Bill

May 18 (UPI) — The House Budget Committee has scheduled a rare Sunday night session in an attempt to advance President Donald Trump‘s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The panel of 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats plans to convene at 10 p.m. Committee passage of the bill is necessary to put it on the floor for a vote later this week and before Memorial Day. Congress needs to pass the budget bill by July, mainly because of a deadline in mid-July to address the debt limit and avoid a default.

The bill for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1, is 1,116 pages and roughly $7 trillion. The last time Congress passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time, before the start of a new fiscal year, was in 1996. Since then, Congress has relied heavily on continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills to fund the government.

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent $6.8 trillion.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Fox News Sunday that Republicans still are “on track” to pass the bill by the end of this week. Some Republican hardliners and moderates have opposed to the bill along with all Democrats.

“We’re on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation-shaping legislation for the American people as soon as possible,” Johnson said. “All 11 of our committees have wrapped up their work, and they spent less and saved more than even we’ve projected initially. This really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we have here.”

If the Budget Committee passes the bill, it goes before the Rules Committee. In the House, Republicans have a 220-213 majority with two vacancies after two Democrats died.

“It’s very important for people to understand why we’re being so aggressive on the timetable and why this really is so important,” Johnson said. “This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate the American people gave us during the last election. You’re going to have historic savings for the American people, historic tax relief for American workers, historic investments in border security.

“At the same time, we’re restoring American energy dominance, and we’re rebuilding the defense industrial base, and we’re ensuring that programs like Medicaid and SNAP are strengthened for U.S. citizens who need and deserve them and not being squandered away by illegal aliens and persons who are ineligible to receive them and are cheating the system.”

On Friday, Budget Committee hard-liners blocked the package from moving forward — mainly over when Medicaid work requirements will commence. Under the current legislation, Medicaid requirements will kick in during 2029. Some conservatives want it to start as soon as 2027.

South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman, who voted against advancing the bill, told CNN on Saturday that the earlier date was necessary for his vote. Another key budget holdouts are Chip Roy of Texas, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Andrew Clyde of Georgia.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, according to the agency. That includes 71,275,237 enrolled in Medicaid and 7,257,104 in CHIPS.

“Some of the states have — it takes them some time,” Johnson said. “We’ve learned in this process to change their systems and to make sure that these stringent requirements that we will put on that to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, can actually be implemented. So, we’re working with them [hardliners] to make sure what the earliest possible date is to put into law something that will actually be useful. I think we’ve got to compromise on that. I think we’ll work it out,” Johnson claimed.”

If the House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate. Johnson said he hopes the Senate won’t alter the bill, which means it goes back to the House.

“The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they [Senate] don’t make many modifications to it, because that will ensure its passage quickly,” he said.

Holdouts also want to accelerate the phasing out of tax credits for green energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The bill also includes a big increase for the Defense Department and to national security. There are cuts to federal health and nutrition programs and energy programs.

It’s a balancing act for Johnson because some changes may anger House moderates. They are phasing out the tax credits and cuts to Medicaid benefits. Trump has vowed not to cut Medicaid.

Someswing-district House Republicans want to raise the tax rate on top earners to offset the cost of lifting the cap on how much their constituents can deduct in their state and local taxes, known as SALT.

“Allowing the top tax rate to expire and returning from 37% to 39.6% for individuals earning $609,350 or more and married couples earning $731,200 or more breathes $300 billion of new life into the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Rep. Nick LaLota of New York told CNN on Saturday.

United States House Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill”, a wide-ranging tax and spending legislation, is at a crucial moment.

The nearly 400-page legislation proposes sweeping changes which include extending the 2017 tax cuts, slashing taxes for businesses and individuals, and enacting deep cuts to social programmes like Medicaid and SNAP.

While Republicans tout the bill as a boon for economic growth and middle-class relief, nonpartisan analysts warn it could add trillions to the national debt and strip millions of Americans of medical and food assistance.

The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee today and, if passed, will be voted on the floor next week.

The most substantive part of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The tax bill would add at least an additional $2.5 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years and decrease federal tax revenue by roughly $4 trillion by 2034.

Passing the legislation will also raise the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay for existing expenditures, by $4 trillion, a sticking point for hardline Republicans who want deeper cuts.

Here are some of the key measures in the proposed bill in its current form.

Changes for households

The bill increases standard deductions for all Americans. Individual deductions will increase by $1,000, $1,500 for heads of households, and $2,000 for married couples.

The bill extends the child tax credit of $2,000, which would otherwise have ended with the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts at year’s end.

It bumps up the child tax credit by $500 per child for this tax year and runs through the end of 2028. It also includes a $1,000 savings account for children born between December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2029. The legislation would also allow families to annually contribute $5,000 tax-free.

There is a new tax deduction for Americans 65 and older. The new bill would give a $4,000 annual deduction starting this year for people making a gross income of $75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple. If passed, the rule would take effect for the current tax year and run until the end of 2028.

“It will just make tax paying more complicated and more uncertain when a lot of these things ultimately expire,” Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute, told Al Jazeera.

Another provision in the bill modifies state and local tax (SALT) deductions. It allows filers to be able to write off some of what they paid in local and state taxes from their federal filings.

Under the 2017 tax act, that was capped at $10,000, but the new legislation would raise that to $30,000. Some Republicans, particularly those in states with higher taxes like New York and California, have been pushing to raise the cap or abolish it altogether. However, they have faced fiscal hawks and those who see the increases as relief for those already wealthy.

The bill includes an increased benefit for small businesses that allows them to deduct 23 percent of their qualified business income from their taxes, up from the current 20 percent.

There is also a call for no taxes on overtime pay for select individuals. It would not apply to people who are non-citizens, those who are considered “highly compensated employees,” and those who earn a tipped wage.

The bill, however, also eliminates taxes on tips, a critical campaign promise by both Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris. The bill would allow people who work in sectors like food service, as well as hair care, nail care, aesthetics, and body and spa treatments, to specifically deduct the amount of tipped income they receive.

At the federal level, employers will still not be required to pay tipped workers more than the subminimum wage of $2.13 hourly. The intention is that workers will be able to make up the difference in tipping the receipt from customers.

Cuts to the social safety net

The legislation calls to make $880bn in cuts to key government programmes with a focus mostly on Medicaid and food stamps.

The CBO found that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid access and 7.6 million could lose access to health insurance completely by 2034 under the current plan.

Even far-right Republicans have called out the Medicaid cuts. In an op-ed in The New York Times this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said the cuts are “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.

According to a new report from One Fair Wage shared with Al Jazeera, tipped workers could be hit especially hard, as 1.2 million restaurant and tipped workers could lose access to Medicaid.

“A no tax on tips proposal, which is like a minuscule percentage of their income and doesn’t affect two-thirds of tips workers because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, is just nowhere near enough to compensate for the fact that we’re going to have millions of these workers lose the ability to take care of themselves, in some cases go into medical debt, in many cases just not take care of themselves,” Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy group for restaurant workers, told Al Jazeera.

The bill also introduces work requirements to receive benefits, saying that recipients must prove they work, volunteer or are enrolled in school for at least 80 hours each month.

At the same time, the bill also shortens the open enrolment period by a month for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. This means people who have employer-funded healthcare and lose their job might lose eligibility to buy a private plan on the healthcare exchange.

“It’s taking folks like 11 to 12 weeks to find a new job. The worse the labour market gets, that number will tick up. If you’re unemployed for three months, you get kicked off Medicaid,” Liz Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collective, told Al Jazeera.

“Then, if you try to go buy a plan on the ACA marketplace, you are no longer eligible for subsidies … which I think is really cruel.”

Other major proposed cuts will hit programmes like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or SNAP, which helps 42 million low-income individuals afford groceries and comes at a time when food costs are still 2 percent higher than a year ago. The CBO found that 3 million people could lose SNAP access under the new plan.

The bill would also force states to take up more responsibility in funding the programmes. States would be required to cover 75 percent of the administrative costs, and all states would have to pay at least 5 percent of the benefits — 28 states would need to pay 25 percent.

“States are now going to be on the hook for billions of dollars in funding for these two vital programmes. They have a tough choice. One is, do they cut funding from others like K-12 education, roads, veteran services, etc, to cover this gap, or do they raise taxes so that they can raise more revenue to cover this gap,” Pancotti added.

Under the current law, the federal government is solely responsible for shouldering the cost of benefits. The proposed cuts would save $300bn for the federal government but hit state budgets hard.

Bill fuels Trump administration priorities

The bill would also cut the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle purchases and $4,000 for a used EV, a move which could hurt several major US automakers that are already reeling from the administration’s tariffs on automobiles.

General Motors pumped billions into domestic EV production in the last year, which has included a $900m investment to retrofit an existing plant to build electric vehicles in Michigan and alongside Samsung, the carmaker invested $3.5bn in EV battery manufacturing in the US.

In February, Ford CEO Jim Farley said that revoking the EV tax credit could put factory jobs on the chopping block. The carmaker invested in three EV battery plants in Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The federal government under the administration of former President Joe Biden paid out more than $2bn in EV tax credits in 2024.

The proposed legislation would also give the Trump administration authority to revoke the tax exempt status of nonprofit organisations that it deems as a “terrorist supporting organisation”. It would give the secretary of the treasury the ability to accuse any nonprofit of supporting “terrorism”, revoke their tax exempt status without allowing them due process to prove otherwise, which has raised serious concerns amongst critics.

“This measure’s real intent lurks behind its hyperbolic and unsubstantiated anti-terrorist rhetoric: It would allow the Treasury Department to explicitly target, harass and investigate thousands of U.S. organizations that make up civil society, including nonprofit newsrooms,” Jenna Ruddock, advocacy director of Free Press Action, said in a statement.

“The bill’s language lacks any meaningful safeguards against abuse. Instead it puts the burden of proof on organizations rather than on the government. It’s not hard to imagine how the Trump administration would use it to exact revenge on groups that have raised questions about or simply angered the president and other officials in his orbit.”

The bill would introduce new taxes on colleges, including a varying tax rate based on the size of a university’s endowment per student with the highest at 14 percent for universities with a per student endowment of more than $1.25m but less than $2m and 21 percent for those of $2m or more.

This comes amid the Trump administration’s increased tensions with higher education. In the last week, the Trump administration pulled $450m in grants to Harvard on top of the $2.2bn it pulled in April — a move which will hinder research into cancer and heart disease, among other areas. Harvard has an endowment of $53.2bn, making it one of the richest schools in the country.

The legislation would also increase funding for a border wall between the US and Mexico, which the administration has argued will help curb undocumented immigration. However, there is no evidence that such a wall has deterred border crossings.

A 2018 analysis from Stanford University found that a border wall would only curb migration by 0.6 percent, yet the bill would give more than $50bn to finish the border wall and maritime crossings. The bill would also provide $45bn for building and maintaining detention facilities and another $14bn for transport.

WASHINGTON — In a massive setback, House Republicans failed Friday to push their big package of tax breaks and spending cuts through the Budget Committee, as a handful of conservatives joined all Democrats in a stunning vote against it.

The hard-right lawmakers are insisting on steeper spending cuts to Medicaid and the Biden-era green energy tax breaks, among other changes, before they will give their support to President Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” They warn the tax cuts alone would pile onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt.

The failed vote, 16-21, stalls, for now, House Speaker Mike Johnson’s push to have the package approved next week. But the holdout lawmakers vowed to stay all weekend to negotiate changes as the president is returning to Washington from the Middle East.

“Something needs to change or you’re not going to get my support,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).

Tallying a whopping 1,116 pages, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, named with a nod to Trump, is teetering at a critical moment. Conservatives are holding out for steeper cuts to Medicaid and other programs to help offset the costs of the tax breaks. But at the same time, lawmakers from high-tax states including New York and California are demanding a deeper tax deduction, known as SALT, for their constituents.

Johnson has insisted Republicans are on track to pass the bill, which he believes will inject a dose of stability into a wavering economy.

Democrats slammed the package, but they will be powerless to stop it if Republicans are united. They emphasized that millions of people would lose their health coverage if the bill passes while the wealthiest Americans would reap enormous tax cuts. They also said it would increase future deficits.

“That is bad economics. It is unconscionable,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democratic lawmaker on the panel.

The Budget panel is one of the final stops before the package is sent to the full House floor for a vote, which is expected as soon as next week. Typically, the job of the Budget Committee is more administrative as it compiles the work of 11 committees that drew up various parts of the big bill.

But Friday’s meeting proved momentous. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House and have just a few votes to spare to advance the measure, including on the Budget Committee.

Four Republican conservatives initially voted against the package — Roy and Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Then one, Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania, switched his vote to no.

The conservative holdouts from the Freedom Caucus are insisting on deeper cuts — particularly to Medicaid. They want new work requirements for aid recipients to start immediately, rather than on Jan. 1, 2029, as the package proposes.

Roy complained that the legislation front-loads new tax cuts and spending while back-loading the savings.

“We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price,” Roy said.

“Sadly,” added Norman, “I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out.”

At the same time, the New Yorkers have been unrelenting in their demand for a much larger SALT deduction than what is proposed in the bill, which could send the overall cost of the package skyrocketing.

As it stands, the bill proposes tripling what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year.

Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the New York lawmakers leading the SALT effort, said they have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

The conservatives and the New Yorkers are at odds, each jockeying for their priorities as Johnson labors to keep the package on track to pass the House by Memorial Day and then onto the Senate.

“This is always what happens when you have a big bill like this,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). “There’s always final details to work out all the way up until the last minute. So we’re going to keep working. There’s a lot of work to be done.”

At its core, the sprawling package extends the existing income tax cuts that were approved during Trump’s first term, in 2017, and adds new ones that the president campaigned on in 2024, including no taxes on tips, overtime pay and some auto loans.

It increases some tax breaks for middle-income earners, including a bolstered standard deduction of $32,000 for joint filers and a temporary $500 boost to the child tax credit, bringing it to $2,500.

It also provides an infusion of $350 billion for Trump’s deportation agenda and to bolster the Pentagon.

To offset more than $5 million in lost revenue, the package proposes rolling back other tax breaks, namely the green energy tax credits approved as part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Some conservatives want those to end immediately.

The package also seeks to cover the costs by slashing more than $1 trillion from healthcare and food assistance programs over the course of a decade, in part by imposing work requirements on able-bodied adults.

Certain Medicaid recipients would need to engage in 80 hours a month of work or other community options to receive healthcare. Older Americans receiving food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, would also see the program’s current work requirement for able-bodied participants without dependents extended to include those ages 55-64. States would also be required to shoulder a greater share of the program’s cost.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates at least 7.6 million fewer people with health insurance and about 3 million a month fewer SNAP recipients with the changes.

Mocking the name of the bill, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called it “one big, beautiful betrayal.”

“To pay for it,” Democratic Rep. Morgan McGarvey said, “kids in Kentucky will go hungry, nursing homes and hospitals will close, and millions of Americans will be kicked off their health insurance. It’s wrong.”

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.

May 15 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Thursday banning fluoride in public water, making it the second state to do so.

DeSantis signed SB 700, known as the Farm Bill, during a press conference. The law, which is to go into effect July 1, prohibits local governments from adding fluoride and other “water quality” additives from the water supply.

DeSantis equated the use of fluoride in water — which is heralded as a trusted and tested public health preventative medicine strategy — as “basically forced medication on people.”

“People want to use it on their teeth, great. But it’s readily available now,” he said.

“We have the ability to deliver fluoride through toothpaste and … all these others things. You don’t got to force it and take way people’s choices.”

DeSantis framed the issue as one of “informed consent,” stating “forcing this in the water supply is trying to take that away from people who may want a different decision rather than to have this in water.”

The bill reached DeSantis after having been overwhelming approved by the state’s House in a 88 to 27 vote late last month and the state’s Senate on April 16 in a 27 to 9 vote.

Florida’s ban comes after Utah in late March became the first state to prohibit fluoride in its public water and as the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health and Human Services review potential health risks associated with the long-held medical practices.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed that fluoride is associated with an assortment of diseases, including cancer, and he called it “an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer IQ loss, neurodevelopment disorders and thyroid disease.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced its intention to remove fluoride supplements from the market staring October.

U.S. cities have fluoridated their drinking water for decades in a effort to fight tooth decay, with Grand Rapids, Mich., becoming the first to do so in 1945.

The American Dental Association has been a vocal supported of fluoridated tap water amid the controversy and on Thursday published slides to its Facebook account showing that the practice reduces cavities by 25% in both adults and children, and is safe.

Its president, Brett Kessler, said in a statement issued following Utah’s ban that children will be the ones to suffer.

“Community water fluoridation programs save states money, save the federal government money and save people money,” he said. “I urge every dentist and community member to make their voices heard if there are proposals in your area that threaten the oral health of our communities.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday threw his support behind two bills that would streamline housing development in urban areas, saying it was “time to get serious” about cutting red tape to address the housing crisis.

Newsom said his revised state budget proposal, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, also will include provisions that clear the way for more new housing by reforming the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act and clearing other impediments.

The governor praised Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) for sponsoring bills designed to ease the permitting process for infill projects, or building in urban areas that already have development.

Newsom’s housing proposal looks to force permit deadlines on the Coastal Commission, allow housing development projects over $100 million to use CEQA streamlining usually available to smaller projects, and create a fund, paid for by developers, to finance affordable housing near public transit.

CEQA has long been used by opponents to impede or delay construction, often locking developers into years-long court battles. The law is so vague that it allows “essentially anyone who can hire a lawyer” to challenge developments, Wiener said in a statement.

“It’s time to accelerate urban infill. It’s time to exempt them from CEQA, it’s time to focus on judicial streamlining. It’s time to get serious about this issue. Period, full stop,” Newsom said during the morning budget news conference. “… This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us. So we own this, and we have to own the response.”

Assembly Bill 609, proposed by Wicks, who serves as the Assembly Appropriations Committee chair, would create a sweeping exemption for housing projects that meet local building standards, especially in areas that have already been approved for additional development and reviewed for potential environmental impacts.

“It’s time to refine CEQA for the modern age, and I’m proud to work with the Governor to make these long-overdue changes a reality,” Wicks said in a statement.

Senate Bill 607, authored by Wiener, who serves as chair of the Senate Housing Committee, focuses the environmental review process and clarifies CEQA exemptions for urban infill housing projects.

“By clearing away outdated procedural hurdles, we can address California’s outrageous cost of living, grow California’s economy, and help the government solve the most pressing problems facing our state. We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and our legislative colleagues to advance these two important bills and to secure an affordable and abundant future for California,” Wiener said in a statement.

Both bills are pending before the appropriations committees in the Assembly and Senate, respectively.

May 14 (UPI) — The House Ways and Means Committee approved the Republican tax package Wednesday, which followed an all-night hearing during which GOP members rejected attempts by Democrats to alter the plan.

The bill was approved on 26-19 party line, which will next move to the chamber’s Budget Committee, where it will be blended with legislation from other committees and presented as part of what President Donald Trump has dubbed the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill.”

“We are in hour 14 of a markup where Democrats are fighting tooth and nail,” posted Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R- Mo. to X at 4:29 a.m. EDT Wednesday,” which followed previous update posts at 2:37 a.m. EDT Wednesday and 11:56 p.m. EDT Tuesday. The hearing began at 2:30 p.m. EDT Tuesday.

Democrats saw all their proposed amendments, which covered items like the expansion of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, and green energy, turned down, while also having stumped against the current tax plan, which it called a giveaway to the wealthy.

Democrats also put forth amendments that would have impacted Trump’s tariffs, blocked tax cuts for high earners and expanded child-care incentives among other suggestions, but none were adopted.

The entire package is projected to cost $3.8 trillion, but could still address state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. The Joint Committee on Taxation reported Tuesday that average earners would see their tax bills decrease by double-digit percentages in 2027 under the plan as it stands.

Democrats have also pointed out that under the plan, taxpayers who earn over $500,000 would see a cumulative tax cut of around $170 billion in 2027, while those who will earn between $30,000 and $80,000 that year would only see a collective $59 billion.

The bill is targeted to pass through the enter chamber by Memorial Day, then on to the Senate which is expected to combine the tax laws with the rest of Trump’s “Beautiful” bill, which together would both extend the life of previously set tax cuts and enable Trump’s financial requests.

California became a national pioneer four years ago by passing a law to make ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement. But only months before the policy is to take effect, Gov. Gavin Newsom is withholding state funding — delaying the mandate as the course comes under renewed fire.

The pause has left school districts throughout the state in limbo nearly four years after the launch deadline was set. Beginning this fall, students entering 9th grade would have been the first class required to pass a one-semester class at some point during their high school years.

But under the 2021 law, the mandate to reach 5.8 million students does not take effect unless the state provides more money to pay for the course. The funding would cover the cost of materials and the teacher staffing and training that go along with adding a new field of study.

Newsom’s office, which will issue its May revision of next year’s proposed state budget Wednesday amid a tightening financial outlook, did not respond to questions about why he has not included funding for the ethnic studies requirement that he approved, praising it as an avenue to “teach students about the diverse communities that comprise California.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Finance answered on Newsom’s behalf.

“The budget doesn’t include funding that would trigger the ethnic studies graduation requirement,” said H.D. Palmer. As to the reason why, “the short answer is that the state has limited available ongoing resources.”

At the onset, $50 million in seed money was allocated statewide, but the law stated an additional unspecified amount would be needed in the future. State officials later set that amount at about $276 million. But several years have passed without state officials budgeting the funding.

As California’s more than 1,600 high schools wind down for the year, it is uncertain how many will offer the course in the fall. Some — including Los Angeles Unified, Santa Monica Unified and Alhambra Unified — will go forward with ethnic studies no matter what. Some of these districts, including L.A. Unified, already have their own ethnic studies graduation requirement.

Others — including Chino Valley Unified — will shelve the class until the law forces them to offer it.

Still others, such as Lynwood Unified, in south L.A. County, say they are deeply concerned about any wavering in the state’s commitment to the subject.

State funding would be “critically important for sustainability,” according to a Lynwood district statement. Without it, the school district is going to cancel the course and instead teach units of ethnic studies within other classes.

“We remain committed to the principles and purpose behind ethnic studies — ensuring our students see themselves and others reflected in the curriculum,” Lynwood Supt. Gudiel R. Crosthwaite said. “However, like many school districts across California, we are navigating the dual challenge of declining enrollment and insufficient state funding to support new course mandates.”

Renewed controversy

The current political environment complicates the launch of the ethnic studies requirement.

State officials were moving toward an ethnic studies requirement amid the nation’s racial reckoning after the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, and violent attacks on Asian Americans.

Many ethnic studies supporters believe that anti-racist teachings and exploring the history and perspectives of marginalized groups — Black and Indigenous people, Asians and Latinos — are key to bridging misunderstanding among students, reducing racial and ethnic conflict, and motivating teenagers to pursue social justice causes.

But not everyone sees ethnic studies the same way. Some religious and political conservatives view the state’s guidelines for ethnic studies as the kind of “woke” ideologies in education that President Trump has vowed to eliminate as he seeks to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion programming in schools.

California’s ethnic studies curriculum guide embraces pro-LGBTQ+ content and speaks of connecting students to “contemporary social movements that struggle for social justice and an equitable and democratic society, and conceptualize, imagine, and build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic-racism society.”

With tensions high over how race, religion and ethnicity are taught in schools, state lawmakers recently explored legislation that would have put strict standards on how ethnic studies could be taught. That bill was supported by 31 legislators and its sponsors expressed particular concern about how ethnic studies teachers are presenting Jews and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — re-igniting long-simmering concerns about the field of study.

Amid weekend discussions, however, the group shelved the bill — which dealt only with ethnic studies. Instead, lawmakers unveiled a broader piece of school legislation aimed at ending campus antisemitism while providing greater “anti-discrimination protections related to nationality and religion.”

A hearing on the new bill is set for Wednesday.

Teacher Amber Palma talks with student Angel Alvarez during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

Although the bill’s provisions are still being crafted, it would apply to any course or schooling activity — and include a mechanism for stronger oversight of K-12 ethnic studies, which remains central to the concerns of the bill’s primary sponsors, including Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay).

“Jewish families and children have been made, in many instances, to feel unwelcome or made the targets of hate and discrimination in school — where they’re supposed to feel safe and supported,” Addis said. “We want to get all the things in place to get back to what schools are supposed to be doing.”

Troy Flint, chief communications officer for the California School Boards Assn. said the ethnic studies requirement “has been fraught since its inception, and there have been starts, stumbles and restarts to try and develop a piece of legislation that’s amenable to all the different interest groups. … And I don’t know that we’ve reached that point yet.”

“School districts are in a bind,” both in terms of their costs and their academic program, he added, “because there’s a possibility a mandate could be implemented, but it’s uncertain.”

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

What’s happened since the law was approved?

Newsom signed the ethnic studies graduation requirement into law in 2021, giving districts four years to develop one or more ethnic studies classes, using a menu of materials and topics from the nearly 700-page state model curriculum guide, approved by the State Board of Education.

That curriculum guide had been a source of controversy — leading Newsom to veto an earlier bill for an ethnic studies requirement. After substantial revisions, the final version eliminated course materials that likened the Palestinian cause, in its conflict with Israel, to the struggles of marginalized groups in America — because critics said it lacked balance or nuance.

The revision also toned down what critics characterized as obscure academic jargon and bias against capitalism. More groups were added as potential study topics, including Jewish Americans, Sikhs and Armenians.

Under current law, the state’s model curriculum serves as a guide — not a required set of lessons. School districts are responsible for developing their courses and are free to teach units that reflect their enrollment. Students in Glendale, with its large Armenian American population, for example, could study the Armenian immigrant experience.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

This flexibility has allowed academic experts in the field to prepare prepackaged courses and lessons that vary widely to help schools prepare. Some are free to download. Independent Institute, for example, has posted one free curriculum that consciously aims to be less controversial in terms of current political disputes.

The group with perhaps the most long-standing ties to the field of ethnic studies in California has created a curriculum called Liberated Ethnic Studies. This curriculum also is free to download, although some of its creators and supporters have worked as school district consultants.

A portion of the Liberated content guide has worried a coalition of Jewish groups who contend portions of the curriculum veer toward antisemitism. Their concerns have fueled ongoing debate in Sacramento about the need for stricter course standards.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

Creators of the Liberated materials had been involved in writing the first version of the state’s model curriculum — which also was criticized by Jewish groups and legislators. State officials ultimately removed the Liberated academics from involvement in the state’s curriculum guide. And the academics, in turn, disowned the state curriculum guide and created their own materials.

A leader of the Liberated curriculum effort, Cal State Northridge professor of Chicano and Chicana studies Theresa Montaño, said she does not know how may school districts are using their lessons because they can be downloaded for free. She estimated that 70% of the Liberated content is virtually identical to the state’s revised model curriculum.

She said concerns about politicized content are overwrought.

“Ethnic studies was born out of a movement to begin to make certain that communities of color have the rightful location in the curriculum,” Montaño said.

She added that the scholars who put together the Liberated contents are recognized leading experts in an academically rigorous field that has developed over the last 60 years.

Students take part in an activity during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

What’s happening in the classroom?

Ethnic studies teacher Amber Palma teaches at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood and virtually all of her students are Latino with immigrant backgrounds — and some degree of current political context is unavoidable.

“If the class is about your identity and your place in this American society — and that is a real social political issue that you are facing in context as we speak — you can’t say we’re going to not talk about what’s happening,” Palma said. “You have to address concerns, as you would with any class, with any kids.”

“Given our climate and the challenges that our students and their families and their communities are facing, I think we really do need to push the sense of empowerment, a sense of agency,” said Palma, whose district developed its own curriculum.

Students listen as teacher Amber Palma leads a discussion during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

“If done right, ethnic studies is a good thing for all students,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, a lobbying group whose positions include supporting Israel’s right to exist. “Unfortunately … we have seen far too many instances of factually inaccurate and antisemitic content entering classrooms,” he said.

Bocarsly said members of his coalition of Jewish groups estimate there are real or potential problems in several dozen school districts among the 1,000 in California, based on issues that have emerged. The extent to which the Liberated curriculum is used in these districts has not been determined.

Assemblymember Addis is concerned that there could be inappropriate elements of Liberated’s alleged bias affecting “hundreds and hundreds” of school districts up and down the state.

In April, the California Department of Education concluded that two Bay Area ethnic studies teachers in the Campbell Union High School District violated California law when they included content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was allegedly biased and discriminated against Jewish students.

How are school districts responding?

A winter clash in the Palo Alto, Calif., school district underscores the kinds of debates that have unfolded about the course.

In a district with 40% Asian enrollment, some complained the course defined power and privilege in a way that discounted the hard work that resulted in prosperity for many immigrants. Critics also accused district officials of a lack of transparency and of not allowing for meaningful input into course content. Some were concerned that topics would be divisive.

“As feared, rancor has ensued,” said Lauren Janov, a critic of the Liberated curriculum and co-founder of Palo Alto Parent Alliance. “From the start, the state lost control of ethnic studies.”

In January, the Palo Alto board approved its own ethnic studies requirement by a 3-2 vote.

In February, Santa Ana Unified shelved three ethnic studies classes as part of a legal settlement reached with a coalition of Jewish groups. The groups had filed a lawsuit alleging that secrecy and antisemitism defined the district’s ethnic studies rollout.

The district still offers various other ethnic studies courses and has no plans to reverse policy, regardless of state funding, a district spokesperson said.

Student Arianne Moreno distributes an assignment during an ethnic studies class at Firebaugh High School in Lynwood.

(Hon Wing Chiu / For The Times)

In San Bernardino County, the Chino Valley Unified school board president also raises cost as an issue but sees the mandate pause as an opportunity to step back from ethnic studies.

“We made it clear that the course will not be implemented unless the state mandate goes into effect,” said Sonja Shaw, a pro-Trump Republican who is running for state superintendent of public instruction.

“Much of the ethnic studies already being pushed reflects divisive, politically driven ideology that doesn’t unite students; it separates them. …While kids are falling behind in reading, writing and math, the state continues to push its political agendas onto children,” Shaw said.

In Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest school system, 11 courses can satisfy the district’s requirement, including a broad survey course and more specialized classes, such as African American Literature, American Indian Studies and Exploring Visual Arts through Ethnic Studies.

Congress should consider a bill to curb sex and obscenity on television even after cable TV companies Monday said they planned to offer packages of family-friendly channels, a member of the Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday.

“I don’t think we’re anywhere near the point where we can say we don’t need legislation,” Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, said at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in Washington. “Let’s keep pushing.”

Copps’ endorsement of anti-obscenity legislation reflects agency support for Republican FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin’s campaign to shield children from adult fare on television.

On Monday, a group of cable TV providers including the two largest, Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Inc., agreed to offer groupings of family-friendly channels in response to pressure from Martin.

The Senate panel, which is reviewing four bills aimed at limiting indecency on TV and radio, will not vote on any legislation this month, committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said.

The cable companies “are making very good progress,” Stevens said after the hearing. “We’ll need to give an opportunity for these initiatives to take hold.”

Tuesday’s hearing focused on the reappointment of Copps and the appointment of Deborah Taylor Tate, a Republican, to the FCC.

Tate, a Tennessee utility regulator who is backed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), deflected most senators’ questions, saying she wasn’t yet versed on the issues.

Stevens said he expected a committee vote on President Bush’s nominations by Thursday, and a full Senate vote by Dec. 25.

Senate confirmation of Tate, 49, and Copps, 65, would bring the FCC to a 2-2 split between Democrats and Republicans.

Bush hasn’t yet nominated anyone to fill the agency’s fifth seat, which is reserved for a Republican.

Martin on Nov. 29 urged the cable companies to consider a family tier and other options aimed at curbing indecency.

The Senate indecency bills would, among other things, require all cable companies to offer packages of family channels and increase maximum fines on over-the-air broadcasters such as Viacom Inc.’s CBS.

The former Microsoft CEO slams Elon Musk for his efforts to slash funding for US assistance to poor countries.

Tech billionaire Bill Gates has said that he will give away 99 percent of his wealth in the next two decades, funding his philanthropy the Gates Foundation long enough for it to close in 2045.

In a statement published on Thursday, Gates also firmly criticised the way his fellow centibillionaire – Elon Musk, an adviser to US President Donald Trump – is pushing to slash United States funds for essential things like food and medical assistance in poor countries.

“The picture of the world’s richest man killing the world’s poorest children is not a pretty one,” Gates told the Financial Times, referring to Musk’s work with the Trump administration to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Gates, who has a current estimated net worth of about $108bn, has long been among the most recognisable figures in the field of philanthropy, with an emphasis on medical assistance in poor countries.

He has also become a symbol of the enormous influence that such wealth can have on everything from politics to global health.

Pandemic vaccine criticism

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Gates was a vocal opponent of loosening patent protections around COVID-19 vaccines in order to allow poorer countries to manufacture their own versions and distribute them to their populations more quickly, arguing that doing so would harm innovation and intellectual property rights.

Critics accused him of promoting a vision of “vaccine apartheid”. They have also questioned whether Gates, through his substantial funding of groups such as the vaccine group Gavi and the World Health Organization, wields disproportionate influence in the field of global health without the same oversight and accountability that a public institution would face.

Over the years, Gates has stated that he is determined to give away most of his enormous fortune. While he is currently worth about $108bn, he expects the foundation to spend a total of around $200bn by 2045, depending on inflation and markets.

“People will say a lot of things about me when I die, but I am determined that ‘he died rich’ will not be one of them,” the 69-year-old co-founder of Microsoft said in a post on his website.

“There are too many urgent problems to solve for me to hold onto resources that could be used to help people,” he added.

Gates also lamented that the US has pulled back from involvement in global health and humanitarian assistance around the world, offering a subtle rebuke of the Trump administration.

“It’s unclear whether the world’s richest countries will continue to stand up for its poorest people,” he said.

SACRAMENTO — Are California Democrats soft when it comes to protecting minors from sex trafficking?

It’s a question that has caused chaos in the state Capitol for more than a week. But really, it’s a question Republicans have been asking — and answering with a resounding yes — for years.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I’ll let you know that California has some of the toughest laws against sex trafficking in the country, including protecting minors. But there’s long been contention about how laws regarding older teens, those 16 and 17 and still underage, should be written and enforced. I’ll explain why in a minute.

It’s also obvious that teenagers shouldn’t be bought and sold for sex. That makes the issue a perennial winner for Republicans, who regularly put up bills to toughen penalties on sex crimes, have them shot down by Democrats, then wage media campaigns that result in headlines such as the recent “Top California Democrats Fight To Protect Purchasing Sex With Kids.”

Nuance about why some Democrats keep voting down harsher penalties is easily lost and hard to explain when politicians discuss sex trafficking. And Democrats have inflicted this same wound on themselves so many times by following this Republican playbook that the blood won’t wash off.

The most recent manifestation of this long-running drama has a twist — a freshman Democrat in the Assembly wrote the bill that this year turned into the Republican weapon.

Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), a former state prosecutor specializing in human trafficking, wrote legislation a few weeks ago meant to close a loophole in a previous law that treated the crime of soliciting a minor for sex differently depending on the age of the minor.

A person attempting to purchase sex from a child 15 and under, by current law, is committing a felony. But someone attempting to buy sex from a 16- or 17-year-old is committing a crime that’s a “wobbler,” chargeable as either a felony or misdemeanor on the first offense, at the prosecutor’s discretion.

As they have done in past years when Republicans floated the idea, Krell’s Democratic colleagues demanded the automatic felony part of her legislation be dropped. Krell agreed, a compromise to keep other parts of the bill alive, including a provision to make it illegal to loiter with the intent to buy sex.

But then she backed Republicans when they made a fuss about it last week on the floor of the Assembly, effectively going against her own party.

Chaos erupted, followed by insanity.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas stripped Krell’s name off the bill and gave it instead to Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), also a former prosecutor, and another Democrat, Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove). Republicans had a field day with press releases, speeches and even began running social media ads accusing Democrats of being soft on sex crimes. Bizarrely, Democrats then began running the same kind of ads against Republicans.

Then, on Tuesday, Rivas and Schultz announced a detente with Krell. Buying sex from a 16- or 17-year-old goes back into the bill as an automatic felony — if the buyer is more than three years older than the person being trafficked.

A committee will hear the new bill on Wednesday, with Krell’s name back on it, and presumably move it forward.

There’s both a political takeaway and a policy takeaway from all of this.

The reason some Democrats say they have blocked the automatic felony in the past is hard to follow. Basically, their argument goes, an 18-year-old could buy Taco Bell or a vape for a younger friend, and that could be considered a felony solicitation if sexual acts ensued. Frankly, I have trouble thinking prosecutors would file these charges, but you never know.

The issue that really underlies this perennial fight and which Democrats seem to have a harder time talking about is a philosophical one. Some folks on the progressive end of criminal justice reform, including some survivors of sex trafficking, believe the best way to combat the abuse is to decriminalize sex work, or even legalize it.

Decriminalization basically means not enforcing many of the laws currently on the books that lead to sex workers and buyers being arrested — like solicitation. It’s not a push to stop arresting those who coerce or force people into trafficking situations.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas stripped Assemblymember Maggy Krell’s name off the bill, then restored it after reaching a compromise.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

The idea is that many sex workers, including younger adults and those in the LGBTQ+ community, are sex workers by choice or necessity, that saddling them with long criminal records preventing them from getting jobs or housing isn’t helpful or fair, and going after buyers simply makes their work more dangerous.

That outlook goes hand in hand with the years-long push by Democrats to address the over-incarceration of Black and brown people, which has led to the Legislature rarely adding new felonies to the penal code.

You can agree or disagree with those viewpoints, but they are worth debating. Our current political mood, with Proposition 36 passed by voters and Trump in the White House, has dramatically shifted though.

Sex trafficking is at the center of that shift.

Remember when QAnon spread conspiracies about international human smuggling rings, including that online retailer Wayfair was at the heart of a scheme to sell kids though furniture listings? That kind of panic about sex trafficking has become mainstreamed on the right, though the truth is most trafficked kids are sold by someone they know — a parent, a boyfriend, maybe even by another young person being trafficked themselves.

But tough on crime is back in fashion, and no politician wants to champion decriminalization. I think decriminalization has a lot of pitfalls, but if some Democrats believe it’s the solution, it’s a policy failure to not talk about it — and it leads voters to misunderstand their position as weak on sex offenders.

Krell, who has dedicated her professional life to stopping sex traffickers, strongly believes that buyers need to face more consequences, and she has a point. We can lock up as many sex traffickers as we can find, but as long as buyers feel safe, there will always be a demand.

It was a political failure of the Democratic leadership to think she’d be quietly rolled on this issue. Krell is the rare politician who means what she says and says what she means. It likely stung when her name was removed from the bill, but it only increased her will to fight for a change in law she believes in.

If anyone comes out of this looking good, it’s Krell, who proved herself to be willing to fight even her own party leaders. With the three-year age gap compromise, though, Democrats will likely now show a united front and point to the bill as a success for all involved.

But don’t be surprised if Republicans run the play again next year.

Washington, DC – A bill in the United States Congress that aims to penalise the boycotting of countries friendly to the US is facing opposition from allies of President Donald Trump over free speech concerns, putting its passage in jeopardy.

According to Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a vote in the House of Representatives on the proposal, previously scheduled for Monday, has been cancelled.

Although Trump’s Republican Party has been leading legislative efforts to crack down on boycotts of Israel, over the past days, several conservatives close to the US president voiced opposition to the bill, dubbed the International Governmental Organization (IGO) Anti-Boycott Act.

“It is my job to defend American’s rights to buy or boycott whomever they choose without the government harshly fining them or imprisoning them,” Greene said in a social media post on Monday.

“But what I don’t understand is why we are voting on a bill on behalf of other countries and not the President’s executive orders that are FOR OUR COUNTRY???”

Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing activist and commentator, also said that the bill should not pass.

“In America you are allowed to hold differing views. You are allowed to disagree and protest,” Kirk wrote on X on Sunday. “We’ve allowed far too many people who hate America move here from abroad, but the right to speak freely is the birthright of all Americans.”

Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser and influential right-wing media personality, backed the comments of Kirk and Greene, writing on the social media platform Gettr, “Fact check: True” and “Agreed” in response to their statements, respectively.

IGO Anti-Boycott Act

The proposed legislation was introduced by pro-Israel hawks in the US Congress, Republican Mike Lawler and Democrat Josh Gottheimer, in January, and it has been co-sponsored by 22 other lawmakers from both major parties.

The bill would expand a 2018 law that bans coercive boycotts imposed by foreign governments to include international governmental organisations (IGOs).

The original legislation prohibits boycotting a country friendly to the US based on an “agreement with, a requirement of, or a request from or on behalf” of another nation. It imposes penalties of up to $1m and 20 years in prison for violations.

Expanding the legislation to include IGOs risks penalising individuals and companies in the US that boycott firms listed by the United Nations as doing business in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

While the bill itself does not explicitly mention Israel, its drafters have said that it targets the UN and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, which calls for economic pressure on the Israeli government to end its abuses against Palestinians.

“This change targets harmful and inherently anti-Semitic BDS efforts at IGOs, such as the UN, by extending protections already in place for boycotts instigated by foreign countries,” Lawler’s office said in January.

States and the federal government have been passing anti-BDS laws for years, raising the alarm about the violation of free speech rights, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Numerous legal cases have challenged these laws, and some judges have ruled that they are unconstitutional, while others have upheld them.

Rights groups and Palestinian rights advocates have argued that anti-boycott laws aim to shut down the debate about Israel and criminalise peaceful resistance against its violations of international law.

Anti-BDS crackdown

Over the years, leading UN agencies and rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including imposing apartheid on Palestinians.

But supporters of anti-BDS laws say the measures are designed to combat discrimination against Israel and regulate trade, not speech.

Such laws have mainly faced opposition from progressive Democrats, but the IGO Anti-Boycott Act has generated anger from right-wing politicians, too.

“Americans have the right to boycott, and penalizing this risks free speech. I reject and vehemently condemn antisemitism but I cannot violate the first amendment,” Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, wrote on X.

I agree with @RepMTG .
I’ll be voting No on this bill as well. https://t.co/YOPga59Xyc

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) May 4, 2025

The right-wing rejection of the Lawler-Gottheimer bill comes as the Trump administration continues with its push to target criticism of and protests against Israel, especially on college campuses.

Since Trump took office, the US government has revoked the visas of hundreds of students for activism against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Several students, including legal permanent residents, have been jailed over allegations of anti-Semitism and “spreading Hamas propaganda”.

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University, has been detained since March, and the only known allegation against her is co-authoring an op-ed calling on her college to honour the student senate’s call for divesting from Israeli companies.

Trump has also frozen and threatened to freeze federal funding for several universities, including Harvard, over pro-Palestine protests.

May 4 (UPI) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Saturday signed a controversial $1 billion bill into law that provides parents with vouchers to send their children to private school.

“I am signing this law that will ensure Texas families, whose children can no longer be served by the public school assigned to them, have the choice to take their money and find the school that is right for them,” Abbott said in a news release from his office.

The law will provide parents of Texas students with about $10,000 per year that can be put toward private school tuition and other educational expenses, or $2,000 for parents who choose to homeschool their children.

Supporters of the Texas Education Freedom Act have heralded it as a way to give parents the freedom to give their children a better education, while critics are concerned that the voucher system would undermine the public education system and investments in it, as well as exacerbate wealth inequality in the Lone Star State.

Still, Abbott was surrounded by throngs of parents and students from across the state as he signed the bill into law at the governor’s mansion. It is among the most significant pieces of legislation signed by the governor since he took office in 2015.

“I have been an advocate for school choice long before I was elected lieutenant governor,” said Abbott’s right-hand, Dan Patrick. “I consider the enactment of school choice one of the hallmark policy victories of my career.”

Patrick noted that the bill had been passed by the Texas Senate six times since 2015 but had died each time in the Texas House.

“This session, the Texas Legislature worked together to deliver what parents have long been asking for — more opportunities for our students to reach their full potential,” said Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows.

Texas Rep. James Talarico, a former middle school teacher who represents the Austin suburb of Round Rock, criticized the signing of the bill.

“Today, Big Money won and the students of Texas lost,” he said in a speech Saturday. “Remember this day next time a school closes. Remember this day next time a teacher quits. Remember this day next time your property taxes go up because the state is defunding our schools.”

Texas Rep. Gina Hinojosa of Austin said the passage of the bill could motivate angry parents during the next election cycle, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

“[Abbott] may have won this battle, but the war is not over,” she said. “There will be a vote on vouchers, and he can’t stop it, and it will be in November 2026.”

SACRAMENTO — Despite California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections, Democratic state lawmakers on Thursday approved changes to a bill that removed tougher penalties for soliciting 16- or 17-year-olds for sex on Thursday.

The controversial action came after a heated debate on the floor of the Assembly, peppered with literal finger-pointing and shouting, with Republicans accusing Democrats of being soft on sex offenders and Republicans coming under fire for playing politics. After days of criticism, Democrats pledged to continue working on the issue this year.

“It’s crazy. Why? Somebody on this floor, give me an example. Give me one good reason why we should treat [16- and 17-year-olds] differently. You can’t,” Republican minority leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said Thursday.

Current law allows the offense of soliciting a minor under the age of 16 for sex to be punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony on the first offense and as a felony on subsequent offenses.

The bill, AB 379, included a provision that would extend the same punishment to suspects who solicited 16- and 17- year-olds. On Thursday, the Democratic-led Assembly approved an amendment adopted by a committee earlier in the week that removed that provision. Democrats also added language to the bill that said it was the Legislature’s “intent” to strengthen protections for older teens, which does not affect how the charge of soliciting minors will be prosecuted. The amendment also removed the name of the original author of the bill, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento). The proposed legislation remains pending in the Assembly.

Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) did not speak during the debate, but circulated a statement throwing his “full support” behind the amendments.

This marks the second year in a row that Democrats in the Legislature have refused to extend felony charges to soliciting older teens. The effort to scrap the provision to stiffen penalties drew sweeping criticism from the governor and on social media. Newsom this week said the law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony.

“What a sad state of affairs it is when Governor Gavin Newsom has to be the voice of reason,” Assemblymember Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) said Thursday morning.

Assemblymember and public safety chair Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) pointed to concerns that enhanced punishments could be used to target children in LGBT or interracial relationships that their families disapprove of, although it was unclear how common those cases are seen. Schultz pledged continue to working on adopting harsher penalties this year.

Staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

Did Bill Belichick, a 73-year-old intransigent, forever controlling-the-narrative football coach with a record six Super Bowl titles, seemingly cede the reins to his girlfriend, 24-year-old former cheerleader Jordon Hudson?

So many questions and so many attempted answers. Let’s survey the relationship that has dominated the headlines this week.

Who is this couple and why do people care about them?

Hudson was born in Hancock, Maine, a speck on the map of 2,500 people best known as the home of Wild Ray’s “Chainsaw Sawyer Artist Live Show.” She has said on social media that she hails from several generations of fishermen.

A former Bridgewater State University and East Celebrity Elite squad cheerleader, Hudson competed for Miss Maine USA the last two years and explained why on social media.

“As the daughter of displaced fishermen, I care to use my voice to protect the fleeting tradition and heritage of Maine fishing families, to prevent others from going through the same plight as what mine had to go through,” Hudson wrote on Instagram, where she has nearly 100,000 followers.

After graduating, Hudson was employed for a year as social media ambassador for the clothing company Rebel Athletic. She said she met Belichick in 2021 and they began dating two years later.

Belichick was an NFL head coach for 29 years, including 24 with the New England Patriots, whom he led to nine Super Bowls, winning six. Widely acknowledged as the greatest coach in NFL history, Belichick will begin his first season as a college head coach this fall at the University of North Carolina. He signed a five-year, $50-million deal and hired his two sons, Steve and Brian, as assistant coaches.

CBS’ ‘How did you guys meet’ question

Belichick consented to an interview with “CBS Sunday Morning,” ostensibly to promote his book, “The Art of Winning: Lessons From My Life in Football,” scheduled to be released Tuesday. About six minutes into the eight-minute segment, interviewer Tony Dokoupil mentions Hudson in a voiceover, saying: “Jordon was a constant presence during our interview.”

The interview proceeds with a shot showing Hudson seated at a desk in front of a monitor a few feet from Belichick and Dokoupil.

“You have Jordon right over there, everybody in the world seems to be following this relationship,” Dokoupil said, with the camera locked on Hudson seated off the set. “How did you guys meet?”

“We’re not talking about this,” Hudson loudly blurts out before Belichick can respond. It was one of several instances where Hudson interrupted the interview.

Why the uproar with Hudson interrupting the interview?

The incident was unexpected — shocking, even — because for at least two decades, Belichick was the master of stonewalling reporters, steering interviews and giving snarky responses to questions he didn’t appreciate.

Does he suddenly require someone to come to his rescue or did that particular question touch a nerve with Hudson?

The Athletic pointed out that Belichick had his defiant chops intact earlier in the interview when Dokoupil asked him why Patriots owner Robert Kraft wasn’t mentioned in the book. The relationship between the men was strained for years and Kraft asserted that he fired Belichick in early 2024.

Dokoupil: “I have to ask about Robert Kraft … 24 years together, six Super Bowls. Unless I’m wrong, he’s not in this book. How come?”

Belichick: “He’s not. Well, again, it’s about my life lessons in football, and it’s really more about the ones I experienced directly.”

Dokoupil: “He’s not even in the acknowledgment section.”

Belichick, after a pause: “Correct.”

Dokoupil: “Do you feel like you were treated with dignity and respect when you were let go by Robert Kraft?”

Belichick: “Yeah, well, it was a mutual decision for us to part ways.”

Dokoupil: “He said ‘fired.’”

Belichick: “It was a mutual decision.”

Why did Belichick issue a statement after the CBS interview?

Belichick issued an internal email after the CBS interview and ensuing uproar, saying he expected the focus to be on the book and that “unrelated topics” took him by surprise. Hudson shared the email on Instagram, accompanied by the Taylor Swift song “Look What You Made Me Do.”

“I don’t think this is fantastic, but it probably will hype the book, which is clearly the ongoing theme here,” Belichick’s email starts. “This is about what I expected from the media.

“We went through how important it was for me to put ‘I f— up’ in the book, and of course, that is the feature of this article — which is mostly about admitting mistakes and talking about a Super Bowl mistake. I am fine with putting mistakes in the book, but I am certainly not surprised that of 260+ pages, that is what they would highlight.

“I have, at times reluctantly, gone along with the title, cover, and language in the book. I am not going to be the conductor of a hype train in the book promotion — we have enough hype to work with. I hope we can get on the same page in promoting the book authentically.”

Belichick later Wednesday released a statement through North Carolina, saying the CBS interview was “selectively edited” and suggested a “false narrative.” He also said that he “clearly communicated” with his publicist at Simon & Schuster that promotional interviews would focus only on the book’s contents.

“Unfortunately, that expectation was not honored during the interview,” Belichick said in the statement.

CBS later released a statement saying that the agreement was for a “wide-ranging interview.”

“There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation,” the statement read. “This was confirmed repeatedly with his publisher before the interview took place and after it was completed.”

How did Hudson and Belichick meet?

Hudson and Belichick were seated next to one another on a flight from Massachusetts to Florida in February 2021. Their meeting was documented through photographs of them and of his autograph on the then-21-year-old’s “Deductive Logic” college textbook.

They were seen together in public beginning in 2023 and attended former quarterback Tom Brady’s Patriots Hall of Fame induction ceremony in June. A month earlier, Brady and former Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski zeroed in on Belichick during “The Roast of Tom Brady” on Netflix in May 2024 with good-natured teasing for his and Hudson’s nearly 49-year age difference.

Said Gronkowski: “Coach, you used to talk about Foxborough High School when we sucked. But now I know why you were so obsessed with Foxborough High School: You were scouting your new girlfriend.”

Added Brady: “When somebody asked me which [championship] ring was my favorite, I used to say, ‘The next one.’ Now that I’m retired, my favorite is that Ring camera that caught Coach Belichick slinking out of that poor girl’s house at 6 a.m. a few months ago.”

Snoop Dogg worked in his own shot during his opening monologue at the NFL Honors awards show in February, with Belichick and Hudson in the audience. The rapper was joking about how long he’s been a football fan, saying, “I remember, what was it — Bill Belichick’s girlfriend wasn’t even born yet.”

How involved is Hudson in Belichick’s professional life?

The Athletic obtained emails through an open records request that document Belichick requesting that Hudson be copied on certain correspondence at North Carolina. The 44 pages of emails address his concerns about social media attacks and the optics of hiring his son, Steve, as defensive coordinator. Hudson is not an employee of the university, according to the public records request.

“It is really worth emphasizing the point that Steve has the experience of being a COLLEGE defensive coordinator and will bring a plethora of knowledge to the coaching staff,” Hudson wrote of the former defensive coordinator at the University of Washington.

Hudson’s involvement included a request that staff scrub negative comments about Belichick on the football page of the university website.

“Is there anyone monitoring the UNC Football page for slanderous commentary and subsequently deleting it / blocking users that are harassing BB in the comments?” Hudson asked Feb. 13.

Former Patriots players Julian Edelman and Gronkowski defended Hudson on their “Dudes on Dudes” podcast Wednesday, saying she was “working with Coach Belichick in the professional world” as his publicist. Comedian Nikki Glaser supported that stance in a comment shared to Instagram, writing, “100% this. She’s acting as his publicist. Publicists do this during interviews. People are out for blood.”

Jennifer Schmitt, however, responded by shading her father-in-law’s girlfriend: “Publicists act in a professional manner and don’t ‘storm’ off set delaying an interview,” wrote Schmitt, who’s married to Steve Belichick.

The Athletic also reported that Hudson “played an instrumental role” in stopping the production of a “Hard Knocks” docuseries on the North Carolina program this fall only a few days after an agreement had been reached. In a December 2024 email to North Carolina officials, Hudson identified herself as the chief operating officer of Belichick Productions, although the Athletic could not find evidence of the company’s existence.

NFL Films was scheduled to begin filming March 1, but two days later, the NFL sent an email to North Carolina’s counsel confirming that showmakers “will not proceed with the production of the Belichick project.”

Was Hudson prepared to defend Belichick?

Hudson seemed to brace herself in December for something like this current kerfuffle, writing on her Instagram Stories: “Nothing changed for us in 2024 except for ‘public knowledge’: yet, somehow everything changed. Going strong. I can’t wait to take punches for you in 2025. Keep swinging, Keyboard Warriors. Your illusion of righteousness only fuels my authenticity.”

A different view was articulated by Athletic columnist Steve Buckley, who wrote Wednesday:

“If the plan here was to portray Belichick as cool, what with his social media-savvy girlfriend fending off the old-school, on-set question asker, then the plan failed. Belichick instead came across as somebody who needed saving. And it’s hard watching this interview while defending Belichick as the ever-vigilant micromanager who misses nothing.

“Will this interview inspire the biggest and best recruits to take their talents to Chapel Hill? Doubt it. Will it help get Belichick back on the radar for a head coaching job in the NFL? That’s looking less likely.

“There used to be a Bill Belichick ‘brand.’ Grumpy. Rumpled. Genius. Now there’s a Bill Belichick-Jordon Hudson brand. We’re on to ‘awkward.’”

An Assembly committee backed away on Wednesday night from a controversial provision in a proposed bill to end solar credits for 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems, saying it would apply only to those who sold their homes.

Assembly Bill 942, introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), targeted long-standing programs that provide energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels before April 15, 2025.

As originally drafted, the bill would have limited the current program’s benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. The committee nixed that provision, leaving another that would cancel the program for those selling their homes.

With the amendment, the bill passed 10 to 5, sending it on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Scores of rooftop solar owners attended the hearing, asking the committee members to vote no. Some said that even with the amendment they believed the measure would reduce the value of their home.

“We just put our home up for sale yesterday,” said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley, who is still making payments on a loan he took out to pay for his solar system. “We didn’t expect the state to break its promise to us.”

Calderon, a former executive at Southern California Edison, said she proposed the bill because the financial credits given to rooftop solar owners for excess electricity they send to the grid are raising electric bills for those who don’t own the panels.

Edison and the state’s two other large for-profit electric companies supported the bill, along with members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Major utilities use unionized labor to build and repair equipment, including the lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies installing rooftop panels generally don’t use union workers.

The legislation doesn’t affect customers served by municipal utilities.

Several members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices have been overwhelmed with calls and emails from solar customers.

“I’ve gotten more opposition to this bill than to any other by eight- to tenfold,” said Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita), who voted no.

Before the hearing began, an analyst who reviews legislation for the committee recommended the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cited a state requirement that solar owners sign a consumer protection guide that calls the arrangement a “contract” and says the credits are “guaranteed” for 20 years.

Keeping that provision, said analyst Laura Shybut, the committee’s chief consultant, could pave the way for legal challenges to the legislation.

The bill prompted protests this month by owners of the rooftop solar panels, who said they had invested thousands of dollars in the green energy systems based on assurances the incentives would last for 20 years.

Also opposing the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had installed the rooftop panels.

A group of school districts including Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified and the Alameda County Office of Education filed a letter to the Assembly committee in opposition to the proposed legislation.

“School districts made good faith investments in solar energy technology based on the commitments of the state,” the schools wrote. “It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules.”

“The state should be supporting investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and to promote affordability for all customers, not undermining those who heeded its guidance and mandates to make these investments,” the schools wrote.

Committee members said that with the amendment the schools would no longer be affected.

Also opposing the bill were dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar industry, which argued that electric bills are rising because of excessive utility spending — not from credits given to owners of the green energy systems.

The value of the credits — provided to panel owners at the retail rate of electricity — has increased rapidly as the state Public Utilities Commission voted to approve rate increases requested by the utility companies.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Calderon appeared with members of utility worker unions, saying the credits were shifting billions of dollars in costs to people who did not own the panels, which was especially hurting the poor.

“This is about fairness and equity — nothing more,” she said.

Rooftop solar advocates have challenged that assertion, citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of the owners of the rooftop panels in 2023 had household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% had incomes below $50,000.

Several committee members said Wednesday night that they had heard from solar owners of all income levels.

“I have to push back on the narrative that these are all high-income people,” Schiavo said.

Some also questioned whether those without solar panels would actually see a reduction in their electric bills if the measure passed.

“How much of this will go back to the consumer?” asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel), who voted no. Her question wasn’t answered.

AUSTIN, Texas — Elon Musk has for years made Texas a business home and playground, launching rockets, building cars, and dreaming about creating a utopian enclave for his workers on the rural outskirts of the state capital.

Now, a new Musk project is on the brink of victory: an election Saturday to officially turn a small patch of coastal South Texas — home to his rocket company SpaceX — into a city known as Starbase.

If Musk prevails — which appears likely, since the small number of residents eligible to vote include his employees — it will be a victory for the mega-billionaire whose popularity has waned since he became the chain-saw-wielding public face of President Trump’s federal job and spending cuts, and sunk more than $20 million into a failed effort to tip Wisconsin Supreme Court elections. Profits at his Tesla car company have plummeted.

As of Tuesday, nearly 200 of 283 eligible voters had already cast an early ballot, according to county election records. The list of names so far does not include Musk, who voted in the county in the November elections.

The cosmic dateline sounds like a billionaire’s vanity project in an area where the man and his galactic dreams already enjoy broad support from residents and state and local officials. But there are creeping concerns that the city vote and companion efforts at the state Legislature will give Musk and his company town too much control over access to a popular swimming and camping area known for generations as the “poor people’s beach.”

Setting up a company town

Saturday’s vote to establish Starbase is seen as a done deal.

The proposed city at the southern tip of Texas near the Mexico border is only about 1.5 square miles, crisscrossed by a few roads and dappled with airstream trailers and modest mid-century homes. The polling site is in a building on Memes Street, a cheeky nod to Musk’s social media company X.

Musk first floated the idea of a Starbase city in 2021. SpaceX officials have said little about exactly why they want a company town, and did not respond to messages seeking comment this week. But a fight over beach access highlights at least part of what could be at stake.

SpaceX rocket launches and engine tests, and even just moving certain equipment around the launch base, require closing a local highway and access to Boca Chica State Park and Boca Chica Beach.

Closure currently requires collaboration with surrounding Cameron County. Two bills being considered by state lawmakers would move most of that responsibility to the the new city, just as the company seeks permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to increase the number of launches from five to 25 a year.

SpaceX officials say the bills would streamline beach closures and operations at a company that has contracts with the Department of Defense and NASA for use of its heavy rocket Starship, including a goal to send astronauts back to the moon and eventually Mars.

“This fully reusable rocket system keeps the U.S. ahead of global competitors like China, and it’s being developed right here in South Texas,” Sheila McCorkle, SpaceX vice president of Starship legal and regulatory, wrote to state lawmakers. She noted the company’s $4-billion investments and thousands of jobs in Texas.

“We need to carry on our mission of turning South Texas into the Gateway to Mars and making humankind multiplanetary,” McCorkle wrote.

Public pushback

A legislative hearing this month on the beach access bills drew just a handful of company executives and environmental activists but generated hundreds of comments from supporters and opponents.

Dozens of people who identified themselves as SpaceX workers, scientists and engineers living in the area submitted identical statements: “It improves coordination around beach access during spaceflight activities without increasing closures. This is key to public safety and continued growth of the space industry in Texas.”

Others praised SpaceX’s mission, jobs and investments in the area.

Opponents countered that the state would be giving Musk and his company too much control over a beach that draws tens of thousands of visitors every year.

Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino Jr. said the county has been a good steward for beach closures and that there is no need to move the authority to the new city.

“SpaceX is a strong economic driver in our region, one of which we are extremely proud,” Trevino said in a letter to state lawmakers. “However, we believe that this bill does not serve the public interest and has received an overwhelmingly negative response from our local community,”

Another proposed bill would make it a Class B misdemeanor with up to 180 days in jail if someone doesn’t comply with an order to evacuate the beach. But that measure would only take effect if beach closure authority is shifted to the new city.

In a temporary setback for Musk and SpaceX, a state House panel this week rejected a bill that would shift control of closing beaches for rocket launches from the local county government to the new city.

Bekah Hinojosa, co-founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, has organized protests against the city vote and the beach access issue. The group will hold another protest on Saturday, even though the city will likely be easily approved.

Hinojosa said her organization tried to organize a block walk around SpaceX to encourage voters to reject the city vote. The company’s private security escorted them away, she said.

“We’ve been sounding the alarm about Musk and SpaceX for many years,” Hinojosa said. “Now that the rest of the country is starting to listen, it feels like we’re finally being heard.”

Vertuno writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out Tuesday in support of legislation that sought to increase the punishment to a felony for soliciting a 16- or 17-year-old for sex in California after Democrats in the state Assembly watered down the bill.

“The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim’s age,” Newsom said in a statement first provided to KCRA. “Full stop.”

It’s unusual for the Democratic governor to take a position before a bill reaches his desk, but Newsom has interjected in the legislative process a few times to support increasing penalties for sex crimes against minors, opposing members of his own party.

The bill sought to criminalize loitering with intent to buy sex and build on existing state law to make it a felony to solicit anyone under 18 for sex.

It’s currently a felony in California to pay for sex with a minor under the age of 16. State law also carries stronger felony penalties for sex trafficking a minor under age 18.

Democrats refused to allow the proposal to be heard in a public safety committee hearing Tuesday unless Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who carried the bill, agreed to remove the felony charge for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds from the legislation.

The action from Democrats inspired a wave of criticism about the party’s priorities during the hearing and on social media.

“These are girls, and these are people that our society should be doing everything they can to protect,” Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) said during the hearing. “So why are we protecting the predator?”

Democrats defended the decision and said they will hold additional hearings on the topic in the future.

Southern California Edison has repeatedly insisted that its former government affairs manager, state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), was never an executive with the company.

But that’s not what Edison told the federal government.

Calderon is sponsoring legislation favored by Edison that would slash the credits that many homeowners receive for generating electricity with rooftop solar panels.

Edison has objected to The Times’ identifying Calderon as a former executive for the utility, claiming on its website that the news organization is “choosing sensationalism over facts.”

But in its official reports to the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Edison International — the utility’s parent company — listed Calderon’s occupation as an executive in more than a dozen filings made before she left the company in 2020 to run for office.

An example of the reports that Edison International’s political action committee filed with the Federal Election Commission.

All the filings were signed by the PAC’s treasurer saying that “to the best of my knowledge and belief” the information “is true, correct and complete.”

Asked to explain the contradiction, Edison spokeswoman Kathleen Dunleavy said that the company was referring in its filings with the commission to a broad class of individuals that met requirements for executive as defined by the commission, but not by Edison itself.

Edison uses the term to “designate someone in a high position of authority,” she said, such as “an employee director, vice president or similar title.” Because Edison didn’t consider Calderon an executive, she said, others shouldn’t either.

Calderon told The Times earlier that she was a senior advisor of government affairs at Edison International. In other biographies, she is described as government affairs director. On Monday, she said her official title was government affairs manager.

For years, she managed the parent company’s political action committee.

In a statement, Calderon said she had not filled out the political action committee’s reports. Instead they were prepared and filed by the company’s law firm, she said.

“Due to her professional responsibilities, she was categorized as an executive for FEC filing purposes,” her office said. “That does not mean that she was an executive at Edison.”

For years, Lisa Calderon managed Edison International’s Political Action Committee

(EIPAC — 2019 Annual Report)

Calderon’s AB 942 would sharply reduce the financial credits that the owners of rooftop panels receive when they send unused power to the grid.

The bill applies to those who installed the panels before April 15, 2023. It would limit the current program’s benefits to 10 years — half of the 20-year period that the state had told the rooftop owners they would receive. The bill also would cancel the solar contracts if the homes were sold. It wouldn’t apply to customers served by municipal electric utilities.

Edison and the state’s other big for-profit utilities have long fought to reduce the energy credits aimed at getting Californians to invest in rooftop solar panels. The popularity of the systems has cut into electricity sales.

Calderon, Edison and other supporters of the bill point to an analysis by the California Public Utility Commission’s Public Advocates Office that found the energy credits given to the rooftop owners were increasing the electric bills of those who don’t have solar panels.

The bill’s first hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

Edison has been under scrutiny since Jan. 7, when videos captured the devastating Eaton wildfire igniting under one of its transmission towers. The wildfire killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes, businesses and other structures in Altadena.

Edison says it is cooperating with investigators working to determine the cause of the inferno.

“No one here is happy.”

That was the message from “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley at the end of Sunday’s program, in which he paid tribute to departing executive producer Bill Owens, who resigned last week citing increasing corporate interference in the venerable show.

“Bill resigned Tuesday,” Pelley said. “It was hard on him and hard on us, but he did it for us and you.”

Owens had battled efforts at CBS parent company Paramount Global to settle a $20-billion lawsuit filed by President Trump regarding the network’s October interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Paramount Global is looking to get government approval for a merger deal with David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

“Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” Pelley told viewers in a segment called “The Last Minute.” “None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

“60 Minutes” personnel have never been shy about addressing internal battles with the network. But presenting unhappiness over a company-related matter on the air in front of a viewing audience of millions is highly unusual.

A representative for CBS said Monday that the company had no comment on Pelley’s remarks.

According to one journalist at the network who was not authorized to speak publicly, Paramount Global majority shareholder Shari Redstone has asked for story line-ups ahead of the broadcasts in recent months. When asked if any stories had been killed, the person said, “Not yet.”

Trump’s lawsuit claiming the interview with Harris was deceptively edited is expected to go before a mediator this week.

But since it was filed, “60 Minutes” has continued to aggressively cover the Trump White House. Sunday’s edition included a segment on budget and job cuts at the National Institutes of Health and how they will harm medical research.

Owens, who is still working at the program for a few more weeks, was known for being protective of the program’s independence.

“If you’ve ever worked hard for a boss because you admired him, then you understand what we’ve enjoyed here,” Pelley said.