispute between the property operator and locals over access to its public beaches.
When the hotel first opened in 2009, it made its surrounding beaches including Miločer Beach (King’s Beach) and Queen’s Beach accessible to its guests only.
Access for locals was made difficult with the luxury resort charging high fees around €200 (£172.63) for sunbeds and umbrellas.
However, these had historically been free for all to enjoy with space for locals to lay down a towel.
Restriction of the beaches caused a lot of backlash and there were even protests back in 2021.
The dispute between locals and the hotel ended up with the temporary closure of the resort which stretched on for five years.
Sveti Stefan is connected to the mainland via a small strip of landCredit: Alamy
In 2023, Europa Nostra, the European Voice of Civil Society committed to Cultural Heritage, said: “The Montenegro State has almost half privatised this national treasure and disenfranchised its own citizens from their own public domain.
“Public access to Sveti Stefan old town and other parts of the site has been forbidden, even during winter months when the hotel is closed, making it impossible for locals and non-hotel guest tourists to enjoy this cultural landscape.”
Five years on and the hotel operator, Aman,has confirmed the island retreat in Montenegro will be reopen on July 1, 2026.
The luxury resort still looks like a small village, and is made up of hand-restored stone cottages and suites all updated with modern furnishings.
The resort is made up of hand-restored stone cottages and suitesCredit: Aman
Some of the more luxurious suites even have private swimming pools, courtyards and terraces.
Stays include a daily breakfast, in-room refreshments and access to snorkelling equipment and paddle boards.
A stay in the Deluxe Cottage which is based on an original island home starts from €2,973 (£2,566.12) per night.
The resort has a mainland retreatcalled Villa Miločer, that and its Aman Spa will welcome guests back on May 22, 2026.
As for its surrounding beaches, these are open to the public once more with free access – but there are no shower, changing cabins or toilets.
For anyone who wants a glimpse of Sveti Stefan, the nearest airport is Tivat which is a three-hour direct flights from the UK and as little as £38 each way with easyJet.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has shown an ability to make a lot of noise at the government agency known in recent years to be a little sleepy.
But his April 28 announcement that the Walt Disney Co.’s eight ABC TV stations will undergo an early review of their broadcast licenses is his loudest action yet taken on behalf of President Trump, who repeatedly threatened media outlets that he believes are critical of him.
Carr is calling for the review two years before any of the station licenses are up, citing the agency’s inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.
The timing of Carr’s move is raising eyebrows as it comes after First Lady Melania Trump’s call for the firing of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his April 23 comedy bit on the White House correspondents’ dinner. A tuxedo-clad Kimmel called Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.”
The first lady’s remarks came after a man armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives breached security at the Washington black-tie event on April 25. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president.
Kimmel’s gag became ammunition for right-wing commentators, who claim the left is stoking political violence.
The host said the joke was about the age difference between the 79-year-old president and his wife. Kimmel denied it was a call for violence and has continued to mock the president on his show.
Carr insisted at a Washington news conference last week that his demand for a review is not related to Kimmel’s remarks.
Although many are skeptical, Carr, who was at the April 25 dinner, told The Times there would be an action related to ABC coming soon. The conversation occurred hours before the shots were fired.
The investigation into Disney’s practices began in March 2025, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reverse DEI initiatives across private companies, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.
After the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, companies such as Disney and NBC-owned Comcast aggressively promoted their diversity efforts.
But experts believe Carr is acting on ABC at the behest of Trump, as the chairman has often expressed support on social media whenever the president criticizes one of the broadcast TV news outlets.
“It might be the case that Disney can get some early relief by saying this should be dismissed because this is really a 1st Amendment issue,” said James Speta, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. “We all know what’s going on here — the administration doesn’t like the speech that’s coming out of the talent on the broadcasting airwaves.”
Disney is not commenting on Carr’s DEI investigation, but it earlier defended the record of its TV stations, which are ratings leaders in most markets. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” the company said.
Here’s a primer on what to know and the challenges Disney may face.
Why are TV stations licensed by the government?
Government licensing regulates the spectrum allocated to broadcast channels, largely to prevent interference between TV signals. When renewals come up, the license holder must demonstrate that the station is serving the public interest by providing local news, program diversity and educational and informational shows for children. The procedure once occurred every three years, but deregulation efforts have extended that period to the current span of eight years.
When was the last time a TV station faced a significant license renewal challenge?
The most notable recent example was Fox Corp.’s Philadelphia station WTXF, which was up for a license renewal in October 2023. Activist groups filing the challenge said Fox was unfit to own the outlet after a judge ruled earlier that year that the company’s Fox News Channel had spread falsehoods about voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Fox News, which operates on cable and satellite and is therefore not subject to FCC control, has a different management team than the parent company’s local TV stations, which mostly cover their communities and do not typically present political commentary. The FCC rejected the renewal challenge in January 2025, noting that none of the false information on Fox News was heard on the Philadelphia station. WTXF was not cited in Dominion’s lawsuit.
Are there any other examples?
Yes. Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses of three stations then owned by the Washington Post.
Has a company ever lost its broadcast license?
RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.
The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.
But isn’t this case different?
Yes. Although the rule Carr mentioned is legitimate, the FCC has rarely if ever acted on it, according to one veteran TV executive who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. If Disney or any other company was found to violate the nondiscrimination rule, they would in previous eras probably be subjected to a just a fine, not the denial of a license, which would be viewed by many as government censorship.
What happens in the event that ABC licenses are not renewed?
Nothing immediately, as the licenses are in effect through 2028 to 2032, depending on the outlet. If Disney had to sell the stations, the price would probably be depressed due to pressure to unload the properties.
But public communications attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told The Times last month that the bar for denying a renewal is high and any effort would be tied up in court on constitutional grounds.
“The law intentionally sets out a very steep burden for the FCC to deny a license renewal; the process takes many years, during which time the licensee continues to operate normally under ‘continuing operating authority,’” Schwartzman said.
