SACRAMENTO — California’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort.
California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.
The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress.
In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort.
In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature.
The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal.
The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the state could enact “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon.
Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters.
“When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef,” said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).
Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission’s work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday.
If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4.
On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges.
After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis).
“I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,” Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours.
Tangipa and the committee’s vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort.
Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation.
“That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,” Tangipa said. “How can you say you actually care about the people of California?
Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long.
In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented.
Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.”
But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn’t answer, because he “wasn’t a part of that process.”
In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt.
“This is a partisan gerrymander,” she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”
Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, “It made me salivate.”
California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state’s independent redistricting rules because they would not “call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”
But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill.
“it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,” the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code … would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.”
After a tense and sharply divided debate Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council voted to oppose a state bill that aims to vastly expand high-density housing near public transit hubs, arguing that the state should leave important planning decisions to local legislators.
The council voted 8 to 5 to opposeSenate Bill 79, which seeks to mitigate the state’s housing shortage by allowing buildings of up to nine stories near certain train stops and slightly smaller buildings near some bus stops throughout California.
“A one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento is not safe, and it’s not responsible,” said City Councilmember Traci Park at a news conference before the vote.
Park, who was joined at the news conference by Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and John Lee, said the bill was an attempt by its sponsor, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), and other state legislators to “hijack” local planning from the city.
Lee, who authored the resolution opposing the bill, called it “not planning” but “chaos.”
Wiener lamented the City Council’s vote.
“Opponents of SB 79 are offering no real solutions to address our housing shortage at the scale needed to make housing more affordable,” Wiener said in a statement. “California’s affordability crisis threatens our economy, our diversity, and our fundamental strength as a state.”
In addition to creating more affordable housing, the bill would increase public transit ridership, reduce traffic and help the state meet its climate goals, he said.
Councilmember Nithya Raman, who voted against opposing the bill, said the city’s housing crisis is so dire that the council needs to work with the drafters of the bill — even if there are elements of it they do not support.
“Overall, we talk a lot about our housing crisis on this body, but our actions have not met the moment,” she said. “If I thought that this body was acting in good faith to address our housing crisis, I would support this [resolution].”
The bill, which passed the Senate and is before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would allow heights of nine stories near major transit hubs, such as certain Metro train stops in L.A. A quarter-mile from a stop, buildings could be seven stories tall, and a half-mile from a stop, they could be six stories. Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be included in the new zoning rules.
Near smaller transit stops, such as light rail or bus rapid transit, the allowed heights would be slightly lower.
Next week, the Appropriations Committee will determine whether the bill goes to the Assembly floor for a vote. If passed in both chambers, the bill would go to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign by mid-October.
The City Council’s resolution opposing the bill has no binding effect on the state Legislature but gives the council a platform to potentially lobby in Sacramento against its passage. The resolution also called for the city to be exempt from the bill because it has a state-approved housing plan.
“If they hadn’t taken a position on this, the state Legislature would say, ‘Well, the city of L.A. doesn’t care,’” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former City Council member and now the director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.
Mayor Karen Bass has not yet taken a position on the bill. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto came out against it in May, arguing that it would cost the city billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure such as sewage and electrical systems to handle an influx of residents in previously low-density neighborhoods.
Wiener’s office said the bill allows for cities to exempt some properties near transit hubs if they meet density guidelines.
This year, the City Council passed the Citywide Housing Incentive Program, which provides incentives for developers to build market-rate and affordable units and aims to boost building along commercial corridors and in dense residential neighborhoods.
The council passed the ordinance, which left single-family zones largely untouched after pushback from homeowners groups, a week before a state deadline for the city to have a housing plan in place. As part of the plan, the city was required to find land where an additional 255,000 homes could be built.
Watching the often vitriolic debates in Congress these days can be disturbing. But disagreement and debate are part of our national DNA. Consider the Bill of Rights, which was as controversial when it was first debated as parts of it still are today.
FOR THE RECORD: Rights: An Op-Ed article Monday on the Bill of Rights said it was ratified 118 years ago. It was ratified 218 years ago. —
The founders of our country, united in the revolution, were divided over the issue of including a bill of rights in the Constitution of 1787. And although those first 10 amendments were eventually ratified — 118 years ago today — the outcome was at times in doubt.
James Madison and other Federalists opposed adding a bill of rights. They argued that the document hammered out at the Constitutional Convention granted only limited powers to the national government and that it was therefore unnecessary to enumerate rights the new government had no power to abridge. They also argued that by enumerating specific rights, other unnamed rights might not be protected.
Virginia delegate George Mason argued vehemently for a bill of rights. When the majority at the convention failed to act, he and two others refused to sign the completed Constitution. The Anti-Federalists, among them Patrick Henry, argued that the strong national government proposed in the Constitution threatened state sovereignty and individual rights.
The lack of a bill of rights provoked conflict as states debated ratifying the Constitution. Five states ratified easily, but a strong, organized opposition emerged at the Massachusetts convention. Finally, two delegates, John Adams and John Hancock, negotiated a compromise. Massachusetts would ratify but would also recommend amendments to the Constitution to the new Congress.
Subsequent states made similar calls for amendments, many about safeguarding basic rights. After the Constitution was finally ratified, the first Congress met and took up the question of rights. Responding to seven states’ calls for amendments, Rep. James Madison addressed the House on the issue. Originally in opposition, Madison had changed his mind. He prepared the list of amendments that, after much more debate, conflict and compromise, became our Bill of Rights.
Today we still debate the Bill of Rights. But these debates focus on the meaning of the amendments, not their inclusion.
Consider the 2nd Amendment. Can everyone have as many guns or any kind of gun, or can guns be restricted, registered and regulated?
What does the 1st Amendment mean? Can the Ten Commandments be displayed in government buildings? What place does prayer have in public schools?
Then there are the due process rights contained in the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. Are prisoners held by the U.S. in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, entitled to those rights?
We may disagree, but these and many other issues that we care about — that define our lives — are debated and contested based on those words written so long ago.
Given the nature of modern political discourse, too often driven by partisanship, power-seeking and punditry, one wonders if we would be able to craft a constitution or a bill of rights today.
Indeed, can we even manage to address the controversial issues that do face us? How many Madisons are out there willing to compromise or reverse positions for the good of the country?
For our democracy to continue to flourish, we must have an educated and involved citizenry. We must have leaders who can debate and compromise to find solutions to our vexing problems.
And we must educate our young people to take these civic roles in the future. This vital task must be borne by both parents and schools.
Research shows that parents can play a major role in the development of their children’s civic education. You can make a big difference by engaging your children in discussions about issues and politics, watching and discussing the news with them, and by taking them to the polls or public meetings with you.
Schools must encourage civic learning. Students should have plenty of practice in structured discussion of politics and controversial issues to help them learn to analyze cause and effect and multiple points of view, present fact- and logic-based opinions, and listen to what others have to say.
Research shows that students who have the opportunity to participate in simulations such as legislative hearings, mock trials and, yes, even constitutional conventions not only learn more but develop greater civic skills and interest in politics.
Although we need to make sure our children are proficient in math and reading, it is vitally important to the future of our democracy that they also learn what it means to be a competent and involved citizen.
We celebrate the Bill of Rights, not only for its importance but because of the actions that brought it into being — the passionate and reasonable contributions of wise leaders and active citizens.
Jonathan Estrin and Marshall Croddy are president and vice president, respectively, of the Constitutional Rights Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit dedicated to civic education.
Peruvian President Dina Boluarte has signed into law a controversial piece of legislation that would shield the military, police and other government-sanctioned forces from prosecution for human rights abuses committed during the country’s decades-long internal conflict.
On Wednesday, Boluarte held a signing ceremony at the presidential palace in Lima, where she defended the amnesty law as a means of honouring the sacrifices made by government forces.
“This is a historic day for our country,” she said. “It brings justice and honour to those who stood up to terrorism.”
But human rights groups and international observers have condemned the bill as a violation of international law — not to mention a denial of justice for the thousands of survivors who lived through the conflict.
From 1980 to 2000, Peru experienced a bloody conflict that pitted government forces against left-wing rebel groups like the Shining Path.
Both sides, however, committed massacres, kidnappings and assaults on unarmed civilians, with the death toll from the conflict climbing as high as 70,000 people.
Up until present, survivors and family members of the deceased have continued to fight for accountability.
An estimated 600 investigations are currently under way, and 156 convictions have been achieved, according to the National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of Peruvian human rights organisations.
Critics fear those ongoing probes could be scuttled under the wide-ranging protections offered by the new amnesty law, which stands to benefit soldiers, police officers and members of self-defence committees who face legal proceedings for which no final verdict has been rendered.
The legislation also offers “humanitarian” amnesty for those convicted over the age of 70.
Peru, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ordered the country’s government to “immediately suspend the processing” of the law on July 24.
The court ruled against past amnesty laws in Peru. In cases of severe human rights violations, it ruled that there can be no sweeping amnesty nor age limits for prosecution.
In 1995, for instance, Peru passed a separate amnesty law that would have prevented the prosecution of security forces for human rights abuses between 1980 and that year. But it was greeted with widespread condemnation, including from United Nations experts, and it was eventually repealed.
In the case of the current amnesty law, nine UN experts issued a joint letter in July condemning its passage as a “clear breach of [Peru’s] obligations under international law”.
But at Wednesday’s signing ceremony, President Boluarte reiterated her position that such international criticism was a violation of her country’s sovereignty and that she would not adhere to the Inter-American Court’s decision.
“Peru is honouring its defenders and firmly rejecting any internal or external interference,” Boluarte said.
“We cannot allow history to be distorted, for perpetrators to pretend to be victims, and for the true defenders of the homeland to be branded as enemies of the nation they swore to protect.”
Peru’s armed forces, however, have been implicated in a wide range of human rights abuses. Just last year, 10 soldiers were convicted of carrying out the systematic rape of Indigenous and rural women and girls.
Drawing from Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, the human rights group Amnesty International estimates that the country’s armed forces and police were responsible for 37 percent of the deaths and disappearances that happened during the conflict.
They were also credited with carrying out 75 percent of the reported instances of torture and 83 percent of sexual violence cases.
Francisco Ochoa, a victims’ advocate, spoke to Al Jazeera last month about his experiences surviving the 1985 Accomarca massacre as a 14-year-old teenager.
He had been in the corn fields preparing to sow seeds when soldiers arrived and rounded up the residents of his small Andean village.
Despite having no evidence linking the villagers to rebel groups, the soldiers locked many of them in their huts, fired into the structures and set them ablaze.
As many as 62 people were killed, including Ochoa’s mother, eight-year-old brother and six-year-old sister.
“The first thing I remember from that day is the smell when we arrived,” Ochoa, now 54, told journalist Claudia Rebaza. “It smelled like smouldering flesh, and there was no one around.”
When asked how he and other survivors felt about the amnesty law, Ochoa responded, “Outraged and betrayed”.
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan visited Capitol Hill just weeks after Inauguration Day, with other administration officials and a singular message: They needed money for the White House’s border security and mass deportation agenda.
By summer, Congress delivered.
The Republican Party’s big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that Trump signed into law July 4 included what’s arguably the biggest boost of funds yet to the Department of Homeland Security — nearly $170 billion, almost double its annual budget.
The staggering sum is powering the nation’s sweeping new Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, delivering gripping scenes of people being pulled off city streets and from job sites across the nation — the cornerstone of Trump’s promise for the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Homeland Security confirmed over the weekend ICE is working to set up detention sites at certain military bases.
“We’re getting them out at record numbers,” Trump said at the White House bill signing ceremony. “We have an obligation to, and we’re doing it.”
Money flows, and so do questions
The crush of new money is setting off alarms in Congress and beyond, raising questions from lawmakers in both major political parties who are expected to provide oversight. The bill text provided general funding categories — almost $30 billion for ICE officers, $45 billion for detention facilities, $10 billion for the office of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — but few policy details or directives. Homeland Security recently announced $50,000 ICE hiring bonuses.
And it’s not just the big bill’s fresh infusion of funds fueling the president’s agenda of 1 million deportations a year.
In the months since Trump took office, his administration has been shifting as much as $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other accounts to pay for immigration enforcement and deportation operations, lawmakers said.
“Your agency is out of control,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Noem during a Senate committee hearing in the spring.
The senator warned that Homeland Security would “go broke” by July.
Noem quickly responded that she always lives within her budget.
But Murphy said later in a letter to Homeland Security, objecting to its repurposing funds, that ICE was being directed to spend at an “indefensible and unsustainable rate to build a mass deportation army,” often without approval from Congress.
This past week, the new Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, along with a subcommittee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, requested a briefing from Noem on the border security components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which included $46 billion over the next four years for Trump’s long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall.
“We write today to understand how the Department plans to outlay this funding to deliver a strong and secure homeland for years to come,” the GOP lawmakers said in a letter to the homeland security secretary, noting border apprehensions are at record lows.
“We respectfully request that you provide Committee staff with a briefing on the Department’s plan to disburse OBBBA funding,” they wrote, seeking a response by Aug. 22.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press the department is in daily discussions with the committee “to honor all briefing requests including the spend plan for the funds allocated” through the new law.
“ICE is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity,” she said. “This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.”
Deportations move deep into communities
All together, it’s what observers on and off Capitol Hill see as a fundamental shift in immigration policy — enabling DHS to reach far beyond the U.S. southern border and deep into communities to conduct raids and stand up detention facilities as holding camps for immigrants.
The Defense Department, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies are being enlisted in what Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, calls a “whole of government” approach.
“They’re orienting this huge shift,” Bush-Joseph said, as deportation enforcement moves “inward.”
The flood of cash comes when Americans’ views on immigration are shifting. Polling showed 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, having jumped substantially from 64% a year ago, according to Gallup. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now.
At the same time, Trump’s approval rating on immigration has slipped. According to a July AP-NORC poll, 43% of U.S. adults said they approved of his handling of immigration, down slightly from 49% in March.
Americans are watching images of often masked officers arresting college students, people at Home Depot lots, parents, workers and a Tunisian musician. Stories abound of people being whisked off to detention facilities, often without allegations of wrongdoing beyond being unauthorized to remain in the U.S.
A new era of detention centers
Detention centers are being stood up, from “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida to the repurposed federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, and the proposed new “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana. Flights are ferrying migrants not just home or to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison but far away to Africa and beyond.
Homan has insisted in recent interviews those being detained and deported are the “worst of the worst,” and he dismissed as “garbage” the reports showing many of those being removed have not committed violations beyond their irregular immigration status.
“There’s no safe haven here,” Homan said recently outside the White House. “We’re going to do exactly what President Trump has promised the American people he’d do.”
Back in February, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, emerged from their private meeting saying Trump administration officials were “begging for money.”
As Graham got to work, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a leading deficit hawk, proposed an alternative border package, at $39 billion, a fraction of the size.
But Paul’s proposal was quickly dismissed. He was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who joined all Democrats in voting against the final tax and spending cuts bill.
Lula approved the controversial bill easing environmental licensing rules, but struck down or altered 63 articles.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has signed into law a bill easing environmental licensing rules, but bowed to pressure from activist groups as he vetoed key provisions that would have made it easier for companies to secure environmental permits.
Lula approved on Friday what detractors have dubbed the “devastation bill”, but struck down or altered 63 of its nearly 400 articles, his office’s executive secretary, Miriam Belchior, told reporters.
The president had faced mounting pressure from environmental groups to intervene in the bill, which was backed by Brazil’s powerful agribusiness sector and focused on rolling back strict licensing rules that had kept the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in check.
A previous version of the bill adopted by lawmakers last month would have meant that for some permits, all that would have been required is a simple declaration of the company’s environmental commitment.
Lula’s revisions, however, reinstated the current strict licensing rules for strategic projects.
Belchior said the new proposal sought to preserve the integrity of the licensing process, ensure legal certainty, and protect the rights of Indigenous and Quilombola communities.
She added that Lula will introduce a “Special Environmental Licence” designed to fast-track strategic projects while filling the legal gaps created by the vetoes.
“We maintained what we consider to be significant advances in streamlining the environmental licensing process,” she said.
Nongovernmental organisation SOS Atlantic Forest, which garnered more than a million signatures calling for a veto of the law, hailed Lula’s move as “a victory” for environmental protection.
Lula’s environmental vetoes
Of the provisions struck down by Lula, 26 were vetoed outright, while another 37 will either be replaced with alternative text or modified in a new bill that will be sent to Congress for ratification under a constitutional urgency procedure.
Securing support for the amendments is far from guaranteed for the leftist leader. Brazil’s conservative-dominated Congress has repeatedly defeated key government proposals, including overturning previous presidential vetoes.
Lawmakers aligned with embattled ex-president Jair Bolsonaro are also blocking legislative activity amid an escalating political standoff, as they call for the former president’s charges around an alleged failed coup attempt in 2022 to be dropped.
Speaking at a Friday news conference in the capital, Brasilia, Environment Minister Marina Silva maintained a positive tone, telling reporters that Lula’s vetoes would ensure that “the economy does not compete with ecology, but rather they are part of the same equation”.
“We hope to be able to streamline licensing processes without compromising their quality, which is essential for environmental protection at a time of climate crisis, biodiversity loss and desertification,” said Silva.
Silva said a previous version of the bill, approved by Congress last month, threatened the country’s pledge to eliminate deforestation by 2030 and described it as a “death blow” to Brazil’s licensing framework.
But, she said, Lula’s revised version meant Brazil’s “targets to reach zero deforestation” and its goal to “cut CO2 emissions by between 59 percent and 67 percent remain fully on track”.
Lula’s environmental credentials are under close scrutiny in advance of the annual UN climate summit in November in the Amazon city of Belem.
State lawmakers are considering a bill meant to protect access to HIV prevention drugs for insured Californians as threats from the federal government continue.
Assembly Bill 554 would require health plans and insurers to cover all antiretroviral drugs used for PrEP and PEP regimens. The drugs just have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and would not require prior authorization. The bill would also prevent health plans from forcing patients to first try a less expensive drug before choosing a more expensive, specialty option.
The bill requires insurance providers to cover these drugs without cost-sharing with patients, and it limits the ability of insurers and employers to review treatments to determine medical necessity. To streamline reimbursements and expand the range of PrEP medications doctors can pick for their patients, the legislation allows providers to directly bill insured patients’ pharmaceutical benefit plans.
The state bill would act “as a shield against this administration’s cruelty,” said California Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) who co-sponsored AB 554 with Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco).
A recent cause for alarm among LGBTQ+ health advocates, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, is news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to replace the entire U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because its 16 appointed members are too “woke,” according to unnamed individuals cited by the Journal.
At a news conference Monday, Kennedy confirmed that he is reviewing the makeup of the panel, adding that he hasn’t made a final decision.
The bill was introduced earlier in the year out of fear that Kennedy’s skepticism about vaccines might spill over into HIV/PrEP drug coverage and because of worries that President Trump would dismantle the task force, González said.
The task force wields immense influence, making recommendations about which cancer screenings, tests for chronic diseases and preventive medications are beneficial for Americans and therefore should be covered by insurers — including drugs for HIV/AIDS prevention.
Drugs prescribed in a PrEP regimen — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — block the virus that causes AIDS from multiplying in a person’s body. They can be taken in either pill or injection form on an ongoing basis. PEP refers to post-exposure prophylaxis and involves taking medication within 72 hours of potential exposure and for a short period of time, in order to prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Both regimens are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS when used correctly.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 by congressional authorization to issue evidence-based advice to physicians on which screenings and preventive medicines are worth considering for their healthy patients. The panel’s recommendations are closely watched by professional societies when adopting guidelines for their clinician members. In many cases, when insurers are on the fence about whether to cover a given screening or diagnostic test, they’ll turn to the panel’s recommendations.
The panel, made up of doctors, nurses, health psychologists, epidemiologists and statisticians who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine and who serve four-year terms on a voluntary basis, is meant to be free from conflicts of interest and outside influences.
When it comes to HIV prevention, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to back up the task force with its July 11 ruling in Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which upheld a key mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover preventive care, including for HIV.
However, in the same ruling, the court also declared that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to review decisions made by the task force, and to remove members at his or her discretion.
“The task force has done very little over the past five years,” Kennedy said at Monday’s news conference. “We want to make sure that it is performing, that it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public.”
González said he worries that the Supreme Court gave the administration a new way to meddle in the healthcare decisions of LGBTQ+ people.
“The Braidwood decision was both a relief and a wake-up call,” González said. “While it upheld the Preventive Services Task Force’s existing recommendations — keeping protections for PrEP, cancer screenings, and vaccines intact — it handed unprecedented authority to RFK Jr. to reshape that very task force and place existing protections under direct threat once again.”
González described AB 554 as “a measure to protect LGBTQ+ Californians and ensure we never return to the neglect and devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis.” The state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the bill on Aug. 29.
“These attacks aren’t isolated,” the lawmaker said. “They are coordinated, deliberate, and aimed squarely at our most vulnerable communities.”
Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary are among a range of high-profile people to be sent subpoenas from a congressional committee investigating deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Republican James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued the subpoenas on Tuesday to the Clintons, as well as eight other individuals.
The committee is seeking information about Epstein’s history, after President Donald Trump’s administration decided against releasing more federal files on the late financier.
That decision sparked outrage among Trump’s supporters and some Democrats, as many believe the files include a “client list” of famous men affiliated with Epstein.
As the rift between Trump and his conservative base on Epstein continues to widen, the committee, made up of both Democrats and Republicans, recently voted to issue the subpoenas.
They cast a wide net across justice department leadership during the George W Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, and the committee also subpoenaed the department itself for records related to Epstein.
Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, had indicated she was willing to testify before the powerful investigatory committee, with strict legal protections. Her scheduled 11 August deposition, though, has been postponed indefinitely.
The Epstein legal saga has spanned two decades, with Florida police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation first scrutinising the well-connected man for allegations of sexual abuse in the early 2000s.
Comer wrote in letters to each person that the committee must “conduct oversight of the federal government’s enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr Epstein” and Maxwell.
He also indicated that depositions will start this month and run through the fall, with Bill Clinton scheduled for 14 October.
Former attorneys general Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales, were summoned, along with Jeff Sessions and William Barr, who both led the department during Trump’s first term. Former FBI directors James Comey and Robert Mueller were also sent subpoenas.
The Clinton administration predates the Epstein investigation, but the couple’s critics have long questioned their relationship with Epstein.
A spokesperson has acknowledged that Bill Clinton took four trips with staff on Epstein’s private plane in 2002 and 2003, and met with Epstein in New York in 2002. Clinton also visited Epstein’s New York apartment around that time.
The letters to each Clinton cites these incidents, as well as other alleged encounters and connections, as reasons for summoning them.
In 2019, a spokesman said the former president “knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York.”
The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Department of Justice had no comment.
The committee is seeking all of the department’s documents and communications on Epstein and Maxwell “relating or referring to human trafficking, exploitation of minors, sexual abuse, or related activity”, as well as files from the US criminal cases against Maxwell and Epstein, documents from a 2007 agreement to not prosecute Epstein and federal investigations into the former financier.
It is not immediately clear if individuals named by Comer will appear before the committee and, if they do, whether they will testify publicly.
Over the last 200 years, only four other former Presidents have received subpoenas from congressional committees, and only two provided testimony.
Notably, the committee investigating the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot voted during a televised hearing to subpoena Trump, who then sued to stop it. The subpoena was dropped when the committee disbanded.
Federal prosecutors charged Epstein with sex trafficking of minors and other crimes in 2019, during the first Trump administration.
He died by suicide in jail that August, and almost immediately afterward many began questioning the circumstances of his death.
This summer, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her department, after conducting a review, had found no evidence of the long-rumoured “client list”. She also said evidence supported that Epstein died by suicide and the government would not release any more files.
The announcements sparked outrage among some supporters of Trump, who promised in his campaign to release the records.
As demands grew for Trump for more Epstein records, the justice department recently met with Maxwell, and it is currently seeking to release grand jury transcripts from her case. On Tuesday, Maxwell’s lawyer said she opposed the release of the transcripts.
The BBC has asked the White House for comment on the subpoenas.
A woman has claimed she was “unfairly” charged by easyJet when she was travelling from London Luton Airport to Paris – and she said the experience only got worse
10:01, 02 Aug 2025Updated 10:01, 02 Aug 2025
She couldn’t believe what happened (stock image)(Image: PATRICIA DE MELO MOREIRA, AFP via Getty Images)
Travelling to the airport can be a stressful experience, and it can be even worse when things go wrong. This is exactly what appeared to happen to one woman when her easyJet flight wasn’t what she expected for more than one reason.
Emi, who shares her life on TikTok under the username emilia.petcu, recounted her less-than-pleasant experience travelling from London Luton Airport to Paris. She felt “unfairly” overcharged and described her flight as a “poor experience”, which cast a shadow over her Parisian getaway.
In her video, Emi alleges that easyJet hit her with a £96.00 fee for a backpack she believed complied with the cabin policy and should have fit under the seat. She branded the last-minute charge as “unfair”, despite airlines’ usual reminders to passengers to verify baggage rules before flying.
But the troubles didn’t stop there, as she also claimed the aircraft was dirty, adding to her travel woes. Her post included the caption: “The experience only got worse on board. The airplane was dirty, with poor hygiene and cleanliness conditions.
“The flight was delayed without clear updates.”
Content cannot be displayed without consent
Emi documented the journey, which took place on July 24, showing both the bill and the state of the plane. Visuals of crumbs and rubbish strewn around her seating area did little to improve her impression of the airline.
The video has racked up a fair number of views since being posted, sparking a flurry of comments from viewers sharing their diverse opinions and experiences.
One viewer recounted: “This happened to me. I complained to easyJet and they gave me the amount in a voucher.”
Another chimed in with a similar experience, adding: “I had the same thing at Luton.”
A third shared their luggage strategy: “I’ve used the same backpack for the last three to four years with different airlines.”
Meanwhile, another commenter offered straightforward advice: “Follow the rules, no charges – simple.”
Some commenters came to the airline’s defence, offering an alternative viewpoint. One person pointed out: “Please bear in mind the staff have six to eight minutes to clean the plane and, if they are late, it’s 90% of the time not their fault.
“It can be if the plane in front of them was late taking off or landing – it delays others.”
Another person wrote: “Blame the set of passengers for leaving the mess, not the crew. If they were to tidy it, the flight would be delayed and they would get bother from the airline for being late and the passengers too.”
In the video, Emi didn’t showcase her bag, leaving viewers unable to judge its size; she only displayed the receipt given to her by staff upon paying the fee.
easyJet has not commented on this particular case, but the airline did issue a statement regarding its baggage policy. It read: “easyJet’s bag policy is well understood and all customers can bring one small under seat bag for free.
“We provide clear information on bag allowances including dimensions clear when booking, via email before travel and on our boarding passes and our ground handlers check bags to ensure they will fit in the cabin, and in fairness to customers who have paid to bring additional bags.”
The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, which represents hundreds of companies mostly from the United States, opposes the introduction of a controversial pro-labor bill in South Korea. Photo courtesy of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea
SEOUL, July 31 (UPI) — Organizations that represent global corporations in South Korea have raised concerns about the so-called “Yellow Envelope Law,” a pro-labor bill that the ruling Democratic Party is seeking to pass with its parliamentary majority.
The bill is intended to protect subcontracted workers, limit corporate lawsuits seeking damages from strikes and expand legal responsibility for company executives who avoid collective bargaining.
“A flexible labor environment is essential to strengthening Korea’s competitiveness as a business hub in the Asia-Pacific region,” American Chamber of Commerce in Korea Chairman and CEO James Kim said in a statement Wednesday.
“If enacted in its current form, this legislation could influence future investment decisions by American companies considering Korea,” he said..
Regulatory unpredictability remains one of the top challenges for foreign-invested companies in Korea. This legislation may add to that uncertainty and, in turn, undermine Korea’s global competitiveness.”
The warning came after the National Assembly’s Environment and Labor Committee passed the Yellow Envelope Law on Monday, which is waiting for a decision in the Democratic Party-dominated plenary session.
The bill, which was twice vetoed by former President Yoon Suk-yeol, is highly likely to move forward under incumbent President Lee Jae-myung, who has overtly supported its introduction.
Should the law be enacted, the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea indicated that it could prompt foreign companies to leave the country.
“Given the numerous criminal sanctions imposed on employers under the Trade Union Act, this vague and expanded definition may treat business operators as potential criminals and significantly discourage business activity,” the chamber commented in a statement.
“The impact is particularly severe for foreign-invested companies, which are highly sensitive to legal risks stemming from labor regulations,” it added.
The two chambers represent hundreds of corporate members from the United States and Europe, respectively.
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that bars Planned Parenthood and other large nonprofit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for a host of unrelated healthcare services.
The measure has threatened clinics across the country that rely on federal funding to operate. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who is helping to lead the litigation, called it a “cruel, backdoor abortion ban” that violates the law in multiple ways.
The states’ challenge comes one day after Planned Parenthood won a major victory in its own lawsuit over the measure in Boston, where a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect against Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide.
Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions, but the new “defund provision” in the bill passed by congressional Republicans earlier this month goes further. It also bars nonprofit abortion providers that generated $800,000 or more in annual Medicaid revenue in 2023 from receiving any such funding for the next year — including for services unrelated to abortion, such as annual checkups, cancer screenings, birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that the measure “stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion,” that Congress under the constitution is “free to decline to provide taxpayer funds to entities that provide abortions,” and that Planned Parenthood’s position should not hold sway over that of Congress.
In announcing the states’ lawsuit Monday, Bonta’s office echoed Planned Parenthood officials in asserting that the provision specifically and illegally targets Planned Parenthood and its affiliate clinics — calling it “a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color.”
Bonta’s office said the measure threatened $300 million in federal funding for clinics in California, where Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider, and “jeopardized the stability” of Planned Parenthood’s 114 clinics across the state, which serve about 700,000 patients annually — many of whom use Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.
During a virtual news conference Monday, Bonta noted that federal funds already don’t cover abortions. He said the new provision was “punishment for Planned Parenthood’s constitutionally protected advocacy for abortion” and “a direct attack on access to essential healthcare for millions who rely on Medicaid.”
“The Trump administration and Congress are actually gutting essential lifesaving care, like cancer screenings and STI testing, simply because Planned Parenthood has spoken out in support of reproductive rights,” Bonta said. “The hypocrisy is really hard to ignore. A party that claims to be defenders of free speech only seem to care about it when it aligns with their own agenda.”
Bonta added: “Rest assured, California will continue to lead as a reproductive freedom state, and will continue to defend healthcare as a human right.”
In their lawsuit, the states argue that the measure is unlawfully ambiguous and violates the spending powers of Congress by singling out Planned Parenthood for negative treatment, and that it will harm people’s health and increase the cost of Medicaid programs for states by more than $50 million over the next decade.
In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood also argued that the measure intentionally singled it and its affiliates out for punishment, in violation of their constitutional rights, including free speech.
In granting Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote Monday that she was “not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.”
Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote that she also was not requiring the federal government “to spend money not already appropriated for Medicaid or any other funds.”
Instead, Talwani wrote, her order blocks the Trump administration from “targeting a specific group of entities — Planned Parenthood Federation members — for exclusion from reimbursements under the Medicaid program,” as they were likely to prove that “such targeted exclusion violates the United States Constitution.”
In a statement to The Times on Tuesday, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the “Big, Beautiful Bill” was “legally passed by both chambers of the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Chief Executive,” and Talwani’s order granting the injunction was “not only absurd but illogical and incorrect.”
“It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch. We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Fields said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on the states’ lawsuit.
Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, joined Bonta during his news conference. She welcomed the states’ lawsuit, saying “an attack this severe requires a multi-pronged response with both short and long term strategies.”
Hicks said it’s particularly important that California is helping to fight back, given the huge stakes for the state.
“California is the most impacted state across the country because of the volume of patients that we have, but also because of the amount of Medicaid that our state takes,” she said. “It speaks to our values. And this defund provision is certainly [an] attack on values — most heavily on California.”
Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
Bonta noted the lawsuit is the 36th his office has filed against the Trump administration in the last 27 weeks.
NASHVILLE — The private lives of public figures have increasingly become part of the national scene. Usually, they are caught in the spotlight; they do not turn it on themselves.
Not so in Nashville. Here, Mayor Bill Boner, 45, who is divorcing his third wife, is involved in a most public romance with his fiancee, Traci Peel, a 34-year-old country singer who sports a 2.2-carat engagement ring. Details of their sex life are discussed on radio talk shows, in local newspapers. And the most volatile revelations came from the couple themselves.
Last month the Nashville Banner reported that Peel and Boner, during a telephone interview, giggled and joked about their sexual prowess, saying they had been caught by the reporter “at a bad time.” At one point, Peel said Boner remained amorous as long as seven hours.
“That’s pretty good for a 46-year-old man,” Peel said.
“Forty-five,” Boner corrected, talking on an extension.
Later, Peel said she was just joking.
But that was only the beginning of the uproar here. Nationally, the tabloids, both print and television, have had a ball. The Nashville Scene, a local weekly newspaper, ran a contest to complete this sentence: “You are so Nashville if . . . “
The winner, from Maralee Self: “Your mayor is married and engaged at the same time.”
An oft-repeated joke here, which betrays some disgust with Boner, takes a feminine voice: “If he’d made love to me for seven minutes, it’d seem like seven hours, too.”
Peel complained Tuesday in a surprise telephone call to a radio talk show that the media are making Boner “look like an idiot.” In an interview with The Times, the mayor, looking like a harried man, refused to discuss the matter.
“I don’t want to get into my personal life, other than I can just tell you that we’re doing the job here and working every day,” he said. Boner said he will not seek reelection next year, but rejected calls for his resignation. “Barring some unseen event, no,” he said.
However, as the situation wears on, a lot of people around here are beginning to resent the publicity, even as they revel in the jokes. The shift comes as the bloom fades from Nashville’s economic boom.
“Nashville is really on its butt,” said Bruce Dobie, editor of the Scene. So, while on one level, “The whole thing is really a hoot,” he said, on another level, “people are really getting bitter about it. They feel he is making us look like ‘Hee Haw,’ ” the television show depicting hicks and bumpkins.
Economists say that Nashville seemed headed for super-stardom in the mid-1980s but that overbuilding created a glut of properties, a huge factor in the city’s economic slowdown. Now bankruptcies are up and housing starts are down.
In such a soured economic climate, there is little tolerance for a mayor from whom rejuvenation seems to take on a new meaning.
Boner said he met Peel in May at a golf tournament. He announced in July that he and Peel were engaged, even though he is still married to his third wife, Betty. Boner’s aides say the mayor and his wife had agreed to separate in January, but at the time his engagement was announced, the estranged Boners were living under the same roof with their 4-year-old son.
Peel, a former backup country singer and now an aspiring soloist, sings in Nashville nightclubs and is occasionally joined by Boner, who pulls out a harmonica and accompanies her. She said she and Boner plan to marry in Hawaii once the divorce is final. She sent pineapples to reporters to announce the impending nuptials.
Until the extensive discussion of his sex life in the public print, Boner appeared politically secure in Nashville. He ran for mayor in 1987 while sitting as a U.S. congressman representing Tennessee’s 5th district. He was elected mayor with 53% of the vote. His resignation from Congress ended a House Ethics Committee investigation into a $50,000 salary paid to his wife, Betty, by a defense contractor.
Boner is now routinely pilloried on issues ranging from the city’s need to improve its school system to where it should locate a landfill.
Richard Jackson, general counsel for Meharry Medical College and a recent unsuccessful candidate for the state Senate, said: “The Boner situation is why some people feel Nashville is not moving the way it should. People have to find some reason to explain why we didn’t become the next Atlanta.”
Boner argued that he inherited an extraordinary set of challenges when he assumed office in 1987. “People were living through the economic good times, and a lot of outside investors came in and invested,” he said, adding that the city was “not prepared for this sudden on-rush” of building.
The mayor sounded an optimistic note. “We think we’ve about bottomed out,” he said.
But within days of the story about his sex life, bumper stickers appeared here proclaiming: “Seven Hours for Traci. Three Years for Metro,” referring to Boner’s years as mayor of the 500,000-person metropolis.
Boner’s supporters who had contributed $526,000 to his reelection campaign have begun asking for refunds because the mayor decided not to run again.
And, in an impassioned call for him to resign, Ruth Ann Leach wrote in her column for the Nashville Banner that Boner has become “a national dirty joke.” She recounted wisecracks she encountered during a trip to Dallas, saying that Boner jokes had replaced Dolly Parton jokes.
Chris Newman was carrying two bags when we recently sat down for breakfast at Homegirl Café in downtown Los Angeles.
One was a newish satchel holding his laptop and papers for the cases he’s working on, which happen to involve some of the most infamous moments in the Trump administration’s deportation deluge.
“If we can litigate the calamity [of Trump] at the local level to the widest degree, that can help democracy survive, dude,” Newman told me as he picked at black beans and two eggs over easy.
The other bag, a big straw tote, was filled with anti-Trump and anti-migra T-shirts, posters and stickers. Wherever Newman goes these days, he hands them out like a progressive Santa Claus.
“I want to keep the proper amount of anger to have the fuel to do all this,” he said. “The pendulum is sweeping so wide and so fast. We need to be ready.”
For the past 21 years, Newman has been a pivotal, omnipresent part of Southern California’s immigrant rights movement as legal director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, better known as NDLON. His work takes him from street corners advising jornaleros about their rights to my alma mater, UCLA, where he’s on the faculty of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
Newman’s influence extends far past Los Angeles, however. He’s a regular presence on national media outlets, quick and eloquent with insights and righteous anger. Politicians from Sacramento to Washington know he isn’t afraid to tear into them if he thinks they’re too timid to publicly call out xenophobia or support laws that protect the undocumented.
“He does not mind being the bad cop,” said Angela Chan, assistant chief attorney at the San Francisco public defender’s office. In her previous job last decade, she and Newman helped craft a trio of bills that made California a sanctuary state.
“It can make a meeting very uncomfortable, but Chris is cutting all the bulls— so you get much closer to having an honest conversation,” Chan said. “He does not expect or pursue pomp or circumstance.”
Chris Newman, legal council for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, outside Homegirl Cafe in Los Angeles.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Salvador Reza, a longtime organizer in Phoenix, first worked with Newman in the mid-2000s after asking NDLON to help pressure the city to let day laborers seek work. Newman participated in forums, organized rallies and ultimately convinced city officials to lay off by citing a 2006 lawsuit against Redondo Beach that he had worked on. In that case, an ordinance banning day laborers was ruled unconstitutional.
“He cares a lot about people, and he’ll go out of his way to help out anyone who needs it who’s being abused by the system,” said Reza, who saw Newman earlier this year when the two met with Home Depot managers over allegations that their stores in Phoenix were chasing off day laborers. “He’s super busy over there in California right now, isn’t he?”
A fast talker who exudes confidence but isn’t a braggart, Newman looks far younger than 49. His full head of hair, round-framed glasses and freshly sprouted mustache gives the Chicagoland native the look of a Depression-era do-gooder.
“I’m trying to hold onto the anger stage so I don’t get into the sad stage,” he said. “And I don’t want to get there because that’ll lead to the acceptance stage, and too much of L.A. is already there.”
Newman never planned for a career like this, even though his mother was from Denmark, his father is a Hungarian Jew and his brother is of Salvadoran descent. He attended law school in Denver, set on becoming a death penalty lawyer, until realizing “it wasn’t like I thought it was in the movies.”
A mentor suggested that Newman recharge his bleeding heart by volunteering with Minsun Ji, founder of Denver’s first day laborers’ center. “I didn’t even know day laborers were a thing,” Newman admitted. But he immediately “loved everything — just hanging out there, chewing the fat and hearing the stories of the jornaleros.”
Ji assigned him to help clean the restrooms his first few weeks. Newman eventually graduated to handling wage theft cases and volunteered for whatever was needed, including driving a van full of day laborers to an NDLON conference in suburban Maryland in 2002. There, he heard Thomas Saenz, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund who led a successful lawsuit against Prop. 187, the 1994 California anti-immigrant ballot initiative. Saenz told the crowd about MALDEF’s lawsuits against Southern California cities that were trying to ban day laborers.
“That’s when I realized I could use my law degree to do the exact same thing,” Newman said. “[It was] something that I loved in theory, but I didn’t realize it was happening in real life.”
“It was at eight at night, and I was still at the [NDLON] office,” Alvarado said in a phone interview. “And Chris said, ‘I want to do a fellowship with you. The fellowship deadline is at three in the afternoon the next day. Can I go right now so we can write it?’”
He began to laugh. “We didn’t sleep all night, but we did it — we finished his application. And Chris never left.”
(Newman remembers the moment differently. He said he applied for the fellowship, but Alvarado forgot about it until the day before it was due.)
Twenty-one years later, Alvarado says Newman’s energy and verisimilitude haven’t changed.
“Even though he’s a lawyer, his feet are on the ground — he’s not an elitist. By 8 in the morning, he will have read every article written that day about immigration. He’ll tell me what we need to do, and then he goes out and does it.”
Like the Abrego Garcia case.
Newman called Abrego Garcia’s lawyer to offer help, then connected with the family to organize a GoFundMe campaign through NDLON. Next was enlisting artists in a social media campaign to make Abrego Garcia’s predicament go viral. Soon, Newman was on a flight to El Salvador in an unsuccessful bid to visit the imprisoned Abrego Garcia, something he would try two more times.
“It felt like a Venn diagram of everything I’ve worked for over the past 20 years,” said Newman, who has yet to speak to Abrego Garcia. “At the time, we had no idea whether he was innocent or guilty. What mattered is that he deserved due process.”
“I’m a Cornel West disciple,” Newman responded. “And he said there’s a difference between hope and optimism.”
West defined optimism as based on a rational analysis of what’s out there, while hope is an act of courage against what seems like impossible odds.
“No one has ever accused me of being an optimist,” Newman said.
He kept thinking about it.
“I don’t know, but I think the tide will turn. I remember when Arpaio had an 85% approval rating. And he went down.”
He got more animated. “I know people can turn the tide, but they have to do their part.”
He reached into his straw tote and brought out his anti-migra swag — a T-shirt emblazoned with “Arrest Trump, Not Migrants,” bumper stickers reading “ICE Out of LA!” with the “LA” in Dodgers style, red-and-white signs declaring “I.C.E. Off My Property Get A Warrant!”
Our waitress came with the bill, then looked at the T-shirt. “That’s really cool!” she exclaimed.
“Want it?” Newman replied as he handed it to her. Other Homegirl staffers grabbed stickers and signs.
As we exited the cafe, Newman left a stack on a table next to the door.
“I’m going to go to Highland Park later to ask businesses if they want to post them on their windows,” he said as a customer eyed the signs.
“Go ahead and take it, man,” Newman urged. “Take a bunch!”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has promised to introduce new legislation amid continuing protests and international criticism over a law passed earlier this week that critics say undermines Ukraine’s fight against corruption.
The controversial law, passed on Tuesday, places the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the direct authority of the country’s prosecutor general – an official appointed by the president. Critics say the law strips the agencies of their independence and could allow political interference.
While Zelenskyy has defended the law as a necessary response to suspected “Russian influence” within the agencies, European Union officials and rights groups say that it contains no specific provisions to target Kremlin-linked operatives and warn it could derail any Ukrainian accession bid to the European Union.
“I have analysed all concerns,” Zelenskyy wrote on X following a meeting with top government and law enforcement officials.
Writing about the proposal of the new bill, he said: “We will prepare and submit a bill to the Verkhovna Rada [parliament] that ensures the strength of the rule-of-law system. There will be no Russian influence or interference … and all the norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place.”
Public anger and European backlash
On Tuesday night, thousands of Ukrainians rallied in Kyiv and other major cities in rare wartime protests. More than 1,000 demonstrators defied martial law, which bans large public gatherings, to express their anger at the government, while on Wednesday, more protests took place in the capital.
“This is complete nonsense from the president’s office,” 20-year-old student Solomiia Telishevska told the news agency Reuters, referring to the law signed by Zelenskyy on Tuesday. “This contradicts what we are fighting for and what we are striving for, namely to [join] the European Union.”
Cleaning up systemic corruption has long been a core requirement for Ukraine’s EU membership and for unlocking billions in foreign aid. The law’s passage risks alienating Kyiv’s Western allies as the war grinds on.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has demanded “explanations” from Zelenskyy, with a spokesperson confirming on Wednesday that she conveyed “strong concerns about the consequences of the amendments”. Germany’s Johann Wadephul, deputy leader of the Christian Democratic Union, warned on X that the restrictions were “hampering Ukraine’s path to the EU”.
Anticorruption bodies targeted
The storm erupted days after law enforcement raided NABU offices and arrested an employee on suspicion of spying for Russia. Another employee was accused of illegal business ties to Moscow. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) agency also carried out searches and arrests related to other alleged infractions, including a traffic incident.
Zelenskyy suggested these incidents justified the law passed on Tuesday, but Ukrainian analysts have warned the changes could erode public trust in Zelenskyy’s leadership during a critical phase of the war.
NABU was created in 2015 after Ukraine’s 2014 pro-European revolution to tackle deep-rooted government corruption. The agency has investigated multiple high-profile cases, including figures close to Zelenskyy’s administration.
Transparency International Ukraine denounced the raids as “an attempt by the authorities to undermine the independence of Ukraine’s post-Revolution of Dignity anti-corruption institutions”.
Some Ukrainians believe the government is protecting loyal insiders at the expense of transparency. “Those who swore to protect the laws and the constitution have instead chosen to shield their inner circle, even at the expense of Ukrainian democracy,” said veteran Oleh Symoroz, who lost both legs in 2022 fighting Russian forces.
The political firestorm risks creating deeper rifts within Ukraine at a time when unity is vital in Kyiv’s war against Russia. Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Center for Civil Liberties, warned the law could play directly into the Kremlin’s hands. “This is a gift to Putin,” she said.
Russian officials have already seized on the controversy. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked there was “a lot of corruption” when asked about the protests in Kyiv.
Los Angeles County’s health system, which is responsible for the care of the region’s poorest, is careening toward a financial crisis because of cuts from a presidential administration and Republican-led Congress looking to drastically slash the size of government.
President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which passed earlier this month, is expected to soon claw $750 million per year from the county Department of Health Services, which oversees four public hospitals and roughly two dozen clinics. In an all-staff email Friday, the agency called the bill a “big, devastating blow to our health system” and said a hiring freeze had gone into effect, immediately.
And the Trump administration’s budget for the next fiscal year will likely result in a $200-million cut to the county Department of Public Health, whose responsibilities include monitoring disease outbreaks, inspecting food and providing substance use treatment.
“I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I’m not going to say we survive this,” said Barbara Ferrer, head of the public health department, in an interview. “We can’t survive this big a cut.”
Both Ferrer and Department of Health Services head Christina Ghaly warned that the federal cuts will devastate their agencies — and the patients they serve — for years to come. Employee layoffs are likely.
In April, the White House announced it was ending infectious disease grants worth billions of dollars, including $45 million that L.A. County was supposed to use to combat the spread of measles and bird flu. California has joined other states in a lawsuit fighting the cuts, and the court has issued a preliminary injunction suspending the cuts.
A protest earlier this month in Anaheim, co-led by the California Nurses Assn., called on Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) to vote against President Trump’s spending bill.
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
This month, the county public health department lost another $16 million after Trump’s bill cut funding for a program educating food stamp recipients about how to buy healthy meals.
And there’s more to come. The Trump administration’s proposed budget for 2026 will be the biggest blow yet, Ferrer warned, yanking $200 million from her department — a 12% cut.
“I’m old. I’ve been around for a long time,” said Ferrer, whose work in public health dates back to the Reagan administration. “I’ve never actually seen this much disdain for public health.”
Ferrer said the cuts mean she no longer has enough money for the county’s bioterrorism watch program, which monitors for outbreaks that might signal a biological attack. Soon, she said, county officials may have to stop testing ocean water for toxins year round, cutting back to just half the year.
“Like, you want to swim? You want to know that the water is safe where you swim, then oppose these kinds of cuts,” she said. “That affects everybody who goes to the beach.”
L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said she is bracing for $200 million in cuts to her budget.
(Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)
Layoffs are likely, said Ferrer. About 1,500 public health staffers are supported through federal grants. More than half the federal money the department receives is funneled to outside organizations, which would likely need to make cuts to stay afloat.
A similarly grim cost analysis is underway at the county Department of Health Services, where executives said they expect to lose $280 million this fiscal year because of the bill.
“I can’t make a promise that we will be able to avoid layoffs because of the magnitude of the challenges,” said Ghaly.
Ghaly said the bill slashed the extra Medicaid money the county typically gets to cover care for low-income patients. They expect many patients might be kicked off Medicaid because of new eligibility and work requirements. The federal government is pulling back on payments for emergency services for undocumented people, meaning the county will have to foot more of the bill.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Department of Health Services officials said they expect to lose $750 million per year by 2028. By then, the agency’s budget deficit is projected to have ballooned to $1.85 billion.
In an attempt to pump more cash into the system, L.A. County supervisors voted on Tuesday to increase a parcel tax first approved by voters in 2002, which is expected to raise an additional $87 million for the county’s trauma care network.
After a long debate Tuesday, Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Lindsey Horvath worked to direct $9 million of the parcel tax money to Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital, a private hospital that serves as a critical safety net for South Los Angeles residents who would otherwise find themselves in a medical desert.
Without that cash infusion from the county, the cuts in Trump’s bill would have put the hospital at risk of closing, since the majority of patients in its emergency room are on Medicaid, said Elaine Batchlor, Martin Luther King’s chief executive officer.
“If they’ve lost their Medicaid coverage, we simply won’t get paid for those patients,” she said.
Dr. Elaine Batchlor, chief executive of MLK Community Healthcare, said her hospital was hanging by a thread financially. Then came more cuts.
(Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)
Martin Luther King replaced a county hospital that closed after losing national accreditation in 2005 because of serious medical malpractice, landing it the nickname “Killer King.”
“The fact that that hospital closed in the first place I think is criminal, and I intend to do all I can to protect the integrity of the services,” said Mitchell, whose district includes the hospital and who pushed for it to get a cut of money from the parcel tax increase.
Local health providers said that changes at the state level have created additional uncertainty. The state budget for this fiscal year freezes enrollment in Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, for undocumented immigrants ages 19 and older starting in January. Medi-Cal recipients ages 19 to 59 will have to pay a $30 monthly premium beginning July 1, 2027.
“Most families [we serve] are making about $2,400 to $2,600 a month. They’re going to have to choose between paying their Medi-Cal fees for a family of four — that’s $120 a month — or paying rent or paying for food,” said Jim Mangia, head of St. John’s Community Health, who said the cuts will disrupt care for tens of thousands of low-income residents.
The St. John’s clinic, which gets most of its revenue from Medi-Cal reimbursements, serves more than 120,000 patients a year, most of whom live below the federal poverty line.
If the clinic doesn’t find a way to replace the lost revenue, Mangia warned, services will have to be reduced. The clinic recently started treating immigrant patients in their homes after realizing they had been skipping appointments because they feared being arrested by federal immigration agents.
“Then what we’re looking at is closing several health centers,” said Mangia. “We’re looking at laying off hundreds of staff.”
At Venice Family Clinic, a community health center that serves nearly 45,000 patients annually, 80% of patients rely on Medi-Cal. Roughly half the clinic’s revenue comes from Medi-Cal reimbursements.
Dr. Mitesh Popat, a family physician and head of the clinic, said that federal policy changes — especially more frequent paperwork and added work requirements — will likely push eligible patients off of Medi-Cal. He said the clinic is exploring ways to expand support for patients to navigate the paperwork and keep their coverage.
“This puts a bunch of barriers in the way of people who already have enough challenges in life,” Popat said. “They’re trying to make it, trying to survive, trying to put food on the table.”
What the US government dubbed as the “Crypto Week” yielded in the House passing the first federal legislation to regulate stablecoins. As it has been previously approved by the Senate, it comes into effect the moment the president signs it.
Two additional crypto-related bills also passed in the House and will now proceed to the Senate.
This is a major win for the crypto industry, which poured millions into last year’s election, supporting candidates, including Donald Trump, who became a major advocate for cryptocurrency investments.
The House had three crypto-related bills to pass this “Crypto Week”. However, the bills were stalled for more than a day due to disagreements among House Republicans over how to combine the legislation.
Ultimately, GOP leaders put the three bills up for separate votes. One of the three bills, legislation to regulate a type of cryptocurrency called stablecoins, had already passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support and will now head to Trump’s desk.
The other two bills — a broader measure to create a new market structure for cryptocurrency and a bill to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a new digital currency — will be considered by the Senate later.
How stablecoin is being regulated in the US
The stablecoin bill, called the “Genius Act”, sets initial guardrails and consumer protections for the cryptocurrency, with reserve requirements, audits, and compliance.
Stablecoins are digital tokens tied to a stable asset, often the US dollar, to reduce price volatility.
“Around the world, payment systems are undergoing a revolution,” said House Financial Services Chair French Hill of Arkansas as lawmakers debated the stablecoin legislation Thursday morning. Hill said the bill will “ensure American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers.”
The stablecoin measure is seen by lawmakers and the industry as a step toward adding legitimacy and consumer trust to a rapidly growing sector. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in June that the legislation could help that currency “grow into a $3.7 trillion (€3.2tr) market by the end of the decade.”
The bill outlines requirements for stablecoin issuers, including compliance with US anti-money laundering and sanctions laws, and mandates that issuers hold reserves backing the cryptocurrency.
Without such a framework, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee warned in a statement, “consumers face risks like unstable reserves or unclear operations from stablecoin issuers.”
After the votes, House Republicans strongly urged the Senate to take up the second bill, which would create a new market structure for cryptocurrency.
That legislation aims to provide clarity for how digital assets are regulated. The bill defines what forms of cryptocurrency should be treated as commodities regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and which are securities policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In general, tokens associated with “mature” blockchains, like Bitcoin, will be considered commodities.
The third bill, passed in the House on a narrower 219-210 margin, prohibits the US from offering what is known as a “central bank digital currency,” which is a government-issued form of digital cash.
Why the US needs crypto regulation
The crypto industry has long complained that unclear laws have made it difficult to operate in the US and that the Biden administration attempted to regulate it through enforcement actions rather than transparent rulemaking.
Passing this bill has been a top priority for the industry, which has quickly become a major player in Washington, thanks to substantial campaign donations and lobbying efforts.
Patrick McHenry, the former chair of the House Financial Services Committee and now vice chair of the crypto firm Ondo Finance, said the legislation will have a “massive generational impact,” similar to the securities laws Congress passed in the 1930s that helped make Wall Street the centre of the financial world.
“These bills will make the United States the centre of the world for digital assets,” he said.
While the bill has significant bipartisan support, it has also faced pushback from Democrats who argue that the legislation should address Trump’s personal financial interests in the cryptocurrency space.
A provision in the stablecoin bill bans members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins. But that prohibition does not extend to the president and his family.
According to Forbes, the president’s crypto holdings are worth more than any single real estate asset in his portfolio, an estimated $1 billion (€860 million).
The Republican president’s family holds a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto project that launched its own stablecoin, USD1.
Trump reported earning $57.35 million (€49.2 million) from token sales at World Liberty Financial in 2024, according to a public financial disclosure released in June.
Some Democrats also criticised the bill for creating what they see as an overly weak regulatory framework that could pose long-term financial risks. They have also raised concerns that the legislation opens the door for major corporations to issue their own private cryptocurrencies.
“If this bill passes, it will allow Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to issue their own money. The bill still permits Big Tech companies and other conglomerates to issue their own private currencies,” said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee.
July 17 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate early Thursday voted to rescind some $9 billion in federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, two areas of the government that the Trump administration has long targeted for cuts.
The bill, which now goes to the House of Representatives, will cut about $8 billion from international aid programs and about $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The bill passed at about 2:20 a.m. EDT Thursday.
“President Trump promised to cut wasteful spending and root out misuse of taxpayer dollars,” Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said on X prior to the vote. “Now, @SenateGOP and I are voting to make these cuts permanent. Promises made, promises kept.”
The vote comes as the Trump administration faces criticism from Democrats, and some Republicans, for having promised to reduce government spending but then last month passed a massive tax and spending cuts bill that is expected to add $3.3 trillion to the U.S. deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the Cato Institute states it could add nearly double that, as much as $6 trillion.
The Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which funds local news and radio infrastructure, has been a target of the Trump administration for funding a small portion of the budgets of PBS and NPR, which he accuses of being biased.
Murkowski chastised her fellow Republicans for attacking a service that informed Alaskans that same day that there was a magnitude 7.3 earthquake and a tsunami warning.
“Some colleagues claim they are targeting ‘radical leftist organizations’ with these cuts, but in Alaska, these are simply organizations dedicated to their communities,” she said on social media. “Their response to today’s earthquake is a perfect example of the incredible public service these stations provide. They deliver local news, weather updates and, yes, emergency alerts that save human lives.”
July 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said a deal has been made with almost all the Republican House members who sank a procedural vote on his cryptocurrency bills Tuesday.
“I am in the Oval Office with 11 of the 12 congressmen/women necessary to pass the Genius Act and, after a short discussion, they have all agreed to vote tomorrow morning in favor of the rule,” Trump said via Truth Social Tuesday.
“Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was at the meeting via telephone, and looks forward to taking the vote as early as possible,” he added.
Two of the bills in question are the aforementioned Genius Act, which would regulate stablecoins and the Clarity Act, which would set rules to decide if an asset is to be regulated as either a security by the Securities and Exchange Commission or as a commodity supervised by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The third bill would stop the creation of a central bank digital currency by the Federal Reserve.
It is unclear what guarantees Trump made to lock in the 11 switched votes of support for the procedural rule.
“I’m thankful for President Trump getting involved tonight,” posted Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to X Tuesday, who then declared that the Genius Act will pass when the new vote happens Wednesday.
Shares of stablecoin companies Circle and Coinbase had both dropped Tuesday upon the failure of the procedural vote, as did shares of the digital asset firm MARA Holdings, but all three had upward-heading premarket numbers Wednesday.
WASHINGTON — Debate over President Trump’s sweeping budget-and-policy package is over on Capitol Hill. Now the argument goes national.
From the Central Valley of California to Midwestern battlegrounds and suburban districts of the northeast, the new law already is shaping the 2026 midterm battle for control of the House of Representatives. The outcome will set the tone for Trump’s final two years in the Oval Office.
Democrats need a net gain of three House seats to break the GOP’s chokehold on Washington and reestablish a power center to counter Trump. There’s added pressure to flip the House because midterm Senate contests are concentrated in Republican-leaning states, making it harder for Democrats to reclaim that chamber.
As Republicans see it, they’ve now delivered broad tax cuts, an unprecedented investment in immigration enforcement and new restraints on social safety net programs. Democrats see a law that rolls back health insurance access and raises costs for middle-class Americans while cutting taxes mostly for the rich, curtailing green energy initiatives and restricting some workers’ organizing rights.
“It represents the broken promise they made to the American people,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who chairs the party’s House campaign arm. “We’re going to continue to hold Republicans accountable for this vote.”
Parties gear up for a fight
Whether voters see it that way will be determined on a district-by-district level, but the battle will be more intense in some places than others. Among the 435 House districts, only 69 contests were decided by less than 10 percentage points in the 2024 general election.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified 26 Democratic-held seats it must defend vigorously, along with 35 GOP-held seats it believes could be ripe to flip. Republicans’ campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, has listed 18 GOP incumbents as priorities, plus two districts opened by retirements.
There are a historically low number of so-called crossover districts: Only 13 Democrats represent districts that Trump carried in 2024, while just three Republicans serve districts that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris carried.
Both committees are busy recruiting challengers and open-seat candidates, and more retirements could come, so the competitive map will evolve. Still, there are clusters of districts guaranteed to influence the national result.
California, despite its clear lean to Democrats statewide, has at least nine House districts expected to be up for grabs: three in the Central Valley and six in Southern California. Six are held by Democrats, three by the GOP.
Pennsylvania features four districts that have been among the closest U.S. House races for several consecutive cycles. They include a suburban Philadelphia seat represented by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, one of just two House Republicans to vote against Trump’s bill and one of the three GOP lawmakers from a district Harris won. Fitzpatrick cited the Medicaid cuts.
Vice President JD Vance plans on Wednesday to be in Republican Rep. Robert Bresnahan’s northwest Pennsylvania district to tout the GOP package. Bresnahan’s seat is a top Democratic target.
Iowa and Wisconsin, meanwhile, feature four contiguous GOP-held districts in farm-heavy regions where voters could be swayed by fallout from Trump’s tariffs.
Democrats fight to define the GOP
Beyond bumper-sticker labels — Trump’s preferred “Big Beautiful Bill” versus Democrats’ “Big Ugly Bill” retort — the 900-page law is, in fact, an array of policies with varying effects.
Democrats hammer Medicaid and food assistance cuts, some timed to take full effect only after the 2026 midterms, along with Republicans’ refusal to extend tax credits to some people who obtained health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law; 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.
“Folks will die here in Louisiana and in other parts of the country,” House Minority Leader Jeffries warned last week during a town hall in Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s home state of Louisiana.
Jeffries singled out vulnerable Republicans such as California Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, who represents a heavily agricultural Central Valley district where more than half of the population is eligible for the joint state-federal insurance program. California allows immigrants with legal status and those who are undocumented to qualify for Medicaid, so not all Medicaid recipients are voters. But the program helps finance the overall healthcare system, including nursing homes and hospitals.
Republicans highlight the law’s tightened work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. They argue that it’s a popular provision that will strengthen the program.
“I voted for this bill because it does preserve the Medicaid program for its intended recipients — children, pregnant women, the disabled, and elderly,” Valadao said. “I know how important the program is for my constituents.”
Republicans hope voters see lower taxes
The law includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. It makes permanent existing rates and brackets approved during Trump’s first term. Republicans and their allies have hammered vulnerable Democrats for “raising costs” on American households by opposing the bill.
GOP campaign aides point to the popularity of individual provisions: boosting the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 (some families at lower income levels would not get the full credit), new deductions on tip and overtime income and auto loans; and a new deduction for older adults earning less than $75,000 a year.
“Everyone will have more take-home pay. They’ll have more jobs and opportunity,” Johnson said in a Fox News Sunday interview. “The economy will be doing better and we’ll be able to point to that as the obvious result of what we did.”
Democrats note that the biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s tax code are wealthy Americans and corporations. Pairing that with safety net cuts, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz concluded, “The cruelty is the point.”
Immigration, meanwhile, was Trump’s strongest issue in 2024. NRCC aides say that will continue with the new law’s investments in immigration enforcement. Democrats believe that the Trump administration has overplayed its hand with its push for mass deportation.
Playing the Trump card
The president is a titanic variable.
Democrats point to 2018, when they notched a 40-seat net gain in House seats to take control away from the GOP. This year, Democrats have enjoyed a double-digit swing in special elections around the country when compared with 2024 presidential results. Similar trends emerged in 2017 after Trump’s 2016 victory. Democrats say that reflects voter discontent with Trump once he’s actually in charge.
Republicans answer that Trump’s job approval remains higher at this point than in 2017. But the GOP’s effort is further complicated by ongoing realignments: Since Trump’s emergence, Democrats have gained affluent white voters — like those in suburban swing districts — while Trump has drawn more working-class voters across racial and ethnic groups. But Republicans face a stiffer challenge of replicating Trump’s coalition in a midterm election without him on the ballot.
Democrats, meanwhile, must corral voters who are not a threat to vote for Republicans but could stay home.
Jeffries said he’s determined not to let that happen: “We’re going to do everything we can until we end this national nightmare.”
Barrow, Cooper and Brook write for the Associated Press. Cooper reported from Phoenixand Brook reported from New Orleans. AP reporters Michael Blood in Los Angeles and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO — With diversity programs under full assault by the Trump administration, California lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow state colleges to consider whether applicants are descendants of African Americans who were enslaved in the United States.
The bill, which would probably face a legal challenge if passed, is part of a package of 15 reparations bills supported by the California Legislative Black Caucus being considered in the current legislative session.
Assembly Bill 7, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), if passed, could potentially skirt around the state’s ban on affirmative action. California voters in 1996 approved a state ballot measure, Proposition 209, that bars colleges from considering race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin in admissions under Proposition 209. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 also ruled those programs were unconstitutional.
Bryan, however, says his has nothing to do with race and doesn’t use the terms “Black” or “African American” in its text.
“Descendants of people who are enslaved could identify in a variety of racial ways, and then phenotypically even present in different ways than they racially identify,” he said in an interview with The Times. “But if your ancestors were enslaved in this country, then there’s a direct lineage-based tie to harms that were inflicted during enslavement and in the after lives thereafter.”
The bill, and others in the reparations package, had seen widespread support within the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority and are representative of California’s values, Bryan said.
“I think California is quite clear where it positions itself in this moment, and that is in the support of all people, recognizing the harms of the past and trying to build a future that includes everybody. And if that appears in conflict with the federal government, I think that has more to do with the way the government is posturing than who we are as Californians,” he said.
Last year, when only 10 of 14 bills in the reparations package passed through the Legislature, reform advocates felt the efforts were lackluster. Lawmakers believed it was a foundation they could build upon, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) said in September.
AB 7’s focus on lineage, said Taifha Alexander, a professor at UCLA and expert in critical race theory, could face legal trouble if a judge believed it used lineage as a proxy for race. It could be ruled unconstitutionally discriminatory under the 14th Amendment.
A separate reparations bill, however, could help offer a legal definition to separate race from lineage. Senate Bill 518 would create a state bureau for descendants of American slavery. The state agency would verify a person’s status as a descendant and help applicants access benefits.
Comprehensive reparation legislation isn’t a novel idea and has been enacted before, Alexander said. In the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the federal government formally apologized to Japanese Americans for their illegal incarceration in detention camps during World War II, and included a one-time payment of $20,000 to survivors.
Reparations — in the form of cash payments — fell flat with voters when last polled by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times in 2023. More than 4 in 10 California voters “strongly” opposed cash payments and 59% opposed the idea, with 28% in support. None of the bills currently before the Legislature includes cash reparations.
Other forms of reparations, such as a change to the college admissions process and social programs, are still valid ways to address inequities, Alexander said.
But a bill like AB 7, which looks to circumvent existing law, could face headwinds from the public who could see it as unfair, she said.
With the outcome of the 2023 Supreme Court case which banned college admissions processes from using race, she said the policy was unlikely to be popular.
Opponents argue the bill’s distinction between race and ancestry is not enough to survive judicial review, and believe a court will find lineage to be a proxy for race to circumvent the ban.
“Suppose, instead, that a state passed a law making university admission more difficult for descendants of American slavery. Would anyone argue that such a law should be upheld? Of course not,” Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions and the lawyer who argued and won the case to ban affirmative action, said in a statement to The Times.
“It would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional racial discrimination. That hypothetical reveals the core defect of AB 7 — it makes a race-linked classification under the guise of ancestry and will not withstand judicial review. If enacted, this legislation will face a swift and vigorous legal challenge in federal court and be struck down. It takes Herculean stupidity to believe otherwise,” Blum wrote.
Other bills still working through the legislative process include measures that would set aside home purchase assistance funds for descendants of American slavery that are buying their first homes and direct state agencies to address mortgage lending discrimination.
The reparations legislation that has failed to advance includes a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have banned prisons from requiring inmates to work, which some consider state-sanctioned slavery or indentured servitude.
