Thwart

Last month, in a special election, voters in southern Arizona chose Adelita Grijalva to succeed her late father in Congress.

The outcome in the solidly Democratic district was never in doubt. The final tally wasn’t remotely close.

Grijalva, a Tucson native and former Pima County supervisor, crushed her Republican opponent, 69% to 29%.

The people spoke, loudly and emphatically, and normally that would have been that. Grijalva would have assumed office by now, allowing her to serve her orphaned constituents by filling a House seat that’s been vacant since her father died in March, after representing portions of Arizona for more than 20 years.

But these are not normal times. These are times when everything, including the time of day and state of the weather, has become politically charged.

And so Grijalva is residing in limbo. Or, rather, at her campaign headquarters in Tucson, since she’s been locked out of her congressional office on Capitol Hill — the one her father used, which now has her name on a plaque outside. She’s been denied entry by Speaker Mike Johnson.

“It’s pretty horrible,” Grijalva said in an interview, “because regardless of whether I have an official office or not, constituents elected me and people are reaching out to me through every social media outlet.

“‘I have a question,’” they tell Grijalva, or “‘I’m afraid I’m going to get fired’ or ‘We need some sort of assistance.’”

All she can do is refer them to Arizona’s two U.S. senators.

House members are scattered across the country during the partial government shutdown and Johnson said he can’t possibly administer the oath of office to Grijalva during a pro forma session, a time when normal business — legislative debate, roll call votes — is not being conducted. “We have to have everybody here,” Johnson said, “and we’ll swear her in.”

But, lo, dear reader, are you sitting down?

It turns out there were two Republican lawmakers elected this year in special elections, each, as it happens from Florida. Both were sworn in the very next day … during pro forma sessions!

Shocked? Don’t be. In the Trump era, rules and standards are applied in flagrantly different ways, depending on which political party is involved.

But partisanship aside, what possible reason would Johnson have to stall Grijalva’s swearing-in? Here’s a clue: It involves a convicted sex trafficker and former buddy of President Trump, whose foul odor trails him like the reeking carcass of a beached whale.

Yes, it’s the late Jeffrey Epstein!

“On my very first day in Congress, I’ll sign the bipartisan discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files,” Grijalva said on the eve of her landslide election. “This is as much about fulfilling Congress’ duty as a constitutional check on this administration as it is about demanding justice for survivors.”

Jeffrey Epstein. Gone but very much unforgotten.

For years, his perversions have been an obsession among those, mainly on the right, who believe a “deep state” cover-up has protected the rich and powerful who partnered with women procured by Epstein. After Trump’s marionette attorney general, Pam Bondi, suggested a client list was sitting on her desk, awaiting release, the Justice Department abruptly reversed course.

There was no such list, it announced, and Epstein definitely committed suicide and wasn’t, as the conspiracy-minded suggest, murdered by those wishing to silence him.

Trump, who palled around with Epstein, urged everyone to move along. Naturally, Johnson fell into immediate lockstep. (Bondi, for her part, tap-danced through a contentious Senate hearing last week, repeatedly sidestepping questions about the Epstein-Trump relationship, including whether photos exist of the president alongside “half-naked young women.”)

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a GOP lawmaker and persistent Trump irritant, and Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna have led the bipartisan effort to force the Justice Department to cough up the government’s unclassified records related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend and fellow sex trafficker.

The discharge petition, overriding the objections of Trump and Johnson and forcing the House to vote on release of the files, needs at least 218 signatures, which constitutes a majority of the 435 members. The petition has been stalled for weeks, just one signature shy of ratification.

Enter Grijalva.

Or not.

Johnson, who may be simply delaying an inevitable House vote to curry Trump’s favor, insists the Epstein matter has “nothing to do with” his refusal to seat Grivalja.

Righto.

And planets don’t revolve around the sun, hot air doesn’t rise and gravity doesn’t bring falling leaves to Earth.

More than 200 Democratic House members have affixed their signatures to the petition, along with four Republicans — Massie and Reps. Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The latter three are all MAGA stalwarts who have bravely broken ranks with Trump to stand up for truth and the victims of Epstein’s ravages.

“Aren’t we all against convicted pedophiles and anyone who enables them?” Greene asked in an interview with Axios.

Most are, one would assume. But apparently not everybody.

A decade and a half after California voters stripped lawmakers of the ability to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats are pushing to take that partisan power back.

The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years, if not longer, and sway which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections — which will be pivotal to the fate of President Trump’s political agenda.

What Golden State voters choose to do will reverberate nationwide, killing some political careers and launching others, provoking other states to reconfigure their own congressional districts and boosting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s profile as a top Trump nemesis and leader of the nation’s Democratic resistance.

The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors, were expected to be submitted to legislative leaders by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and widely leaked on Friday. They are expected to appear on a Nov. 4 special election ballot, along with a constitutional amendment that would override the state’s voter-approved, independent redistricting commission.

The changes would ripple across hundreds of miles of California, from the forests near the Oregon state line through the deserts of Death Valley and Palm Springs to the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding Democrats’ grip on California and further isolating Republicans.

The proposed map would concentrate Republican voters in a handful of deep-red districts and eliminate an Inland Empire congressional seat represented by the longest-serving member of California’s GOP delegation. For Democrats, the plans would boost the fortunes of up-and-coming politicians and shore up vulnerable incumbents in Congress, including two new lawmakers who won election by fewer than 1,000 votes last fall.

“This is the final declaration of political war between California and the Trump administration,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

How will the ballot measure work?

For the state to reverse the independent redistricting process that the electorate approved in 2010, a majority of California voters would have to approve the measure, which backers are calling the “Election Rigging Response Act.”

The state Legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, will consider the ballot language next week when lawmakers return from summer recess. Both chambers would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and get the bill to Newsom’s desk by Aug. 22, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

The ballot language has not been released. But the decision about approving the new map would ultimately be up to the state’s electorate, which backed independent redistricting in 2010 by more than 61%. Registered Democrats outnumber Republican voters by almost a two-to-one margin in California, providing a decided advantage for supporters of the measure.

Newsom has said that the measure would include a “trigger,” meaning the state’s maps would only take effect if a Republican state — including Texas, Florida and Indiana — approve new mid-decade maps.

“There’s still an exit ramp,” Newsom said. “We’re hopeful they don’t move forward.”

Explaining the esoteric concept of redistricting and getting voters to participate in an off-year election will require that Newsom and his allies, including organized labor, launch what is expected to be an expensive campaign very quickly.

“It’s summer in California,” Kousser said. “People are not focused on this.”

California has no limit on campaign contributions for ballot measures, and a measure that pits Democrats against Trump, and Republicans against Newsom, could become a high-stakes, high-cost national brawl.

“It’s tens of millions of dollars, and it’s going to be determined on the basis of what an opposition looks like as well,” Newsom said Thursday. The fundraising effort, he said, is “not insignificant… considering the 90-day sprint.”

The ballot measure’s campaign website mentions three major funding sources thus far: Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign, the main political action committee for House Democrats in Washington, and Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, a longtime donor to California Democrats.

Those who oppose the mid-decade redistricting are also expected to be well-funded, and will argue that this effort betrays the will of the voters who approved independent congressional redistricting in 2010.

What’s at stake?

Control of the U.S. House of Representatives hangs in the balance.

The party that holds the White House tends to lose House seats during the midterm election. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and Democrats taking control of chamber in 2026 would stymie Trump’s controversial, right-wing agenda in his final two years in office.

Redistricting typically only happens once a decade, after the U.S. Census. But Trump has been prodding Republican states, starting with Texas, to redraw their lines in the middle of the decade to boost the GOP’s chances in the midterms.

At Trump’s encouragement, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas congressional map to favor five more Republicans. In response, Newsom and other California Democrats have called for their own maps that would favor five more Democrats.

Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum and stop the vote. They faced daily fines, death threats and calls to be removed from office. They agreed to return to Austin after the special session ended on Friday, with one condition being that California Democrats moved forward with their redistricting plan.

The situation has the potential to spiral into an all-out redistricting arms race, with Trump leaning on Indiana, Florida, Ohio and Missouri to redraw their maps, while Newsom is asking the same of blue states including New York and Illinois.

California Republicans in the crosshairs

The California gerrymandering plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress: Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa in Southern California.

The map consolidates Republican voters into a smaller number of ruby-red districts known as “vote sinks.” Some conservative and rural areas would be shifted into districts where Republican voters would be diluted by high voter registration advantage for Democrats.

The biggest change would be for Calvert, who would see his Inland Empire district eliminated.

Calvert has been in Congress since 1992 and represents a sprawling Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. Calvert, who oversees defense spending on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, comfortably won reelection last year despite a well-funded national campaign by Democrats.

Under the proposed map, the Inland Empire district would be carved up and redistributed, parceled out to a district represented by Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Liberal Palm Springs would be shifted into the district represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), which would help tilt the district from Republican to a narrowly divided swing seat.

Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but there would not be an obvious seat for Calvert to run for, unless he ran against Kim or Issa.

Leaked screenshots of the map began to circulate Friday afternoon, prompting fierce and immediate pushback from California Republicans.

The lines are “third-world dictator stuff,” Orange County GOP chair Will O’Neill said on X, and the “slicing and dicing of Orange County cities is obscene.”

In Northern California, the boundaries of Kiley’s district would shrink and dogleg into the Sacramento suburbs to add registered Democrats. Kiley said in a post on the social media site X that he expected his district to stay the same because voters would “defeat Newsom’s sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters.”

LaMalfa’s district would shift south, away from the rural and conservative areas along the Oregon border, and pick up more liberal areas in parts of Sonoma County,

In Central California, boundaries would shift to shore up Reps. Josh Harder (D-Tracy) and Adam Gray (D-Merced). Gray won election last year by 187 votes, the narrowest margin in the country.

Valadao, a perennial target for Democrats, would see the northern boundary of his district stretch into the bluer suburbs of Fresno. Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster.

Feeding frenzy for open seats

The maps include a new congressional seat in Los Angeles County that would stretch through the southeast cities of Downey, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and Lakewood. An open seat in Congress is a rare opportunity for politicians, especially in deep-blue Los Angeles County, where incumbent lawmakers can keep their jobs for decades.

Portions of that district were once represented by retired U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican American woman elected to Congress. That seat was eliminated in the 2021 redistricting cycle, when California lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has told members of the California Congressional delegation that she is thinking about running for the new seat.

Another possible contender, former Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood, launched a campaign for state superintendent of schools in late July and may be out of the mix.

Other lawmakers who represent the area or areas nearby include State Sen. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier).

In Northern California, the southern tip of LaMalfa’s district would stretch south into the Sonoma County cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsberg, home to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire. McGuire will be termed out of the state Senate next year, and the new seat might present a prime opportunity for him to go to Washington.

This week, reality TV show star Spencer Pratt posted multiple videos on social media savaging a proposed state bill on wildfire rebuilding. In one, Pratt told his 2 million TikTok followers that he consulted an artificial intelligence engine about Senate Bill 549. He said it told him the legislation would allow L.A. County to buy burned-out lots in Pacific Palisades and convert them to low-income housing, strip away local zoning decisions and push dense reconstruction. He urged people to oppose it.

“I don’t even think this is political,” Pratt said. “This is a common sense post.”

None of what Pratt said is in the bill. But over the last week, such misinformation-fueled furor has overwhelmed the conversation in Los Angeles, at the state Capitol and on social media about wildfire recovery. Posts have preyed on fears of neighborhood change, mistrust of government authorities and prejudice against low-income housing to assert, among other things, that the wildfires were set intentionally to raze the Palisades and replace the community with affordable housing.

The chatter has unmoored debate over a major rebuilding proposal from L.A. County leaders. Under the plan, a new local authority would be able to buy burned lots, rebuild homes and offer them back at discounted rates to the original owners. The idea is to give property owners struggling to rebuild another option to stay in their communities. There are no changes to any rules that require zoning amendments or approvals for individual housing developments.

State Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), the author of SB 549, which creates the local authority, said he understands legitimate policy disagreements over the new powers granted in the bill.

But those discussions have been overshadowed, he said.

“It’s become this total meme among the right-wing blogosphere and, unfortunately, picked up by some lazy-ass journalists that don’t bother to read the bill that say this bill seeks to turn the entire Palisades into low-income housing,” Allen said.

Some of his own friends who lost homes in the Palisades, Allen said, have been texting him asking why he’s trying to force low-income housing into the neighborhood.

“People are saying I want to put a train line in there,” Allen said. “It’s insane.”

The frenzy, in part, is due to an issue of timing. Last month, a 20-member expert commission impaneled by L.A. County proposed the local authority as a key recommendation for rebuilding after January’s Palisades and Eaton fires destroyed 18,000 homes and other properties.

Commission leaders then approached Allen about writing a bill that would allow for its implementation. Allen wanted to do it, but deadlines for introducing new legislation had long passed.

Instead, Allen took SB 549, which had nothing to do with wildfire rebuilding but was still alive in the Legislature, and added the rebuilding authority language to it. This is a common legislative procedure used when putting forward ideas late in the year.

Allen decided as well to keep the original language in the bill, which called for significant spending on low-income housing in an unrelated financing program. Multiple news articles conflated the two portions of the bill, which added to the alarm.

The version of SB 549 with the wildfire rebuilding authority in it had its first hearing in a legislative committee on Wednesday. Allen spent much of the hearing acknowledging the confusion around it.

Misinformation over the rebuilding authority was fueled by a separate announcement California Gov. Gavin Newsom made this month.

State housing officials carved out $101 million from long-planned funding allocations for low-income housing and dedicated it to building new developments in Los Angeles.

The money will be used to subsidize low-income apartment buildings throughout the county with priority given to projects proposed in and around burn zones, that are willing to reserve a portion to fire survivors and are close to breaking ground.

The fires exacerbated the region’s housing crisis. Higher rents persist in nearby neighborhoods and low-income residents continue to struggle. Newsom cast the announcement as assisting them in regaining their footing.

“Thousands of families — from Pacific Palisades to Altadena to Malibu — are still displaced and we owe it to them to help,” Newsom said when unveiling the spending.

Like the proposed rebuilding authority, the funding does not change any zoning or other land-use rules. Any developer who receives the dollars would need separate governmental approval to begin construction.

Nevertheless, social media posters took the new money and the proposed new authority and saw a conspiracy.

“Burn it. Buy it. Rebuild it how they want,” said a July 15 post from X user @HustleBitch_, who has nearly 124,000 followers. “Still think this wasn’t planned?

Newsom called the situation another example of “opportunists exploit[ing] this tragedy to stoke fear — and pit communities against each other.”

“Let’s be clear: The state is not taking away anyone’s property, instituting some sort of mass rezoning or destroying the quality and character of destroyed neighborhoods. Period,” Newsom said in a statement to The Times. “Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately lying. That’s not just wrong — it’s disgraceful.”

Not all of the debate about the rebuilding authority is based on false information.

Allen and local leaders acknowledged the need for more consensus over its role, especially given the sensitivities around recovery. Still unresolved were the authority’s governing structure, and whether it would encompass the Palisades or be limited to Altadena and other unincorporated areas.

Pratt lost his Palisades home in the fire and has sued the city, alleging it failed to maintain an adequate water supply and other infrastructure. In social media videos this week, Pratt said he and other residents didn’t trust the county with increased power over rebuilding when he believed leaders failed to protect the neighborhood in the first place.

“We’re a fire-stricken community, not a policy sandbox,” Pratt said. “We do not support the county becoming a dominant landowner in the Palisades.”

Representatives for Pratt could not be reached for comment.

By the end of Wednesday, Allen conceded defeat on SB 549. There were many legitimate hurdles to the bill passing before the Legislature adjourns in mid-September, he said. Notably, a representative for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told the legislative committee that she was opposed to the bill because the city had yet to be convinced of its efficacy.

But the misinformation surrounding the bill made it even harder to envision its success, he said. Allen decided to hold the bill and have it reconsidered when the Legislature convenes again in January.

“If we’re going to do this, I want the time to do it right,” he said.

DENVER — Roger Hutson was never a huge fan of Donald Trump.

In 2016, he supported Marco Rubio for president, helping raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for his Republican primary bid.

In 2024, Hutson worked with “No Labels,” a group of Democrats, Republicans and independents, to forge a bipartisan ticket with the express purpose of keeping either Trump or Joe Biden from winning the White House.

Is this “really the best we can do in a country of 330 million people?” Hutson asked in a Denver Post opinion piece after the effort collapsed and another Trump-Biden matchup seemed inevitable. The failure, he suggested, was “a sad commentary on the status of leadership in America.”

But something unexpected happened over the last six months. Trump won Hutson over.

He’s not gone full-fledged MAGA. “No, no, no!” he insisted, scoffing at the notion of driving down the street, Trump flag waving. And he’s not about to jump on JD Vance’s political bandwagon, the likeliest vehicle for extending Trumpism in 2028 and beyond.

“I’m acknowledging the accomplishments of the man in the office,” Hutson said, with emphasis on the White House’s current occupant, whom he supported over Kamala Harris. “I’m very impressed.”

Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

It’s not, as one might suppose, because the Denver oil and gas executive is enamored of Trump’s exhortations to “Drill, baby, drill! (“No, baby, no!” is more like it, as Hutson believes oversupply would drive prices down.)

Rather, Hutson credits Trump with achieving a good deal of what he promised during the 2024 campaign.

Securing America’s borders. Forcing U.S. allies to cough up more for defense. Bringing Iran’s nuclear program to heel. Taking on the country’s unfair trade partners.

He still doesn’t much care for Trump’s abrasive personality, the name-calling and denigrating of people.

But Hutson’s conversion shows that in a country deeply dug into oppositional camps, where political views appear cement-hardened into place, there are still those open to persuasion and even willing to change their minds.

As confounding as that might seem.

::

Hutson, 65, was a Republican his whole life, until leaving the party sometime in the 2010s. Or, more precisely, he felt “the party left me.”

A growing stridency around abortion and same-sex marriage was particularly off-putting to Hutson, who describes himself as a conservative on fiscal issues and a live-and-let-live type on social matters. “If you’re lucky enough in life to find somebody you love,” he said, “God bless.”

Hutson has long been active in civic and political affairs, serving on various boards and commissions under Democrats and Republicans alike. He recalled attending a meeting some years ago when GOP leaders gathered to discuss Colorado’s increasingly blue coloration.

“If winning means nominating an African American lesbian with antennae coming out of her head,” then Republicans should do so, Hutson suggested.

That didn’t go over well.

But it fit Hutson’s approach to politics.

He grew up an Army brat, moving around the world until his father completed his military career and settled in Golden, Colo., to take a job at a family lumber business. For all the impermanence — packing up and relocating just about every two years — Hutson said his upbringing was in many ways ideal, shaping his outlook to this day.

The military, he said, reflects the best of America: unity, shared purpose, teamwork. “I think it teaches you a lot of tolerance,” he said. “I think it teaches you a lot of acceptance.”

His GOP pedigree came from his father, the Army colonel. But it wasn’t the scorched-earth version of today’s Republican Party, in which Democrats and their philosophy are regarded as the root of all evil.

Long ago, as leader of the Jefferson County Republican Men’s Club, Hutson invited Colorado’s governor, Democrat Roy Romer, to speak.

“I was catching such hell from people. ‘How dare you invite a Democrat to speak to this group?’ ” Hutson remembered being chastised. “And I said, ‘Well, he’s our governor, isn’t he? I think it’d be an honor.’ ”

After some initial puzzlement from the governor’s office — are you sure? — Romer came and spoke, holding just the kind of cross-party conversation that Hutson wishes occurred more often among politicians in worlds-apart Washington.

“I’d love for Trump to have a weekly meeting with [Democratic House leader] Hakeem Jeffries,” Hutson said as he sat high above downtown Denver, his office decor — dark leather, rugged mountain landscape, a display of amber liquids — suggesting a Western cigar bar theme.

“I would love for Trump to sit down weekly with [Chuck] Schumer” — the Democratic Senate leader — or bring Schumer and the GOP Senate leader, John Thune, together and say, “ ‘How do we work our way through this?’ ”

Could you imagine that, Hutson asked, before answering his own question.

Nope. Never gonna happen.

::

Nothing, and no individual, is perfect. But Hutson looks to the bottom line, and he’s willing to accept trade-offs.

Trump is loud and uncouth. But he’s respected on the world stage, Hutson said, in a way the shuffling Biden was not.

Trump may be toying with tariffs — up, down, all around. But at least he’s addressing the country’s one-sided trade relationships in a way, Hutson said, no president has before.

He may be off base calling for a drastic ramp-up of domestic oil production. But in general, Hutson said, Trump’s welcoming message to business is, “What can we do to be more helpful?”

It’s unfortunate that innocents are being swept up in mass immigration raids. But maybe that wouldn’t have happened, Hutson said, if local officials had been more cooperative and criminal elements weren’t allowed to insinuate themselves so deeply into their communities in the first place.

Besides, he said, haven’t Democrats and Republicans both said a secure border and tougher enforcement is needed before comprehensively overhauling the nation’s fouled-up immigration system?

“We need to bring in the workers we need,” Hutson said. “I mean, if somebody’s coming here to work and be a meaningful part of society, God bless, man.”

Not perfect. But, all in all, a better and stronger presidential performance, Hutson suggested, than many with their blind hatred of Trump can see, or are willing to acknowledge.

“I’ve got to look at the results,” Hutson said, “and despite his caustic attitude and behavior, I think he’s done a really, really good job.”

When Barack Obama was elected president, Hutson recalled, one of his Democratic friends, a Black man, said to him, “ ‘Roger, you’ve got a Black president.’ And I said, ‘You know, Kevin, you’re right. And he’s my president, just like he’s your president.

“ ‘We don’t have to agree on everything but, by God, he’s the president of the United States and we respect that office.’ ”

Hutson paused. His eyes narrowed, disapprovingly. “We’ve lost that,” he said.

Israel hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, killed several of the country’s top nuclear scientists, along with the head of the Revolutionary Guard and several military leaders, and damaged residential areas in Tehran.

Iran retaliated by sending hundreds of armed drones towards Israel.

Israel says it had intelligence showing Iran’s nuclear programme was “developing beyond the point of return”.

But the IAEA points out striking nuclear facilities is illegal under international law, as well as dangerous.

Is it really possible for Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and is it risking a nuclear disaster by trying?

Presenter: Cyril Vanier

Guests:

Ellie Geranmayeh – Senior policy fellow and deputy head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations

Ali Vaez – Director of the Iran Project at International Crisis Group

Samuel Ramani – Defence analyst and associate fellow at Royal United Services Institute.

Donald Trump pushed out his National Security Advisor Mike Waltz because he was reportedly talking to Israeli PM Netanyahu about bombing Iran. Does this mean Trump is serious about diplomatic reconciliation with Iran? Soraya Lennie explains.

Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford reports on the method being used to stop Russian drones from attacking Ukrainian vehicles near the border, not far from the Russian region of Kursk where fierce fighting is ongoing.

CIVIL servants and bureaucrats will thwart plans to fix the NHS because they want reforms done slowly, a report by MPs warns.

Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said officials in NHS England and the Department of Health are “out of ideas and remarkably complacent”.

1

A review by Lord Ara Darzi found ranks in Whitehall back offices have swollen while waiting lists have ballooned and patient satisfaction declined.

The PAC accused health officials of being too cautious and blighted by “short-termism”.

Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “The Government has transformative ambitions to address the issues plaguing the NHS.

“We were aghast to find some of the worst complacency amongst senior officials in charge of delivering these ambitions.

“Truly fresh ideas and radical energy must be generated to meet the scale of what is required.

“Given the position of the NHS, stale platitudes of incremental change are simply not going to cut it.”

An NHS spokesperson said: “This report contains basic factual inaccuracies and a flawed understanding of how the NHS and the government’s financial processes work.

“While NHS productivity is now improving at double pre-pandemic levels – far from being complacent, NHS England has repeatedly been open about the problem and the actions being taken to address it.

“Reform is part of the NHS’ DNA and has ensured performance improvements for patients in the past year despite capital starvation, unprecedented strikes and a fragile social care sector.”

The Department of Health said: “We have been consistently clear that fixing the broken NHS and ensuring it is fit for the future requires urgent and radical reform.”

SACRAMENTO —  California lawmakers met at the state Capitol Monday to devise a plan to shield the state from President-elect Donald Trump’s conservative policies, including his vows to repeal environmental protections and initiate mass deportations.

The goal of the special legislative session called by Gov. Gavin Newsom is to establish a $25 million fund for legal challenges to federal polices that the governor said could “harm the state,” including when it comes to civil rights, abortion access and immigration.

But with Trump’s return as president, the politics of leading the resistance are trickier as Democrats assess how they lost the White House and grapple with why support for Trump in California increased since the 2020 election despite his felony convictions, pattern of lies and role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol after his loss to President Biden.

Legislative leaders — under pressure to prove that the special session is more than just political theater, as alleged by some Republicans — tried to balance their concerns about a second Trump term with state issues important to constituents such as the rising cost of living.

As the Legislature welcomed 35 new members — including a record number of women — Democrats, who maintain a supermajority, said the legal preparation was a necessary precaution. During Trump’s first term as president, California filed more than 100 lawsuits against the federal government, winning protections for undocumented people who came to the U.S. as children and securing clean air rules.

“If Washington, D.C., refuses to tackle climate change in the coming four years, mark my word that California will continue to lead as we always have,” Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said on the Senate floor Monday. “Because here in the Golden State, we fight to lift up every person, no matter your background, no matter your skin color, who you are, who you love and how you identify.”

As lawmakers introduced bills that tighten up abortion rights and further affirm California as the Trump antithesis, California leaders were more tempered in their messaging and put their focus on bipartisan pocketbook issues.

“Our constituents don’t feel that the state of California is working for them,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said Monday, pointing to last month’s election, in which voters rejected progressive backed measures and revoked prison reform laws.

Rivas reduced the limit of bills allowed to be introduced and requested that all proposals focus on “affordability and prosperity.”

The speaker vowed to continue to protect Californians from any federal overreach targeting their rights.

“If LGBTQ people come under attack, if hard-working immigrants are targeted, if women’s reproductive freedom is threatened, we will fight back with everything we have,” Rivas said.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said if the Legislature approves the legal fund, it will be used to pay attorneys and other staff ready to take action in court immediately if Trump does anything the state believes is unlawful.

The proposed $25 million is “a start,” Bonta said.

“If there are no cases for us to bring because the Trump administration is acting completely lawfully, we won’t use any of it. We don’t expect that, based on what he did in the past — what he has said he will do,” Bonta said at a news conference in Sacramento on Monday. “Under Trump 2.0, we believe we will need to use all of it.”

California has been here before. Eight years ago, the legislative session kicked off with a similar motto, as Democratics rushed to thwart Trump’s policies, introducing bills that aimed to protect immigrants from deportation threats similar to proposals coming from the administration now.

“Californians do not need healing. We need to fight,” then-Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said in December 2016, calling Trump’s appointments then “white nationalists and antisemites” who “have no business working in the White House.”

Republicans tried to block the approval of the special session that kicked off Monday, painting it as an out-of-touch strategy and urging Democrats to avoid panic and resist egging on the federal government.

“The people of California sent a clear message during this election season. They are done with the majority party’s failure to address the most important issues we face and they are ready for a return to commonsense, solution-focused governing,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee). “We are thrilled to see Californians standing up against the Democrat machine and declaring, ‘enough is enough.’”

Even Newsom — an ever-willing Trump foe — has shifted his messaging after Republicans won the White House, Senate and House in the November election. In a statement on Monday, the governor said the special session is about “setting this state up for success” regardless of who is in the White House.

“We will work with the incoming administration, and we want President Trump to succeed in serving all Americans,” Newsom said. “But when there is overreach, when lives are threatened, when rights and freedoms are targeted, we will take action.”

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) introduced a bill on Monday that would repeal taxes on car seats and baby wipes — a bill he said “pro family” Republicans should support. He said members of his party need to “slow down” as they promise to lead the Trump resistance, and focus on policy that helps people instead of talking points.

“I think it’s different this time. No one’s growing their base attacking Trump right now,” Bryan said. “You can do real policy work and not just play politics with it.”