ReportWire

Tag: bill

  • NTSB chair slams House aviation bill as ‘watered-down’ after 67 deaths near Washington

    [ad_1]

    The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday it’s misleading for members of the House to say their package of aviation safety reforms would address the recommendations that her agency made in January to prevent another midair collision like the one last year near Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people.NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said the House bill’s “watered-down” requirements wouldn’t do enough to prevent a future tragedy, and wouldn’t be nearly as effective as a Senate bill that came up just one vote short of passing in the House earlier this week. The full NTSB followed up Thursday afternoon with a formal letter to two key House committees, saying that they can’t support the bill right now“We can have disagreements over policy all day. But when something is sold as these are the NTSB recommendations and that is not factually accurate, we have a problem with that. Because now you’re using the NTSB and you’re using people who lost loved ones in terrible tragedies,” Homendy said. “You’re using their pain to move your agenda forward.”The key concern of Homendy and the families of the people who died in the crash on Jan. 29, 2005, is that they believe all aircraft should be required to have key locator systems that the NTSB has been recommending since 2008, which would allow the pilots to know more precisely where the traffic around them is flying. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out systems that broadcast an aircraft’s location are already required around busy airports. It’s the ADS-B In systems that can receive data about the locations of other aircraft that isn’t yet standard.The House bill would ask the Federal Aviation Administration to draft a rule to require the best locator technology instead of just requiring ADS-B In, and even when it does suggest that technology should be required, the bill exempts business jets and small planes in certain parts of the airspace. Homendy said the bill is also weak in other areas, such as limits on when the military will be able to turn those locator systems off and the steps they must take to ensure those systems are working.House leaders defend their billThe leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee declined to respond to Homendy’s criticism Thursday, but Reps. Sam Graves and Rick Larsen have said they believe the ALERT bill they crafted effectively addresses the 50 recommendations that NTSB made at the conclusion of their investigation into the collision between an American Airlines jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter.They defended their bill and pledged to work with the families, the Senate and the industry to develop the best solution as soon as possible. The committee will likely markup the bill within the next few weeks.“From the beginning, we have stressed the importance of getting this right, and we are confident that we will achieve that goal,” Larsen and Graves said. House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he is committed to getting the bill done.Victims’ families say they can’t support the bill as writtenThe NTSB released a side-by-side comparison of its recommendations and the House bill to highlight all the ways the bill falls short of fully addressing the needed changes.Doug Lane, who lost his wife and son in the crash, and many of the other victims’ families said the House bill “is not really a serious attempt to address the NTSB recommendations.” He said the introduction of this bill just a few days before the vote on the ROTOR Act, which the Senate unanimously approved, seemed designed to “scuttle” that bill and send the ADS-B In recommendation into limbo to be considered in a lengthy rulemaking process.Matt Collins, who lost his younger brother Chris in the disaster, said that the bill must require ADS-B In to be acceptable to the families.“As far as the ALERT act — the way it’s written now, I can’t endorse the way its written now. It needs to include ADS-B In,” Collins said. “It’s non-negotiable for us as family members, extremely non-negotiable.”Missed warnings led to the crashThe NTSB cited systemic weaknesses and years of ignored warnings as the main causes of the crash, but Homendy has said that if both the plane and the Black Hawk had been equipped with ADS-B In and the systems had been turned on, the collision would have been prevented. The Army’s policy at the time of the crash mandated that its helicopters fly without that system on to conceal their locations, although the helicopter involved in this crash was on a training flight, not a sensitive mission.But Homendy said the House seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to include from the NTSB recommendations.“We were very explicit of what needed to occur,” Homendy said. “When we issue a recommendation, those recommendations are aimed at preventing a tragedy from happening again. And if you’re just going to give us half a loaf, it’s not going to do it. We’re not gonna save lives.”

    The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday it’s misleading for members of the House to say their package of aviation safety reforms would address the recommendations that her agency made in January to prevent another midair collision like the one last year near Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people.

    NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy said the House bill’s “watered-down” requirements wouldn’t do enough to prevent a future tragedy, and wouldn’t be nearly as effective as a Senate bill that came up just one vote short of passing in the House earlier this week. The full NTSB followed up Thursday afternoon with a formal letter to two key House committees, saying that they can’t support the bill right now

    “We can have disagreements over policy all day. But when something is sold as these are the NTSB recommendations and that is not factually accurate, we have a problem with that. Because now you’re using the NTSB and you’re using people who lost loved ones in terrible tragedies,” Homendy said. “You’re using their pain to move your agenda forward.”

    The key concern of Homendy and the families of the people who died in the crash on Jan. 29, 2005, is that they believe all aircraft should be required to have key locator systems that the NTSB has been recommending since 2008, which would allow the pilots to know more precisely where the traffic around them is flying. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out systems that broadcast an aircraft’s location are already required around busy airports. It’s the ADS-B In systems that can receive data about the locations of other aircraft that isn’t yet standard.

    The House bill would ask the Federal Aviation Administration to draft a rule to require the best locator technology instead of just requiring ADS-B In, and even when it does suggest that technology should be required, the bill exempts business jets and small planes in certain parts of the airspace. Homendy said the bill is also weak in other areas, such as limits on when the military will be able to turn those locator systems off and the steps they must take to ensure those systems are working.

    House leaders defend their bill

    The leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee declined to respond to Homendy’s criticism Thursday, but Reps. Sam Graves and Rick Larsen have said they believe the ALERT bill they crafted effectively addresses the 50 recommendations that NTSB made at the conclusion of their investigation into the collision between an American Airlines jet and an Army Black Hawk helicopter.

    They defended their bill and pledged to work with the families, the Senate and the industry to develop the best solution as soon as possible. The committee will likely markup the bill within the next few weeks.

    “From the beginning, we have stressed the importance of getting this right, and we are confident that we will achieve that goal,” Larsen and Graves said. House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he is committed to getting the bill done.

    Victims’ families say they can’t support the bill as written

    The NTSB released a side-by-side comparison of its recommendations and the House bill to highlight all the ways the bill falls short of fully addressing the needed changes.

    Doug Lane, who lost his wife and son in the crash, and many of the other victims’ families said the House bill “is not really a serious attempt to address the NTSB recommendations.” He said the introduction of this bill just a few days before the vote on the ROTOR Act, which the Senate unanimously approved, seemed designed to “scuttle” that bill and send the ADS-B In recommendation into limbo to be considered in a lengthy rulemaking process.

    Matt Collins, who lost his younger brother Chris in the disaster, said that the bill must require ADS-B In to be acceptable to the families.

    “As far as the ALERT act — the way it’s written now, I can’t endorse the way its written now. It needs to include ADS-B In,” Collins said. “It’s non-negotiable for us as family members, extremely non-negotiable.”

    Missed warnings led to the crash

    The NTSB cited systemic weaknesses and years of ignored warnings as the main causes of the crash, but Homendy has said that if both the plane and the Black Hawk had been equipped with ADS-B In and the systems had been turned on, the collision would have been prevented. The Army’s policy at the time of the crash mandated that its helicopters fly without that system on to conceal their locations, although the helicopter involved in this crash was on a training flight, not a sensitive mission.

    But Homendy said the House seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to include from the NTSB recommendations.

    “We were very explicit of what needed to occur,” Homendy said. “When we issue a recommendation, those recommendations are aimed at preventing a tragedy from happening again. And if you’re just going to give us half a loaf, it’s not going to do it. We’re not gonna save lives.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California bill would force lawmakers to start talking about controversial capitol annex project

    [ad_1]

    California lawmakers will consider a bill that could force public conversations on the secretive California Capitol Annex project for the first time in years. Assemblyman Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, filed AB 2445 which would invalidate the non-disclosure agreements that have been shielding basic information from the public about the taxpayer funded project. The project includes a new office building and parking garage for state lawmakers and the governor that is expected to be complete by Fall of 2027. Non-disclosure agreements are contracts that legally force people to keep quiet. In September of 2024, KCRA 3 first reported project leaders forced more than 2,000 people and counting to sign them, including some state lawmakers, government officials and members of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s staff. “This comes after years working behind the scenes and across the aisle to get information on the capitol annex,” Hoover said in an interview with KCRA 3 Wednesday. He said those efforts didn’t gain a lot of traction, and project leaders continue to keep information not just from the public, but also lawmakers. “We need to have a public conversation,” he said. Hoover’s bill would also prohibit the construction of a visitor’s center on the state capitol’s iconic west side. Project leaders quietly decided to not move forward with that aspect of the plan but told no one until KCRA 3 pressed for information last summer. Hoover wants the decision put into state law. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee overseeing the project has not held a single hearing on it since 2021 and the group has not updated the estimated cost to taxpayers since 2022, which at the time was set at $1.1 billion. Nearly three months after project leaders Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco and State Senator John Laird promised to be more transparent, they have yet to update taxpayers on the price tag. They have also rejected KCRA 3’s repeated requests for an interview since the start of this year. Pacheco and Laird would not do an interview for this story and did not have an update on a cost estimate as of Wednesday night. A spokesperson for the project said the project’s new management company was still “crunching the numbers” and would provide an update as soon as possible. Project leaders have been saying this since December. “We are aware of the legislative proposal pending in the Assembly and will let the legislative process run its course,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement. “I see a brave leadership doing the right thing and getting the issue behind them,” said Dick Cowan, the former leader of the now defunct Historic State Capitol Commission who was part of a group that sued over the project. “If the leadership ignores this bill, if they don’t refer it to a committee, if they don’t give it a hearing, that public trust is still at risk.” The projectBack in 2016, California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to demolish the capitol’s 1950’s annex building and construct a new one citing safety issues. The plan included not just a new building but also a parking garage and visitor’s center on the west side of the state capitol. The 525,000 square foot office building will specifically house the offices of California’s 120 state lawmakers, governor and lieutenant governor. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis will no longer be in office once it’s complete. In 2021, a group named Save Our Capitol sued over the project citing environmental concerns. A state appellate court sided with the group, agreeing that project leaders did not provide the public with an accurate description of the project or a thorough analysis of how the demolition of the old annex would impact the environment. In 2024, California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom rushed a bill that exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act to halt the litigation. A year after that litigation ended, project leaders continued to use it as an excuse to not update taxpayers on the cost. Even with a price tag of about $1.1 billion, it would still be considered one of the most expensive buildings in the country and cost nearly as much as an NFL stadium. Project leaders said they’ve spent $573.8 million so far and that it was 50% complete as of December of 2025. The secrecy The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee has been keeping basic information about the project confidential since it started.In the fall of 2024 through a series of open records requests, KCRA 3 broke the story that more than 2,000 people signed the broad non-disclosure agreements including five state lawmakers, dozens of government officials, and a handful of people in the governor’s office. With the information protected under NDAs, the estimated price tag of the project doubled between 2018 and 2021. Various legal experts told KCRA 3 they were alarmed by the development noting taxpayers and voters are entitled to the information. While it is legal, some state lawmakers and experts said the use of NDAs like this should be banned. Hoover’s bill attempts to prohibit the use of NDAs in this manner moving forward. “I think when you’re going to spend over a billion dollars, you need to have more transparency than this,” Hoover said. The original legislative architect of the Capitol Annex Project and the establishment of the NDAs was then Assemblyman Ken Cooley, a Democrat from Sacramento. Hoover defeated Cooley in the 2022 election. Cooley has ignored years’ worth of KCRA 3’s requests for information surrounding the decision to use NDAs. Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco replaced Cooley as the leader of the Joint Rules Committee when Cooley lost his seat. She and Vice Chairman of the committee, State Senator John Laird, have defended the use of the NDAs stating they’re meant to protect security and bid information”The NDAs are for public safety. They exist to protect the physical integrity of the building and safeguard everyone – legislators, staff, journalists and the multitude of daily schoolchildren and visitors. Invalidating these standard safety protocols would be a serious security risk.” The project NDAs do not explicitly say the words security and bid information. They protect any and all information related to the project. When pressed about this in an interview in December, Pacheco said, “These were drafted by legal counsel, and I can’t say why legal counsel would draft it in such a manner. Sometimes legal counsel prefers to have broad language.” Cowan has said Hoover’s proposal to get rid of them will be the only way for project leaders to truly know what went wrong. “They have to talk to everyone involved, because at the moment those people are afraid to speak,” Cowan said. Longtime lobbyist and Adjunct McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli said if lawmakers were to pass the proposal, it could be challenged in court. “States can’t impair existing contracts,” Micheli noted. “However, if there were a legal challenge, how would the courts look at it? Is it reasonable? Is it necessary? Does it serve a significant public purpose? I think if those three tests are viewed favorable then the invalidation could occur.” Project leaders have been making a series of decisions behind closed doors and have a history of withholding public records. KCRA 3 reported in 2024 the secret stonework project leaders quietly approved that involved mining 2 million pounds of rock from Central California, shipping it to Italy to be finished into stone and shipping it back to the state to eventually be placed on part of the facade of the new building. Following the January 6 attacks on the nation’s capitol, project leaders also added millions in new security expenses. State law has given project leaders the ability to meet and decide aspects of the project outside of public view. In addition to the leaders of the Joint Rules Committee, public records show the meetings also include the governor’s Director of Operations, the director of the Department of General Services and a representative with the project’s management company. Neither the governor’s office nor Joint Rules Committee could provide records showing how long these meetings lasted and whether a vote took place.Records provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Request show this group met nine times in 2019, seven times in 2020, one time in 2023 and one time in 2025. The west side visitor’s center The state law that established the capitol annex also established the west side visitor’s center, which has yet to materialize. The west side is the capitol’s main public square where there are often protests, demonstrations, press conferences and major events. Hoover’s bill AB 2445 would change the annex law and prohibit the demolition of the West Steps for a visitor’s center and require any future visitor’s center to be placed anywhere else around the state capitol. The visitor’s center was also at the center of the environmental lawsuit. Project leaders confirmed to KCRA 3 last year that they did not intend to move forward with the visitor’s center. It’s not clear what they plan to do with the money that was meant for it. “During the legal process it was determined that the best path forward to finish the Annex on time, was to no longer pursue the Visitors Center on the West Steps. At this time, we are focused on finishing the Annex and a conversation about building a Visitor’s Center may begin at a later date,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement. “Those words are not as comforting as the words I would want to hear, that ‘we commit, we’ll put in writing,’” Cowan told KCRA 3 in an interview. “Those are nice soft words but they don’t prevent work from starting later.” Records provided to KCRA 3 show on July 31, 2025, project leaders notified Plant Construction Company that the work had not been approved to proceed after stalling since 2023 because of the lawsuit. “We thank you for your work on the Visitor Center and look forward to a future opportunity to work with your team,” wrote the Chief Administrative Officers of the Senate and Assembly, Erika Contreras and Lia Lopez. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    California lawmakers will consider a bill that could force public conversations on the secretive California Capitol Annex project for the first time in years.

    Assemblyman Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, filed AB 2445 which would invalidate the non-disclosure agreements that have been shielding basic information from the public about the taxpayer funded project. The project includes a new office building and parking garage for state lawmakers and the governor that is expected to be complete by Fall of 2027.

    Non-disclosure agreements are contracts that legally force people to keep quiet. In September of 2024, KCRA 3 first reported project leaders forced more than 2,000 people and counting to sign them, including some state lawmakers, government officials and members of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s staff.

    “This comes after years working behind the scenes and across the aisle to get information on the capitol annex,” Hoover said in an interview with KCRA 3 Wednesday. He said those efforts didn’t gain a lot of traction, and project leaders continue to keep information not just from the public, but also lawmakers.

    “We need to have a public conversation,” he said.

    Hoover’s bill would also prohibit the construction of a visitor’s center on the state capitol’s iconic west side. Project leaders quietly decided to not move forward with that aspect of the plan but told no one until KCRA 3 pressed for information last summer. Hoover wants the decision put into state law.

    The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee overseeing the project has not held a single hearing on it since 2021 and the group has not updated the estimated cost to taxpayers since 2022, which at the time was set at $1.1 billion.

    Nearly three months after project leaders Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco and State Senator John Laird promised to be more transparent, they have yet to update taxpayers on the price tag. They have also rejected KCRA 3’s repeated requests for an interview since the start of this year.

    Pacheco and Laird would not do an interview for this story and did not have an update on a cost estimate as of Wednesday night. A spokesperson for the project said the project’s new management company was still “crunching the numbers” and would provide an update as soon as possible.

    Project leaders have been saying this since December.

    “We are aware of the legislative proposal pending in the Assembly and will let the legislative process run its course,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement.

    “I see a brave leadership doing the right thing and getting the issue behind them,” said Dick Cowan, the former leader of the now defunct Historic State Capitol Commission who was part of a group that sued over the project.

    “If the leadership ignores this bill, if they don’t refer it to a committee, if they don’t give it a hearing, that public trust is still at risk.”

    The project

    Back in 2016, California lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to demolish the capitol’s 1950’s annex building and construct a new one citing safety issues. The plan included not just a new building but also a parking garage and visitor’s center on the west side of the state capitol.

    The 525,000 square foot office building will specifically house the offices of California’s 120 state lawmakers, governor and lieutenant governor. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis will no longer be in office once it’s complete.

    In 2021, a group named Save Our Capitol sued over the project citing environmental concerns. A state appellate court sided with the group, agreeing that project leaders did not provide the public with an accurate description of the project or a thorough analysis of how the demolition of the old annex would impact the environment.

    In 2024, California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom rushed a bill that exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act to halt the litigation.

    A year after that litigation ended, project leaders continued to use it as an excuse to not update taxpayers on the cost. Even with a price tag of about $1.1 billion, it would still be considered one of the most expensive buildings in the country and cost nearly as much as an NFL stadium.

    Project leaders said they’ve spent $573.8 million so far and that it was 50% complete as of December of 2025.

    The secrecy

    The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee has been keeping basic information about the project confidential since it started.

    In the fall of 2024 through a series of open records requests, KCRA 3 broke the story that more than 2,000 people signed the broad non-disclosure agreements including five state lawmakers, dozens of government officials, and a handful of people in the governor’s office.

    With the information protected under NDAs, the estimated price tag of the project doubled between 2018 and 2021.

    Various legal experts told KCRA 3 they were alarmed by the development noting taxpayers and voters are entitled to the information. While it is legal, some state lawmakers and experts said the use of NDAs like this should be banned. Hoover’s bill attempts to prohibit the use of NDAs in this manner moving forward.

    “I think when you’re going to spend over a billion dollars, you need to have more transparency than this,” Hoover said.

    The original legislative architect of the Capitol Annex Project and the establishment of the NDAs was then Assemblyman Ken Cooley, a Democrat from Sacramento. Hoover defeated Cooley in the 2022 election. Cooley has ignored years’ worth of KCRA 3’s requests for information surrounding the decision to use NDAs.

    Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco replaced Cooley as the leader of the Joint Rules Committee when Cooley lost his seat. She and Vice Chairman of the committee, State Senator John Laird, have defended the use of the NDAs stating they’re meant to protect security and bid information

    “The NDAs are for public safety. They exist to protect the physical integrity of the building and safeguard everyone – legislators, staff, journalists and the multitude of daily schoolchildren and visitors. Invalidating these standard safety protocols would be a serious security risk.”

    The project NDAs do not explicitly say the words security and bid information. They protect any and all information related to the project. When pressed about this in an interview in December, Pacheco said, “These were drafted by legal counsel, and I can’t say why legal counsel would draft it in such a manner. Sometimes legal counsel prefers to have broad language.”

    Cowan has said Hoover’s proposal to get rid of them will be the only way for project leaders to truly know what went wrong.

    “They have to talk to everyone involved, because at the moment those people are afraid to speak,” Cowan said.

    Longtime lobbyist and Adjunct McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli said if lawmakers were to pass the proposal, it could be challenged in court.

    “States can’t impair existing contracts,” Micheli noted. “However, if there were a legal challenge, how would the courts look at it? Is it reasonable? Is it necessary? Does it serve a significant public purpose? I think if those three tests are viewed favorable then the invalidation could occur.”

    Project leaders have been making a series of decisions behind closed doors and have a history of withholding public records.

    KCRA 3 reported in 2024 the secret stonework project leaders quietly approved that involved mining 2 million pounds of rock from Central California, shipping it to Italy to be finished into stone and shipping it back to the state to eventually be placed on part of the facade of the new building.

    Following the January 6 attacks on the nation’s capitol, project leaders also added millions in new security expenses.

    State law has given project leaders the ability to meet and decide aspects of the project outside of public view. In addition to the leaders of the Joint Rules Committee, public records show the meetings also include the governor’s Director of Operations, the director of the Department of General Services and a representative with the project’s management company. Neither the governor’s office nor Joint Rules Committee could provide records showing how long these meetings lasted and whether a vote took place.

    Records provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Request show this group met nine times in 2019, seven times in 2020, one time in 2023 and one time in 2025.

    The west side visitor’s center

    The state law that established the capitol annex also established the west side visitor’s center, which has yet to materialize.

    The west side is the capitol’s main public square where there are often protests, demonstrations, press conferences and major events.

    Hoover’s bill AB 2445 would change the annex law and prohibit the demolition of the West Steps for a visitor’s center and require any future visitor’s center to be placed anywhere else around the state capitol.

    The visitor’s center was also at the center of the environmental lawsuit.

    Project leaders confirmed to KCRA 3 last year that they did not intend to move forward with the visitor’s center. It’s not clear what they plan to do with the money that was meant for it.

    “During the legal process it was determined that the best path forward to finish the Annex on time, was to no longer pursue the Visitors Center on the West Steps. At this time, we are focused on finishing the Annex and a conversation about building a Visitor’s Center may begin at a later date,” Pacheco and Laird said in a joint statement.

    “Those words are not as comforting as the words I would want to hear, that ‘we commit, we’ll put in writing,’” Cowan told KCRA 3 in an interview. “Those are nice soft words but they don’t prevent work from starting later.”

    Records provided to KCRA 3 show on July 31, 2025, project leaders notified Plant Construction Company that the work had not been approved to proceed after stalling since 2023 because of the lawsuit.

    “We thank you for your work on the Visitor Center and look forward to a future opportunity to work with your team,” wrote the Chief Administrative Officers of the Senate and Assembly, Erika Contreras and Lia Lopez.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom and Trump have vowed to crack down on corporate home buying. A new bill aims to curb it

    [ad_1]

    In a rare moment of political alignment last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Trump vowed to crack down on corporate home buying. Now, a new bill aims to make it a reality.

    Assembly Bill 1611, introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) in January, would eliminate a “tax loophole” that Haney says corporate landlords and investment firms use to buy up single-family homes across the state.

    “It’s shocking to me that by design, our tax system lets large firms take advantage of tax breaks in order to outbid California families when buying homes,” Haney said. “They’re able to use a tax loophole to give themselves an upper hand.”

    The so-called loophole takes the form of a 1031 exchange — a tax-filing strategy that allows real estate owners to defer capital gains taxes when they sell an investment property, such as a single-family home, as long as they buy a similar “like-kind” property within 180 days. Essentially, it allows investors to replace one investment property with another, avoiding taxes in the process.

    The bill would ban companies that own at least 50 single-family homes from taking advantage of the tax break. It would apply to sales completed after Jan. 1, 2026.

    California has the second-lowest homeownership rate in the country at 56%, and Haney said corporations shouldn’t be shirking real estate taxes in the midst of a housing crisis. The California Department of Finance estimated that during the current fiscal year, the state lost $1.2 billion in revenue due to like-kind exchanges.

    Lenny Goldberg, the policy director for the California Tax Reform Assn., worked with Haney to develop the bill. He said he has viewed like-kind exchanges as a rip-off for years, but it’s an ongoing issue with a powerful lobby behind it.

    “They’re called like-kind exchanges, but they’re not actually like-kind,” he said. “You can exchange an office building for a hotel, or an apartment building for a single-family home.”

    He added that corporate investors aren’t buying up high-end neighborhoods; it’s mostly working-class or middle-class areas, where the affordability crisis is more acute.

    Goldberg said the ban would help in two ways. First, it would result in more tax dollars being paid by corporations. And second, it would stop allowing corporations to dominate bidding wars for homes.

    Currently, corporate owners can afford to bid more on a home than an individual, knowing that when they eventually sell it, they can avoid the capital gains tax by buying a different property, making it a more valuable asset. If they didn’t have access to that benefit, that advantage would be gone.

    He sees it as a modest proposal; a more ambitious effort would be to eliminate like-kind exchanges altogether. But this is a good place to start, and it still lets mom-and-pop landlords or investors who own fewer than 50 properties to take advantage of the tax break, he said.

    The corporate home buying trend became a focal point during the pandemic emergency, when low interest rates sent the housing market into a frenzy, and first-time home buyers competed with investors viewing the house as an asset, not a home. During the second quarter of 2021, 23% of home sales in L.A. County went to investors rather than someone wanting to live there.

    But data show that corporate ownership still makes up a much smaller share of the overall market. Analysis from the California Research Bureau showed that 2.8% of single-family homes in the Golden State are owned by companies that own at least 10 properties.

    The biggest chunk of that appears to be smaller mom-and-pop landlords rather than giant corporations. Companies with more than 50 properties own roughly 110,000 homes in California, whereas companies with 10 to 49 properties, which would be exempt from the ban, own roughly 235,000 properties.

    Haney said now is the right time for the bill, given the momentum provided by Newsom and Trump last month.

    Newsom vowed to take a tougher stance on corporate home buying in his final State of the State speech, saying that “it’s shameful that we allow private equity firms in Manhattan to become some of the biggest landlords in many of our cities.”

    It’s unclear which form the crackdown will take; Newsom said it means more oversight and enforcement, and potentially changing the tax code.

    A few weeks prior, Trump announced immediate steps to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes, but no specific actions have been announced.

    Haney said it’s also timely in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton fires, since data show that investors are flooding the market for burned-out lots, replacing longtime locals. A recent Redfin report said at least 40% of lot sales in fire-damaged areas went to investors in the third quarter of 2025.

    “It shows you that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Whatever your political leaning, you should want regular families to have access to homeownership,” Haney said. “Maybe this is one of the rare issues where there’s broad agreement across political stripes, and we can actually solve a problem.”

    A different bill addressing institutional investors, AB 1240, took a different approach. Introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), it looked to ban investors that own at least 1,000 single-family properties from buying more homes in order to rent them out.

    Nine companies own more than 1,000 single-family homes in California. The largest is Invitation Homes, which owns more than 11,000 homes in the state and has faced a litany of lawsuits related to unpermitted renovations, unfair eviction practices and withheld security deposits.

    Lee’s bill passed the state Assembly last year but stalled after fierce opposition from real estate agents and the California Apartment Assn. It awaits a Senate committee hearing.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • Rep. Jim McGovern introduces bill to end “counterproductive” U.S. embargo against Cuba

    [ad_1]

    On Thursday, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts introduced a bill to the House of Representatives that calls for the end of the United States’ 64-year-old embargo against Cuba.

    The proposed measure comes as the Trump administration has moved toward placing a total oil blockade on the island nation, following the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Since Maduro’s capture, the U.S. has cut off all shipments of Venezuelan oil to Cuba. President Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on countries that send oil to the island.

    The oil deprivation in Cuba has sparked concern from international bodies, including the United Nations, which warned that the holdout would strain an already-fragile fuel situation and create a humanitarian crisis in the country.

    “For 60 years, we have been waiting for [the] embargo to do what politicians in Washington claim it will do — deliver freedom or democracy to the people of Cuba. It has failed,” McGovern wrote in his newly introduced bill.

    “It’s time to throw away the old, obsolete, failed policies of the past and try something different. Let’s focus on the people of Cuba — and let’s treat them like human beings who want to live their lives in dignity and freedom. The Cuban people — not politicians in Washington — ought to decide their own leaders and their own future.”

    The Massachusetts representative’s proposal mirrors a similar bill that was put forth to the U.S. Senate by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) in 2025.

    Additionally, McGovern criticized the seemingly hypocritical nature that the blockade has on Trump’s desire to curb immigration in the U.S.

    “The Trump administration says they want to curtail migration, but their own hard line approach only incentivizes migration to the United States by making living conditions worse in Cuba,” he wrote.

    “Not only is the embargo absurdly ineffective — it is counterproductive, hurting the very people it purports to help. It’s not Cuban elites who are harmed by our policies — it’s regular people and families who are denied food, medicine, and basic goods. We ought to use diplomacy and engagement to achieve our goals.”

    McGovern isn’t new to looking for an end of the embargo, his advocacy on the topic dates back to at least 2000.

    At the turn of the century, he penned an Op-Ed in The Times calling for former President Bill Clinton to put an end to the Cold War politics looming over the two countries’ strain.

    “The president should … declare to the Cuban people that the Cold War is finally over,” McGovern wrote in his 2000 article. “He should announce that he will use his executive power to normalize diplomatic relations, lift the travel restrictions imposed on U.S. citizens who want to travel to Cuba and waive as much of the outdated economic embargo as current law allows.”

    Other Democratic congresspeople have criticized the devastating nature of the oil embargo in recent days. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez compared the Cuban crisis to that of Gaza, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota called for the “cruel” and “despotic” blockade to be lifted and Rep. Chuy García of Illinois said the blockade is “deliberately starving civilians” in Cuba.

    To help curb the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding in Cuba, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum sent two of her country’s naval ships filled with humanitarian aid to the island last week, despite Trump’s tariff threats.

    In another effort to send aid to Cuba, an international coalition is preparing to send a flotilla with resources in March to the Caribbean archipelago. Named after “Nuestra América,” the 1891 essay by Cuban independence leader José Marti, the “Nuestra América Flotilla” mission is inspired by the Global Sumud Flotilla, which attempted to get aid to Gaza last year amid Israel’s blockade of the Palestine coastline.

    The coalition includes the political and grassroots organizations Progressive International, the People’s Forum and Code Pink, among others.

    “We are sailing to Cuba, bringing critical humanitarian aid for its people,” the organizers wrote on the official flotilla website. “The Trump administration is strangling the island, cutting off fuel, flights, and critical supplies for survival. The consequences are lethal, for newborns and parents, for the elderly and the sick.”

    [ad_2]

    Carlos De Loera

    Source link

  • A California county’s only hospital cleared a federal hurdle, but it still needs millions to reopen

    [ad_1]

    A shuttered Northern California hospital is getting a lifeline from Congress, but it doesn’t come with money to actually reopen and serve patients.

    A new federal law will restore the “critical access” designation for Glenn Medical Center, the only hospital in Glenn County. As a result, once it reopens, the hospital qualifies for full Medicare reimbursement, a key source of revenue.

    Separately, last week a California lawmaker introduced a bill to create state loans for struggling hospitals, which could help the facility find the money it needs to reopen.

    For now, Glenn Medical Center says it needs $40 million to $50 million to restart operations and bring back staff.

    Glenn Melnick, a health economist at USC, says because a federal decision led to the hospital’s closure, it would make sense for the federal government to provide funds for the hospital’s reopening.

    “In an ideal world this [congressional] bill would have restored their status and made them whole, right?” he said. “But failing that, you’re gonna have to look to the state.”

    Regaining critical access status

    The problem with Glenn Medical Center, according to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was distance.

    Critical access hospitals must be at least 35 miles from the next closest facility, and a review showed that Glenn Medical was only 32 miles from a hospital in Colusa County. Hospital officials appealed arguing that the hospital’s location had not changed since it qualified for the designation a quarter-century earlier, but their appeals were unsuccessful, and the hospital closed last fall.

    A critical access designation brings hospitals regulatory flexibility and increased reimbursement for Medicare patients. Without the revenue that comes from having critical access status, operations at Glenn Medical would be unsustainable, hospital management previously told CalMatters.

    The closure meant a county of 28,000 people no longer had a local emergency room.

    Last fall, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the late Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa introduced efforts in Congress to restore Glenn Medical’s designation. The deal that was ultimately signed into law directs the federal health agency to waive the distance requirement for any critical access hospital that had this designation as of Jan. 1, 2024, and that received a notification of noncompliance before Jan. 1, 2026.

    “Returning the [critical access] designation is a great step, but it doesn’t solve the problem,” said Matthew Beehler, a spokesperson for American Advanced Management, the company that owns and operates Glenn Medical Center.

    “We’re trying to be realistic about how much money it will take to reopen because it will take significant recruitment efforts,” he said.

    Distressed hospital loans 2.0

    In Sacramento, a state bill now may pave the way for the financial help that Glenn Medical is seeking.

    Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria (D-Fresno) on Thursday introduced the sequel to a 2023 law that created the state’s Distressed Hospital Loan Program. That fund is out of money after distributing about $300 million to hospitals. Soria’s new proposal, Assembly Bill 1923, is seeking a new round of $300 million for struggling hospitals. If the bill makes it out of the Legislature and gains Gov. Gavin Newsom’s support, hospitals could then apply for the loans.

    That previous loan program afforded then-closed Madera Community Hospital $57 million, allowing it to reopen in March 2025. It’s the only hospital in Madera County.

    American Advanced Management took over and reopened Madera Community; it also owns Glenn Medical.

    “Realistically we would have to find funding from the state like Madera did,” American Advanced Management’s Beehler said. “As we’ve seen in Madera…we need to cover about a year’s worth of expenses before you get reimbursements.”

    The ongoing challenges of rural hospitals

    Glenn Medical’s bureaucratic challenges are unique, prompted by a reinterpretation of a longtime federal rule. But similar to many rural and community hospitals, it had been operating in the red for years. That precarious financial state makes these hospitals particularly vulnerable to any change.

    “Here’s the thing, most of these rural hospitals are on a shoestring,” Melnick said. And especially independent hospitals, those that are not part of a larger health system, “they’re living year to year right now.”

    The first round of loans to distressed hospitals pushed through in 2023 happened as several hospitals warned they were on the brink — which they said was the result of higher labor costs and low reimbursement rates. In announcing the bill, Soria said she is trying again in part because of the federal budget bill President Trump signed last year that makes sweeping cuts and changes to the country’s safety net programs.

    That law, experts say, will starve hospitals in rural and underserved areas of tens of billions of dollars in the next decade. “Dozens of hospitals are facing a financial cliff right now, thanks to the largest federal healthcare cuts in history that arrived with this new federal administration in 2025,” Soria said.

    In an attempt to cushion this blow, Congress created a $50-billion Rural Health Transformation Project. California will receive $233 million from that fund this year, with more expected over the next five years. But experts have noted that this federal project makes up only about third of the expected losses in rural areas. It’s not yet clear whether Glenn Medical could qualify for a piece of this money.

    Ana B. Ibarra writes for CalMatters.

    [ad_2]

    Ana B. Ibarra

    Source link

  • House votes on health insurance subsidies as Senate debates military powers

    [ad_1]

    It’s the first week of a new year for Congress, and each chamber is considering legislation with votes to watch on Thursday.Enhanced Health Care SubsidiesThe House of Representatives is voting on a bill to reinstate tax credits that expired last year and were central to the government shutdown.The bill aims to extend these subsidies for three years, helping those without insurance through their employers pay for coverage. Four Republicans: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1st), Rep. Ryan McKenzie (PA-7th), Rep. Rob Bresnahan (PA-8th), and Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17th) joined Democrats to push the vote, which is expected to pass. Five more Republicans joined Democrats during a test vote on Wednesday.However, the Senate is not expected to consider this bill, as they are working on their own Affordable Care Act reform measure designed to pass both chambers.Venezuela War Powers ResolutionThe Senate is revisiting a war powers resolution that would prevent the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. This follows a recent military operation in Venezuela’s capital, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are now in New York facing narcoterrorism charges. President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. is running Venezuela and may deploy the military again if the remaining Maduro regime does not comply with U.S. demands.The same resolution failed a previous vote, as well as a measure to stop the Trump administration from bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the White House says were connected to Venezuela. Past administrations arrested and charged such suspects. The Trump administration’s campaign has killed more than 100 people.Reactions To Greenland RhetoricThe White House’s suggestion to use military force to take over Greenland has been met with criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats have long opposed this idea, and several Republicans have recently spoken out against it.Rep. Mike Johnson, House Speaker, said, “All this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.” Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the notion, saying, “Making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the kingdom of Denmark, folks, amateur hour is over.” Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana noted, “In the case of Greenland, you have two things: one, not a present threat, and so they have a duly elected president. So, he doesn’t have the authority without Congress.”Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska added, “It’s very… amateurish. I feel like we’ve got high school kids playing Risk.”Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also stated that the president wants to buy Greenland.Earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Hearst Television: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    It’s the first week of a new year for Congress, and each chamber is considering legislation with votes to watch on Thursday.

    Enhanced Health Care Subsidies

    The House of Representatives is voting on a bill to reinstate tax credits that expired last year and were central to the government shutdown.

    The bill aims to extend these subsidies for three years, helping those without insurance through their employers pay for coverage. Four Republicans: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1st), Rep. Ryan McKenzie (PA-7th), Rep. Rob Bresnahan (PA-8th), and Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17th) joined Democrats to push the vote, which is expected to pass. Five more Republicans joined Democrats during a test vote on Wednesday.

    However, the Senate is not expected to consider this bill, as they are working on their own Affordable Care Act reform measure designed to pass both chambers.

    Venezuela War Powers Resolution

    The Senate is revisiting a war powers resolution that would prevent the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. This follows a recent military operation in Venezuela’s capital, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are now in New York facing narcoterrorism charges.

    President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. is running Venezuela and may deploy the military again if the remaining Maduro regime does not comply with U.S. demands.

    The same resolution failed a previous vote, as well as a measure to stop the Trump administration from bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the White House says were connected to Venezuela. Past administrations arrested and charged such suspects. The Trump administration’s campaign has killed more than 100 people.

    Reactions To Greenland Rhetoric

    The White House’s suggestion to use military force to take over Greenland has been met with criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats have long opposed this idea, and several Republicans have recently spoken out against it.

    Rep. Mike Johnson, House Speaker, said, “All this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the notion, saying, “Making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the kingdom of Denmark, folks, amateur hour is over.”

    Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana noted, “In the case of Greenland, you have two things: one, not a present threat, and so they have a duly elected president. So, he doesn’t have the authority without Congress.”

    Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska added, “It’s very… amateurish. I feel like we’ve got high school kids playing Risk.”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also stated that the president wants to buy Greenland.

    Earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Hearst Television: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans defy Johnson to force House vote on extending health insurance subsidies

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Four House Republicans broke with party leadership on Wednesday to join Democrats in overriding the GOP majority and forcing a vote on extending healthcare tax credits — a defection that underscores the party’s growing vulnerability on economic issues ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    The healthcare tax credits, which were central to the fight that led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress takes action.

    Democrats, and a small but increasingly vocal group of Republicans, warned that allowing the tax credits to lapse would lead to sharp healthcare premium increases for millions of Americans, which could prove a politically perilous outcome in competitive districts.

    House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), have resisted extending the tax credits, arguing instead for an alternative approach to lowering healthcare costs. But that stance on Wednesday showed that they were at odds with members who say the issue would hurt constituents.

    “I’m pissed for the American people,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) told reporters.

    His remarks came after he joined Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Robert Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie, all from Pennsylvania, in signing a Democrat-led petition that needed 218 signatures to force a floor vote on a bill to extend the healthcare subsidies for three years. The four Republicans were the final votes needed.

    California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who represents a swing district, was not among the Republicans to sign the petition, but he told reporters it is important for leadership to take up the matter sooner than later. Otherwise, he said, it would be a “failure of leadership.”

    “We have members on both sides who believe this is an urgent issue and it is for all of our members in terms of what their constituents are going to have to deal with at the end of the year,” Kiley said. “So, what is wrong with having a vote?”

    Californians are bracing for monthly premiums on the Covered California exchange — a state portal for Obamacare coverage — to soar by 97% on average for 2026. Open enrollment for the coming year runs until Jan. 31.

    Even if the subsidies remained intact, premiums for plans offered by Covered California were set to rise by roughly 10% for 2026, due to spikes in drug prices and other medical services, experts said. But a failure to address the lapsing credits is expected to result in sticker shock across the state and the country. Nearly six in 10 Americans who use the ACA marketplace live in Republican districts.

    A vote on the House measure is expected in January, after the subsidies have already expired. Even if the House effort succeeds, its prospects remain dim in the Senate, where Republicans last week blocked a three-year extension.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has argued against the Democratic extension as “an attempt to disguise the real impact of Obamacare’s spiraling healthcare costs.”

    On Wednesday, after the petition gained enough votes in the House, Thune told reporters the chamber will “cross that bridge when it comes to it.”

    The push in the House underscored a breakdown in Johnson’s control of the chamber as well as the deep divisions among GOP lawmakers on how to address healthcare costs, which polling consistently ranks as a top concern among voters.

    The small rebellion against Johnson came after tensions emerged on healthcare talks in the chamber.

    Johnson had discussed allowing more politically vulnerable GOP lawmakers a chance to vote on bills that would temporarily extend the subsidies while also adding changes such as income caps for beneficiaries.

    But after days of discussions, the leadership sided with the more conservative wing of the party’s conference, which has assailed the subsidies as propping up a failed marketplace through the ACA, which is widely known as Obamacare.

    House Republicans pushed forward Wednesday a 100-plus-page healthcare package without the subsidies, instead focusing on long-sought GOP proposals designed to expand insurance coverage options for small businesses and the self-employed.

    Fitzpatrick and Lawler tried to add a temporary extension of the subsidies to the bill, but were denied.

    “Our only request was a floor vote on this compromise, so that the American People’s voice could be heard on this issue. That request was rejected. Then, at the request of House leadership I, along with my colleagues, filed multiple amendments, and testified at length to those amendments,” Fitzpatrick said. “House leadership then decided to reject every single one of these amendments.”

    After the four Republicans broke with him on Wednesday, Johnson pushed back against the notion that the episode shows he is losing influence over the chamber.

    “I have not lost control of the House,” Johnson said. He instead pointed to a “razor thin margin” in the chamber, which he says allows a few defectors to circumvent leadership.

    “These are not normal times,” he added.

    This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • In first year in Senate, Schiff pushes legislation, party message and challenges to Trump

    [ad_1]

    Five months after joining the U.S. Senate, Adam Schiff delivered a floor speech on what he called “the top 10 deals for Donald Trump and the worst deals for the American people.”

    Schiff spoke of Trump and his family getting rich off cryptocurrency and cutting new development deals across the Middle East, and of the president accepting a free jet from the Qatari government. Meanwhile, he said, average Americans were losing their healthcare, getting priced out of the housing market and having to “choose between rent or groceries.”

    “Trump gets rich. You get screwed,” the Democrat said.

    The speech was classic Schiff — an attempt by the former prosecutor to wrangle a complex set of graft allegations against Trump and his orbit into a single, cohesive corruption case against the president, all while serving up his own party’s preferred messaging on rising costs and the lack of affordability.

    It was also a prime example of the tack Schiff has taken since being sworn in one year ago to finish the final term of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a titan of California politics who held the seat for more than 30 years before dying in office in 2023.

    Schiff — now serving his own six-year term — has remained the unblinking antagonist to Trump that many Californians elected him to be after watching him dog the president from the U.S. House during Trump’s first term in the White House. He’s also continued to serve as one of the Democratic Party’s most talented if slightly cerebral messengers, hammering Trump over his alleged abuses of power and the lagging economy, which has become one of the president’s biggest liabilities.

    Schiff has done so while also defending himself against Trump’s accusations that he committed mortgage fraud on years-old loan documents; responding to the devastating wildfires that ripped through the Los Angeles region in January; visiting 25 of California’s 58 counties to meet more of his nearly 40 million constituents; grilling Trump appointees as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and struggling to pass legislation as a minority member of a profoundly dysfunctional Congress that recently allowed for the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history.

    It’s been an unusual and busy freshman year, attracting sharp criticism from the White House but high praise from his allies.

    “Pencil Neck Shifty Schiff clearly suffers from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that clouds his every thought,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “It’s too bad for Californians that Pencil Neck is more focused on his hatred of the President than he is on the issues that matter to them.”

    “He’s been great for California,” said Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who endorsed Schiff’s opponent, former Rep. Katie Porter, in the Senate primary. “He’s not afraid of taking on Trump, he’s not afraid of doing tough oversight, he’s not afraid of asking questions, and it’s clear that Donald Trump is scared of Adam Schiff.”

    “While he may be a freshman in the Senate,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), “he’s certainly no rookie.”

    Attempts to legislate

    Before he became known nationally for helping to lead Trump’s first-term impeachments and investigate the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters, Schiff was known as a serious legislator. Since joining the Senate, he has tried to reclaim that reputation.

    He has introduced bills to strengthen homes against wildfires and other natural disasters, give tax relief to Los Angeles fire victims, strengthen California’s fire-crippled insurance market, study AI’s impact on the American workforce, reinstate a national assault weapons ban and expand federal tax credits for affordable housing.

    He has also introduced bills to end Trump’s tariffs, rein in the powers of the executive branch, halt the president and other elected officials from getting rich off cryptocurrencies, and end the White House-directed bombing campaign on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.

    None of that legislation has passed.

    Schiff said he’s aware that putting his name on legislation might diminish its chances of gaining support, and at times he has intentionally taken a back seat on bills he’s worked on — he wouldn’t say which — to give them a better shot of advancing. But he said he also believes Democrats need to “point out what they’re for” to voters more often, and is proud to have put his name on bills that are important to him and he believes will bring down costs for Californians.

    As an example, he said his recent Housing BOOM (Building Occupancy Opportunity for Millions) Act is about building “millions of new homes across America, like we did after World War II, that are affordable for working families,” and is worth pushing even if Republicans resist it.

    “As we saw with the healthcare debate, when Republicans aren’t acting to bring costs down, when they’re doing things that make costs go up instead, we can force them to respond by putting forward our own proposals to move the country forward,” he said. “If Republicans continue to be tone deaf to the needs of the American people, with President Trump calling the affordability issue a hoax, then they’re gonna get the same kind of shellacking that they did in the election last month.”

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a staunch ally, called Schiff a “legislative genius” who is “giving people hope” with his bills, which could pass if Democrats win back the House next year.

    “He has a vision for our country. He has knowledge of issues par excellence from all of the years that he’s served. He’s a strategic thinker,” she said. “I wouldn’t question how he decides to take up a bill just because what’s-his-name’s in the White House.”

    Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant, said Schiff’s prominent position on Trump’s enemies list of course hurts his chances of passing legislation, but the hyper-partisan nature of Congress means his chances weren’t great to begin with.

    Meanwhile, being seen as working for solutions clearly serves him and his party well, Madrid said, adding, “He’s probably accomplishing more socially than he ever could legislatively.”

    Criticism and praise

    For months, Trump and his administration have been accusing several prominent Democrats of mortgage-related crimes. Trump has accused Schiff of mortgage fraud for claiming primary residency in both California and Maryland, which Schiff denies.

    So far, nothing has come of it. Schiff said that he has not been interviewed by federal prosecutors, who are reportedly skeptical of the case, and that he doesn’t know anything about it other than that it is “a broad effort to silence and intimidate the president’s critics.”

    Schiff’s supporters and other political observers in the state either ignored the issue when asked about Schiff’s first year, were dismissive of it or said they saw it as a potential asset for the senator.

    “Adam Schiff is a person of great integrity, and people know that,” Pelosi said.

    “Probably one of the best things that could happen to Schiff is if Trump actually goaded the [Justice Department] to charge him for mortgage fraud, and then for the case to be thrown out in court,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist — noting that is what happened with a similar case brought against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

    “He’s really benefited from having Trump put a target on his back,” South said. “In California, that’s not a death knell, that’s a life force.”

    Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which Schiff sits on, said California represents a big part of the nation’s agriculture industry and having Schiff on the committee “is a good thing not just for California, but for our overall efforts to support farmers and producers nationwide.”

    “I have known Sen. Schiff since we served in the House together, and we are both committed to advocating farmers’ and rural America’s needs in a bipartisan way,” Boozman said. “We look forward to more opportunities to advance these goals together.”

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has “a cordial, professional relationship” with Schiff, a spokesperson said.

    Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, declined to comment. Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, the leading Republican in the race for governor, did not respond to a request for comment.

    Looking ahead

    What comes next for Schiff will depend in part on whether Democrats win back a majority in Congress. But people on both sides of the political aisle said they expect big things from him regardless.

    Garcia said Schiff will be “at the center of holding the Trump administration accountable” no matter what happens. “Obviously, in the majority, we’re going to have the ability to subpoena, and to hold hearings, and to hold the administration accountable in a way that we don’t have now, but even in the minority, I think you see Adam’s strong voice pretty constant.”

    Kevin Spillane, a veteran GOP strategist, said he doesn’t make much of Schiff’s economic messaging because voters in California know that Democrats have caused the state’s affordability crisis by raising taxes and imposing endless regulations.

    But Schiff is already “the second-most important Democrat in California” after Newsom, he said, and his hammering on affordability could propel him even further if voters start to see him as working toward solutions.

    Rob Stutzman, another Republican consultant, said he can see Schiff in coming years “ascend to the Feinstein role” of “the caretaker of California in the U.S. Congress” — someone with “the ability to broker deals” on hugely important issues such as water and infrastructure. But to do so, Stutzman said, Schiff “needs to extract himself from the political meme of being a Trump antagonist.”

    Schiff said he knew heading to the Senate as Trump returned to the White House that he would be dividing his time “between delivering for California and fighting the worst of the Trump policies.” But his efforts to fix the economy and his efforts to resist Trump are not at odds, he said, but deeply intertwined.

    “When people feel like the quality of life their parents had was better, and the future for their kids looks like it’s even more in doubt, all too many are ready to entertain any demagogue who comes along promising they alone can fix it. They start to question whether democracy really works,” he said. “So I don’t think we’re going to put our democracy on a solid footing until we have our economy on a solid footing.”

    Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • President Trump Signs Epstein Files Bill – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (UMA SANGHVI/The Palm Beach Post Via AP, File)

    WASHINGTON, DC (AP) – President Donald Trump signed a bill Wednesday to compel the Justice Department to make public its case files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a potentially far-reaching development in a years-long push by survivors of Epstein’s abuse for a public reckoning.

    The president’s signing sets a 30-day countdown for the Justice Department to produce what’s commonly known as the Epstein files. Those include everything the Justice Department has collected over multiple federal investigations into Epstein, as well as his longtime confidante and girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for luring teenage girls for the disgraced financier. Those records total around 100,000 pages, according to a federal judge who has reviewed the case.

    It will also compel the Justice Department to produce all its internal communications on Epstein and his associates and his 2019 death in a Manhattan jail cell as he awaited charges for sexually abusing and trafficking dozens of teenage girls.

    The legislation, however, exempts some parts of the case files. The bill’s authors made sure to include that the Justice Department could withhold personally identifiable information of victims, child sexual abuse materials and information deemed by the administration to be classified for national defense or foreign policy.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Trump signs bill demanding his administration release the Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday night signed into law legislation demanding that the Justice Department release all documents related to its investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    With little fanfare, the president announced the action in a lengthy social media post that attacked Democrats who have been linked to the late financier, a line of attack that he has often deployed while ignoring his and other Republicans’ ties to the scandal.

    “Perhaps the truth about these Democrats and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed, but I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

    Now the focus turns to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, whom the legislation compels to make available “all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials” in the Department of Justice’s possession no later than 30 days after the legislation becoming law.

    The action on the bill marks a dramatic shift for Trump, who worked for months to thwart release of the Epstein files — until Sunday, when he reversed course under pressure from his party and called on Republican lawmakers to back the measure. Within days, the Senate and House overwhelmingly voted for the bill and sent it to Trump’s desk.

    Although Trump has now signed the bill into law, his resistance to releasing the files has led to skepticism among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill who question whether the Justice Department may try to conceal information.

    “The real test will be, will the Department of Justice release the files or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said at a news conference Tuesday before the House and Senate passed the bill. Greene was among a small group of GOP defectors who joined Democrats in forcing the legislation to the floor over Trump’s objections.

    The legislation prohibits the attorney general from withholding, delaying or redacting the publication of “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    Carve-outs in the bill could allow Trump and Bondi to withhold documents that include identifying information of victims or depictions of child sexual abuse materials.

    The law also would allow them to conceal information that would “jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.”

    Trump directed the Justice Department last week to investigate Epstein’s links with major banks and several prominent Democrats, including former President Clinton.

    Bondi abided, and appointed a top federal prosecutor to pursue the investigation with “urgency and integrity.” In July, the Justice Department determined after an extensive review that there was not enough evidence that “could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties” in the Epstein case.

    At a news conference Wednesday, Bondi said the department had opened another case into Epstein after “new information” emerged.

    Bondi did not say how the new investigation could affect the release of the files.

    Asked if the Epstein documents would be released within 30 days, as the law states, Bondi said her department would “follow the law.”

    “We will continue to follow the law with maximum transparency while protecting victims,” Bondi said.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • House set to vote to release Epstein files following months of pressure

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The House is poised to vote overwhelmingly on Tuesday to demand the Justice Department release all documents tied to its investigation of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    President Trump, who initially worked to thwart the vote before reversing course on Sunday night, has said he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. For that to happen, the bill will also need to pass the Senate, which could consider the measure as soon as Tuesday night.

    Republicans for months pushed back on the release of the Epstein files, joining Trump in claiming the Epstein issue was being brought up by Democrats as a way to distract from Republicans’ legislative successes.

    But that all seismically shifted Sunday when Trump had a drastic reversal and urged Republicans to vote to release the documents, saying there was “nothing to hide.”

    “It’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    The reversal came days after 20,000 documents from Epstein’s private estate were released by lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee. The files referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

    In private emails, Epstein wrote that Trump had “spent hours” at his house and “knew about the girls,” a revelation that reignited the push in Congress for further disclosures.

    Trump has continued to deny wrongdoing in the Epstein saga despite opposing the release of files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker. He died by suicide while in federal custody in 2019.

    Many members of Trump’s MAGA base have demanded the files be released, convinced they contain revelations about powerful people involved in Epstein’s abuse of what is believed to be more than 200 women and girls. Tension among his base spiked when Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in July that an “Epstein client list” did not exist, after saying in February that the list was sitting on her desk awaiting review. She later said she was referring to the Epstein files more generally.

    Trump’s call to release the files now highlights how he is trying to prevent an embarrassing defeat as a growing number of Republicans in the House have joined Democrats to vote for the legislation in recent days.

    The Epstein files have been a hugely divisive congressional fight in recent months, with Democrats pushing the release, but Republican congressional leaders largely refusing to take the votes. The issue even led to a rift within the MAGA movement, and Trump to cut ties with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who had long been an ardent support of the president.

    “Watching this actually turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” Greene said at a news conference Tuesday in reference to the resistance to release the files.

    Democrats have accused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of delaying the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, because she promised to cast the final vote needed to move a so-called discharge petition, which would force a vote on the floor. Johnson has denied those claims.

    If the House and Senate do vote to release the files, all eyes will turn to the Department of Justice, and what exactly it will choose to publicly release.

    “The fight, the real fight, will happen after that,” Greene said. “The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files? Or will it all remain tied up in an investigation?”

    Several Epstein survivors joined lawmakers at the news conference to talk about how important the vote was for them.

    Haley Robson, one of the survivors, questioned Trump’s resistance to the vote even now as he supports it.

    “While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I’m grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can’t help to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Robson said.

    If signed into law by Trump, the bill would prohibit the attorney general, Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

    In the spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and ordered it to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

    Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said the Trump administration will be forced to release the files with an act of Congress.

    “They will be breaking the law if they do not release these files,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • House expected to vote on bill forcing release of Jeffrey Epstein case files

    [ad_1]

    The House is expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the culmination of a monthslong effort that has overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.When a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills see the House floor, it appeared a long-shot effort, especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.” But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote.Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said Republicans should vote for it. His blessing all but ensures that the House will pass the bill with an overwhelming margin, putting further pressure on the Senate to take it up.Trump on Monday said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress, adding, “Let the Senate look at it.”Tuesday’s vote also provides a further boost to the demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself.Trump’s reversal on the Epstein filesTrump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure. On Monday, he told reporters that Epstein was connected to more Democrats and that he didn’t want the Epstein files to “detract from the great success of the Republican Party.”Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, several survivors of Epstein’s abuse will appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to push for release of the files. They also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait two months for the vote.That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and also refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.It quickly became apparent the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said Trump “got tired of me winning. He wanted to join.”How Johnson is handling the billRather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson is moving to hold the vote this week. He indicated the legislation will be brought to the House floor under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.“I think it’s going to be an important vote to continue to show the transparency that we’ve delivered,” House Republican leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Monday night.House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win for the minority.“It’s a complete and total surrender, because as Democrats we made clear from the very beginning, the survivors and the American people deserve full and complete transparency as it relates to the lives that were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.What will the Senate do?Still, it’s not clear how the Senate will handle the bill.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously been circumspect when asked about the legislation and instead said he trusted the Justice Department to release information on the Epstein investigation.But what the Justice Department has released so far under Trump was mostly already public. The bill would go further, forcing the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”Johnson also suggested that he would like to see the Senate amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.”But Massie said the Senate should take into account the public clamor that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.“If it’s anything but a genuine effort to make it better and stronger, it’ll backfire on the senators if they muck it up,” Massie said.___Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    The House is expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the culmination of a monthslong effort that has overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

    When a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills see the House floor, it appeared a long-shot effort, especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.” But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote.

    Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said Republicans should vote for it. His blessing all but ensures that the House will pass the bill with an overwhelming margin, putting further pressure on the Senate to take it up.

    Trump on Monday said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress, adding, “Let the Senate look at it.”

    Tuesday’s vote also provides a further boost to the demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.

    A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself.

    Trump’s reversal on the Epstein files

    Trump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure. On Monday, he told reporters that Epstein was connected to more Democrats and that he didn’t want the Epstein files to “detract from the great success of the Republican Party.”

    Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, several survivors of Epstein’s abuse will appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to push for release of the files. They also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait two months for the vote.

    That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and also refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.

    It quickly became apparent the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.

    Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said Trump “got tired of me winning. He wanted to join.”

    How Johnson is handling the bill

    Rather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson is moving to hold the vote this week. He indicated the legislation will be brought to the House floor under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.

    “I think it’s going to be an important vote to continue to show the transparency that we’ve delivered,” House Republican leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Monday night.

    House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win for the minority.

    “It’s a complete and total surrender, because as Democrats we made clear from the very beginning, the survivors and the American people deserve full and complete transparency as it relates to the lives that were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

    What will the Senate do?

    Still, it’s not clear how the Senate will handle the bill.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously been circumspect when asked about the legislation and instead said he trusted the Justice Department to release information on the Epstein investigation.

    But what the Justice Department has released so far under Trump was mostly already public. The bill would go further, forcing the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    Johnson also suggested that he would like to see the Senate amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.”

    But Massie said the Senate should take into account the public clamor that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.

    “If it’s anything but a genuine effort to make it better and stronger, it’ll backfire on the senators if they muck it up,” Massie said.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Could Trump destroy the Epstein files?

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — In political exile at his mansion in Florida, under investigation for possessing highly classified documents, Donald Trump summoned his lawyer in 2022 for a fateful conversation. A folder had been compiled with 38 documents that should have been returned to the federal government. But Trump had other ideas.

    Making a plucking motion, Trump suggested his attorney, Evan Corcoran, remove the most incriminating material. “Why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room, and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out,” Corcoran memorialized in a series of notes that surfaced during criminal proceedings.

    Trump’s purported willingness to conceal evidence from law enforcement as a private citizen is now fueling concern on Capitol Hill that his efforts to thwart the release of Justice Department files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation could lead to similar obstructive efforts — this time wielding the powers of the presidency.

    Since resuming office in January, Trump has opposed releasing files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls. But bipartisan fervor has only grown over the case, with House lawmakers across party lines expected to unite behind a bill on Tuesday that would compel the release of the documents.

    Last week, facing intensifying public pressure, the House Oversight Committee released over 20,000 files from Epstein’s estate that referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

    Those files, which included emails from Epstein himself, showed the notorious financier believed that Trump had intimate knowledge of his criminal conduct. “He knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, referring to Trump as the “dog that hasn’t barked.”

    Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), a member of the oversight committee, noted Trump could order the release of the Justice Department files without any action from Congress.

    “The fact that he has not done so, coupled with his long and well documented history of lying and obstructing justice, raises serious concerns that he is still trying to stop this investigation,” Min said in an interview, “either by trying to persuade Senate Republicans to vote against the release or through other mechanisms.”

    A spokesperson for Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that altering or destroying portions of the Epstein files “would violate a wide range of federal laws.”

    “The senator is certainly concerned that Donald Trump, who was investigated and indicted for obstruction, will persist in trying to stonewall and otherwise prevent the full release of all the documents and information in the U.S. government’s possession,” the spokesperson said, “even if the law is passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.”

    After the House votes on the bill, titled the Epstein Files Transparency Act, bipartisan support in the Senate would be required to pass the measure. Trump would then have to sign it into law.

    Trump encouraged Republican House members to support it over the weekend after enough GOP lawmakers broke ranks last week to compel a vote, overriding opposition from the speaker of the House. Still, it is unclear whether the president will support the measure as it proceeds to his desk.

    On Monday, Trump said he would sign the bill if it ultimately passes. “Let the Senate look at it,” he told reporters.

    The bill prohibits the attorney general, Pam Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting the publication of “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

    “Because DOJ possesses and controls these files, it is far from certain that a vote to disclose ‘the Epstein files’ will include documents pertaining to Donald Trump,” said Barbara McQuade, who served as the United States attorney for the eastern district of Michigan from 2010 until 2017, when Trump requested a slew of resignations from U.S. attorneys.

    Already, this past spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to work with hundreds of agents to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and directed them to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

    “It would be improper for Trump to order the documents destroyed, but Bondi could redact or remove some in the name of grand jury secrecy or privacy laws,” McQuade added. “As long as there’s a pending criminal investigation, I think she can either block disclosure of the entire file or block disclosure of individuals who are not being charged, including Trump.”

    Destroying the documents would be a taller task, and “would need a loyal secretary or equivalent,” said Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh.

    Jeffreys-Jones recalled J. Edgar Hoover’s assistant, Helen Gandy, spending weeks at his home destroying the famed FBI director’s personal file on the dirty secrets of America’s rich and powerful.

    It would also be illegal, scholars say, pointing to the Federal Records Act that prohibits anyone — including presidents — from destroying government documents.

    After President Nixon attempted to assert executive authority over a collection of incriminating tapes that would ultimately end his presidency, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, asserting that government documents and presidential records are federal property. Courts have repeatedly upheld the law.

    While presidents are immune from prosecution over their official conduct, ordering the destruction of documents from a criminal investigation would not fall under presidential duties, legal scholars said, exposing Trump to charges of obstructing justice if he were to do so.

    “Multiple federal laws bar anyone, including the president or those around him, from destroying or altering material contained in the Epstein files, including various federal record-keeping laws and criminal statutes. But that doesn’t mean that Trump or his cronies won’t consider trying,” said Norm Eisen, who served as chief ethics lawyer for President Obama and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

    The Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Eisen, has sued the Trump administration for all records in the Epstein investigation related to Trump, warning that “court supervision is needed” to ensure Trump doesn’t attempt to subvert a lawful directive to release them.

    “Perhaps the greatest danger is not altering documents but wrongly withholding them or producing and redacting them,” Eisen added. “Those are both issues that we can get at in our litigation, and where court supervision can be valuable.”

    Jeffreys-Jones also said that Trump may attempt to order redactions based on claims of national security. But “this might be unconvincing for two reasons,” he said.

    “Trump was not yet president at the time,” he said, and “it would raise ancillary questions if redactions did not operate in the case of President Clinton.”

    Last week, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to Democratic figures, including Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s co-founder and a major Democratic donor.

    He made no request for the department to similarly investigate Republicans.

    Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Trump says House Republicans should vote to release Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said House Republicans should vote to release the files in the Jeffrey Epstein case, a startling reversal after previously fighting the proposal as a growing number of those in his own party supported it.“We have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media late Sunday after landing at Joint Base Andrews following a weekend in Florida.Video above: Congressman: ‘Let’s just release’ Epstein filesTrump’s statement followed a fierce fight within the GOP over the files, including an increasingly nasty split with Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had long been one of his fiercest supporters.The president’s shift is an implicit acknowledgement that supporters of the measure have enough votes to pass it the House, although it has an unclear future in the Senate.It is a rare example of Trump backtracking because of opposition within the GOP. In his return to office and in his second term as president, Trump has largely consolidated power in the Republican Party.“I DON’T CARE!” Trump wrote in his social media post. “All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.”Lawmakers who support the bill have been predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for it, bucking the GOP leadership and the president.In his opposition to the proposal, Trump even reached out to two of the Republican lawmakers who signed it. One, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, met last week with administration officials in the White House Situation Room to discuss it.The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.“There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a discharge petition in July to force a vote on their bill. That is a rarely successful tool that allows a majority of members to bypass House leadership and force a floor vote.Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had panned the discharge petition effort and sent members home early for their August recess when the GOP’s legislative agenda was upended in the clamoring for an Epstein vote. Democrats also contend the seating of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., was stalled to delay her becoming the 218th member to sign the petition and gain the threshold needed to force a vote. She became the 218th signature moments after taking the oath of office last week.Video below: Epstein emails falloutMassie said Johnson, Trump and others who have been critical of his efforts would be “taking a big loss this week.”“I’m not tired of winning yet, but we are winning,” Massie said. The view from GOP leadershipJohnson seems to expect the House will decisively back the Epstein bill.“We’ll just get this done and move it on. There’s nothing to hide,” adding that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing “far more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit.”The vote comes at a time when new documents are raising fresh questions about Epstein and his associates, including a 2019 email that Epstein wrote to a journalist that said Trump “knew about the girls.” The White House has accused Democrats of selectively leaking the emails to smear the Republican president.Johnson said Trump “has nothing to hide from this.”“They’re doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not,” Johnson said.Trump’s association with Epstein is well-established and the president’s name was included in records that his own Justice Department released in February as part of an effort to satisfy public interest in information from the sex-trafficking investigation.Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and the mere inclusion of someone’s name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise. Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, also had many prominent acquaintances in political and celebrity circles besides Trump.Khanna voiced more modest expectations on the vote count than Massie. Still, Khanna said he was hoping for 40 or more Republicans to join the effort.“I don’t even know how involved Trump was,” Khanna said. “There are a lot of other people involved who have to be held accountable.”Khanna also asked Trump to meet with those who were abused. Some will be at the Capitol on Tuesday for a news conference, he said.Massie said Republican lawmakers who fear losing Trump’s endorsement because of how they vote will have a mark on their record, if they vote “no,” that could hurt their political prospects in the long term.“The record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency,” Massie said.A MAGA splitOn the Republican side, three Republicans joined with Massie in signing the discharge petition: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Boebert.Trump publicly called it quits with Greene last week and said he would endorse a challenger against her in 2026 “if the right person runs.”Greene attributed the fallout with Trump as “unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files.” She said the country deserves transparency on the issue and that Trump’s criticism of her is confusing because the women she has talked to say he did nothing wrong.”I have no idea what’s in the files. I can’t even guess. But that is the questions everyone is asking, is, why fight this so hard?” Greene said.Trump’s feud with Greene escalated over the weekend, with Trump sending out one last social media post about her while still sitting in his helicopter on the White House lawn when he arrived home late Sunday, writing “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”Even if the bill passes the House, there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will go along. Massie said he just hopes Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., “will do the right thing.”“The pressure is going to be there if we get a big vote in the House,” Massie said, who thinks “we could have a deluge of Republicans.”Massie appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Johnson was on “Fox News Sunday,” Khanna spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Greene was interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union.”Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump said House Republicans should vote to release the files in the Jeffrey Epstein case, a startling reversal after previously fighting the proposal as a growing number of those in his own party supported it.

    “We have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media late Sunday after landing at Joint Base Andrews following a weekend in Florida.

    Video above: Congressman: ‘Let’s just release’ Epstein files

    Trump’s statement followed a fierce fight within the GOP over the files, including an increasingly nasty split with Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had long been one of his fiercest supporters.

    The president’s shift is an implicit acknowledgement that supporters of the measure have enough votes to pass it the House, although it has an unclear future in the Senate.

    It is a rare example of Trump backtracking because of opposition within the GOP. In his return to office and in his second term as president, Trump has largely consolidated power in the Republican Party.

    “I DON’T CARE!” Trump wrote in his social media post. “All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.”

    Lawmakers who support the bill have been predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for it, bucking the GOP leadership and the president.

    In his opposition to the proposal, Trump even reached out to two of the Republican lawmakers who signed it. One, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, met last week with administration officials in the White House Situation Room to discuss it.

    The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.

    “There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”

    Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a discharge petition in July to force a vote on their bill. That is a rarely successful tool that allows a majority of members to bypass House leadership and force a floor vote.

    Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had panned the discharge petition effort and sent members home early for their August recess when the GOP’s legislative agenda was upended in the clamoring for an Epstein vote. Democrats also contend the seating of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., was stalled to delay her becoming the 218th member to sign the petition and gain the threshold needed to force a vote. She became the 218th signature moments after taking the oath of office last week.

    Video below: Epstein emails fallout

    Massie said Johnson, Trump and others who have been critical of his efforts would be “taking a big loss this week.”

    “I’m not tired of winning yet, but we are winning,” Massie said.

    The view from GOP leadership

    Johnson seems to expect the House will decisively back the Epstein bill.

    “We’ll just get this done and move it on. There’s nothing to hide,” adding that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing “far more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit.”

    The vote comes at a time when new documents are raising fresh questions about Epstein and his associates, including a 2019 email that Epstein wrote to a journalist that said Trump “knew about the girls.” The White House has accused Democrats of selectively leaking the emails to smear the Republican president.

    Johnson said Trump “has nothing to hide from this.”

    “They’re doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not,” Johnson said.

    Trump’s association with Epstein is well-established and the president’s name was included in records that his own Justice Department released in February as part of an effort to satisfy public interest in information from the sex-trafficking investigation.

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais

    Protest art representing President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is seen outside the entrance to Bustboys and Poets restaurant in the U Street neighborhood of Washington, Thursday, Nov., 13, 2025.

    Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and the mere inclusion of someone’s name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise. Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, also had many prominent acquaintances in political and celebrity circles besides Trump.

    Khanna voiced more modest expectations on the vote count than Massie. Still, Khanna said he was hoping for 40 or more Republicans to join the effort.

    “I don’t even know how involved Trump was,” Khanna said. “There are a lot of other people involved who have to be held accountable.”

    Khanna also asked Trump to meet with those who were abused. Some will be at the Capitol on Tuesday for a news conference, he said.

    Massie said Republican lawmakers who fear losing Trump’s endorsement because of how they vote will have a mark on their record, if they vote “no,” that could hurt their political prospects in the long term.

    “The record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency,” Massie said.

    A MAGA split

    On the Republican side, three Republicans joined with Massie in signing the discharge petition: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Boebert.

    Trump publicly called it quits with Greene last week and said he would endorse a challenger against her in 2026 “if the right person runs.”

    Greene attributed the fallout with Trump as “unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files.” She said the country deserves transparency on the issue and that Trump’s criticism of her is confusing because the women she has talked to say he did nothing wrong.

    “I have no idea what’s in the files. I can’t even guess. But that is the questions everyone is asking, is, why fight this so hard?” Greene said.

    Trump’s feud with Greene escalated over the weekend, with Trump sending out one last social media post about her while still sitting in his helicopter on the White House lawn when he arrived home late Sunday, writing “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”

    Even if the bill passes the House, there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will go along. Massie said he just hopes Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., “will do the right thing.”

    “The pressure is going to be there if we get a big vote in the House,” Massie said, who thinks “we could have a deluge of Republicans.”

    Massie appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Johnson was on “Fox News Sunday,” Khanna spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Greene was interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • President Trump signs government funding bill, ending shutdown after a record 43-day disruption

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill Wednesday night, ending a record 43-day shutdown that caused financial stress for federal workers who went without paychecks, stranded scores of travelers at airports and generated long lines at some food banks.The shutdown magnified partisan divisions in Washington as Trump took unprecedented unilateral actions — including canceling projects and trying to fire federal workers — to pressure Democrats into relenting on their demands.The Republican president blamed the situation on Democrats and suggested voters shouldn’t reward the party during next year’s midterm elections.“So I just want to tell the American people, you should not forget this,” Trump said. “When we come up to midterms and other things, don’t forget what they’ve done to our country.”The signing ceremony came just hours after the House passed the measure on a mostly party-line vote of 222-209. The Senate had already passed the measure Monday.Democrats wanted to extend an enhanced tax credit expiring at the end of the year that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They refused to go along with a short-term spending bill that did not include that priority. But Republicans said that was a separate policy fight to be held at another time.“We told you 43 days ago from bitter experience that government shutdowns don’t work,” said Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “They never achieve the objective that you announce. And guess what? You haven’t achieved that objective yet, and you’re not going to.”The frustration and pressures generated by the shutdown were reflected when lawmakers debated the spending measure on the House floor.Republicans said Democrats sought to use the pain generated by the shutdown to prevail in a policy dispute.”They knew it would cause pain and they did it anyway,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said.Democrats said Republicans raced to pass tax breaks earlier this year that they say mostly will benefit the wealthy. But the bill before the House Wednesday “leaves families twisting in the wind with zero guarantee there will ever, ever be a vote to extend tax credits to help everyday people pay for their health care,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats would not give up on the subsidy extension even if the vote did not go their way.”This fight is not over,” Jeffries said. “We’re just getting started.”The House had not been in legislative session since Sept. 19, when it passed a short-term measure to keep the government open when the new budget year began in October. Johnson sent lawmakers home after that vote and put the onus on the Senate to act, saying House Republicans had done their job.What’s in the bill to end the shutdownThe legislation is the result of a deal reached by eight senators who broke ranks with the Democrats after reaching the conclusion that Republicans would not bend on using a government funding to bill to extend the health care tax credits.The compromise funds three annual spending bills and extends the rest of government funding through Jan. 30. Republicans promised to hold a vote by mid-December to extend the health care subsidies, but there is no guarantee of success.The bill includes a reversal of the firing of federal workers by the Trump administration since the shutdown began. It also protects federal workers against further layoffs through January and guarantees they are paid once the shutdown is over. The bill for the Agriculture Department means people who rely on key food assistance programs will see those benefits funded without threat of interruption through the rest of the budget year.The package includes $203.5 million to boost security for lawmakers and an additional $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices.Democrats also decried language in the bill that would give senators the opportunity to sue when a federal agency or employee searches their electronic records without notifying them, allowing for up to $500,000 in potential damages for each violation.The language seems aimed at helping Republican senators pursue damages if their phone records were analyzed by the FBI as part of an investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The provisions drew criticism from Republicans as well. Johnson said he was “very angry about it.””That was dropped in at the last minute, and I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members,” Johnson said, promising a vote on the matter as early as next week.The biggest point of contention, though, was the fate of the expiring enhanced tax credit that makes health insurance more affordable through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”It’s a subsidy on top of a subsidy. Our friends added it during COVID,” Cole said. “COVID is over. They set a date certain that the subsidies would run out. They chose the date.”Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the enhanced tax credit was designed to give more people access to health care and no Republican voted for it.”All they have done is try to eliminate access to health care in our country. The country is catching on to them,” Pelosi said.Without the enhanced tax credit, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.Health care debate aheadIt’s unclear whether the parties will find any common ground on health care before the December vote in the Senate. Johnson has said he will not commit to bringing it up in his chamber.Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits as premiums will soar for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies. Some argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals rather than go directly to insurance companies.Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Monday that she was supportive of extending the tax credits with changes, such as new income caps. Some Democrats have signaled they could be open to that idea.House Democrats expressed great skepticism that the Senate effort would lead to a breakthrough.Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Republicans have wanted to repeal the health overhaul for the past 15 years. “That’s where they’re trying to go,” she said.When could things return to normal?While the shutdown will end tonight, the return to pre-shutdown status will not be immediate. Air travel is expected to experience lingering impacts, as the transportation secretary noted that the speed of recovery will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers return to work, with many having retired during the shutdown. The FAA administrator stated that air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within a week, but it remains unclear how quickly other federal workers will be compensated. In previous shutdowns, it took up to eight weeks for some workers to receive back pay.Regarding SNAP benefits, the American Public Human Services Association anticipates that most states will issue full benefits within three days after the shutdown ends, though some states may take about a week due to complications from issuing partial benefits during the shutdown. The Small Business Administration has indicated that once the government reopens, it will immediately begin processing and approving loans for small businesses. ___Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump signed a government funding bill Wednesday night, ending a record 43-day shutdown that caused financial stress for federal workers who went without paychecks, stranded scores of travelers at airports and generated long lines at some food banks.

    The shutdown magnified partisan divisions in Washington as Trump took unprecedented unilateral actions — including canceling projects and trying to fire federal workers — to pressure Democrats into relenting on their demands.

    The Republican president blamed the situation on Democrats and suggested voters shouldn’t reward the party during next year’s midterm elections.

    “So I just want to tell the American people, you should not forget this,” Trump said. “When we come up to midterms and other things, don’t forget what they’ve done to our country.”

    The signing ceremony came just hours after the House passed the measure on a mostly party-line vote of 222-209. The Senate had already passed the measure Monday.

    Democrats wanted to extend an enhanced tax credit expiring at the end of the year that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They refused to go along with a short-term spending bill that did not include that priority. But Republicans said that was a separate policy fight to be held at another time.

    “We told you 43 days ago from bitter experience that government shutdowns don’t work,” said Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “They never achieve the objective that you announce. And guess what? You haven’t achieved that objective yet, and you’re not going to.”

    The frustration and pressures generated by the shutdown were reflected when lawmakers debated the spending measure on the House floor.

    Republicans said Democrats sought to use the pain generated by the shutdown to prevail in a policy dispute.

    “They knew it would cause pain and they did it anyway,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said.

    Democrats said Republicans raced to pass tax breaks earlier this year that they say mostly will benefit the wealthy. But the bill before the House Wednesday “leaves families twisting in the wind with zero guarantee there will ever, ever be a vote to extend tax credits to help everyday people pay for their health care,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

    Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said Democrats would not give up on the subsidy extension even if the vote did not go their way.

    “This fight is not over,” Jeffries said. “We’re just getting started.”

    The House had not been in legislative session since Sept. 19, when it passed a short-term measure to keep the government open when the new budget year began in October. Johnson sent lawmakers home after that vote and put the onus on the Senate to act, saying House Republicans had done their job.

    What’s in the bill to end the shutdown

    The legislation is the result of a deal reached by eight senators who broke ranks with the Democrats after reaching the conclusion that Republicans would not bend on using a government funding to bill to extend the health care tax credits.

    The compromise funds three annual spending bills and extends the rest of government funding through Jan. 30. Republicans promised to hold a vote by mid-December to extend the health care subsidies, but there is no guarantee of success.

    The bill includes a reversal of the firing of federal workers by the Trump administration since the shutdown began. It also protects federal workers against further layoffs through January and guarantees they are paid once the shutdown is over. The bill for the Agriculture Department means people who rely on key food assistance programs will see those benefits funded without threat of interruption through the rest of the budget year.

    The package includes $203.5 million to boost security for lawmakers and an additional $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices.

    Democrats also decried language in the bill that would give senators the opportunity to sue when a federal agency or employee searches their electronic records without notifying them, allowing for up to $500,000 in potential damages for each violation.

    The language seems aimed at helping Republican senators pursue damages if their phone records were analyzed by the FBI as part of an investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. The provisions drew criticism from Republicans as well. Johnson said he was “very angry about it.”

    “That was dropped in at the last minute, and I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members,” Johnson said, promising a vote on the matter as early as next week.

    The biggest point of contention, though, was the fate of the expiring enhanced tax credit that makes health insurance more affordable through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

    “It’s a subsidy on top of a subsidy. Our friends added it during COVID,” Cole said. “COVID is over. They set a date certain that the subsidies would run out. They chose the date.”

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the enhanced tax credit was designed to give more people access to health care and no Republican voted for it.

    “All they have done is try to eliminate access to health care in our country. The country is catching on to them,” Pelosi said.

    Without the enhanced tax credit, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.

    Health care debate ahead

    It’s unclear whether the parties will find any common ground on health care before the December vote in the Senate. Johnson has said he will not commit to bringing it up in his chamber.

    Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits as premiums will soar for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies. Some argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals rather than go directly to insurance companies.

    Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Monday that she was supportive of extending the tax credits with changes, such as new income caps. Some Democrats have signaled they could be open to that idea.

    House Democrats expressed great skepticism that the Senate effort would lead to a breakthrough.

    Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Republicans have wanted to repeal the health overhaul for the past 15 years. “That’s where they’re trying to go,” she said.

    When could things return to normal?

    While the shutdown will end tonight, the return to pre-shutdown status will not be immediate. Air travel is expected to experience lingering impacts, as the transportation secretary noted that the speed of recovery will depend on how quickly air traffic controllers return to work, with many having retired during the shutdown.

    The FAA administrator stated that air traffic controllers will receive their full back pay within a week, but it remains unclear how quickly other federal workers will be compensated. In previous shutdowns, it took up to eight weeks for some workers to receive back pay.

    Regarding SNAP benefits, the American Public Human Services Association anticipates that most states will issue full benefits within three days after the shutdown ends, though some states may take about a week due to complications from issuing partial benefits during the shutdown.

    The Small Business Administration has indicated that once the government reopens, it will immediately begin processing and approving loans for small businesses.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House returns, set to end record-breaking government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Right now the process is underway to reach that final vote in the House to end this longest government shutdown ever. We also wanted to lay out how it’s currently set to work. Over the last 2 days, House lawmakers have been flying in from across the country as they’ve been on recess during the entire shutdown. Some potentially face shutdown-related flight delays, but they are on their way back to the Capitol. The House agenda today was very specific, swearing in *** new congresswoman from Arizona when the House resumed this. Afternoon then debate and an initial procedural vote scheduled for around 5 p.m. Eastern today. If that passes, the House would debate again and is currently scheduled to hold *** final vote around 7 p.m. Eastern. That vote does not include healthcare subsidies, which started the whole shutdown in the first place. Of course we want to reopen the government. But that we need to decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis, and that begins with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight. It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless in the end, as we said all along. Democrats are largely expected to vote no on this. Republicans who hold *** majority in the House can only afford to lose 2 votes in order to pass this bill. And if that happens, the bill then heads over to President Donald Trump for his signature before the very likely long process of getting the government back up and running again. Reporting on Capitol Hill, I’m Amy Lou.

    House returns, set to end record-breaking government shutdown

    House lawmakers reconvened in Washington on Wednesday to vote on a bill that would end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

    Updated: 2:05 PM PST Nov 12, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    House lawmakers raced back to Washington on Wednesday to vote on a bill that could end the 43-day government shutdown, making it the longest in U.S. history. Over the last two days, lawmakers have been flying in from across the country, some facing their own potential shutdown-related delays, to get to Wednesday’s expected final vote. The House’s agenda included swearing in a new congresswoman from Arizona, followed by debate and an initial procedural vote scheduled for early evening. If that passes, the House debates again before holding a final vote on the bill, expected around 7 p.m. ET. The bill currently does not include Affordable Care Act subsidies, which started the shutdown in the first place.Democrats, who are largely expected to vote “no” on the bill, expressed disappointment.”Of course, we want to reopen the government, but we need to decisively address the Republican health care crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said. “That begins with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”House Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber, were largely expected to pass the measure despite Democrats’ objections, but can only afford to lose two votes for the bill to pass. “We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said. “It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless in the end, as we said all along.”If the bill clears the House, it will require President Donald Trump’s signature before beginning the likely lengthy process of getting the government back up and running again.However, full Republican support is not clear-cut ahead of the final vote. The bill includes a controversial provision that would ban most hemp products in the U.S. Supporters say it would close a dangerous loophole on unregulated products, but others argue it would destroy the hemp industry for many farmers. In the Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for example, voted against the bill. Similar action in the House on Wednesday could hold up its passage.Watch the latest coverage on the government shutdown:

    WASHINGTON —

    House lawmakers raced back to Washington on Wednesday to vote on a bill that could end the 43-day government shutdown, making it the longest in U.S. history.

    Over the last two days, lawmakers have been flying in from across the country, some facing their own potential shutdown-related delays, to get to Wednesday’s expected final vote.

    The House’s agenda included swearing in a new congresswoman from Arizona, followed by debate and an initial procedural vote scheduled for early evening. If that passes, the House debates again before holding a final vote on the bill, expected around 7 p.m. ET. The bill currently does not include Affordable Care Act subsidies, which started the shutdown in the first place.

    Democrats, who are largely expected to vote “no” on the bill, expressed disappointment.

    “Of course, we want to reopen the government, but we need to decisively address the Republican health care crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said. “That begins with extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

    House Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber, were largely expected to pass the measure despite Democrats’ objections, but can only afford to lose two votes for the bill to pass.

    “We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said. “It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless in the end, as we said all along.”

    If the bill clears the House, it will require President Donald Trump’s signature before beginning the likely lengthy process of getting the government back up and running again.

    However, full Republican support is not clear-cut ahead of the final vote. The bill includes a controversial provision that would ban most hemp products in the U.S.

    Supporters say it would close a dangerous loophole on unregulated products, but others argue it would destroy the hemp industry for many farmers.

    In the Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for example, voted against the bill. Similar action in the House on Wednesday could hold up its passage.

    Watch the latest coverage on the government shutdown:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans fret as shutdown threatens Thanksgiving travel chaos

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration are increasingly anxious that an ongoing standoff with Democrats over reopening the government may drag into Thanksgiving week, one of the country’s busiest travel periods.

    Already, hundreds of flights have been canceled since the Federal Aviation Administration issued an unprecedented directive limiting flight operations at the nation’s biggest airports, including in Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Washington, D.C.

    Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, told Fox News on Thursday that the administration is prepared to mitigate safety concerns if the shutdown continues into the holiday week, leaving air traffic controllers without compensation over multiple payroll cycles. But “will you fly on time? Will your flight actually go? That is yet to be seen,” the secretary said.

    While under 3% of flights have been grounded, that number could rise to 20% by the holiday week, he added.

    “It’s really hard — really hard — to navigate a full month of no pay, missing two pay periods. So I think you’re going to have more significant disruptions in the airspace,” Duffy said. “And as we come into Thanksgiving, if we’re still in a shutdown posture, it’s gonna be rough out there. Really rough.”

    Senate Republicans said they are willing to work through the weekend, up through Veterans Day, to come up with an agreement with Democrats that could end the government shutdown, which is already the longest in history.

    But congressional Democrats believe their leverage has only grown to extract more concessions from the Trump administration as the shutdown goes on.

    A strong showing in races across the country in Tuesday’s elections buoyed optimism among Democrats that the party finally has some momentum, as it focuses its messaging on affordability and a growing cost-of-living crisis for the middle class.

    Democrats have withheld the votes needed to reopen the government over Republican refusals to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits. As a result, Americans who get their healthcare through the ACA marketplace have begun seeing dramatic premium hikes since open enrollment began on Nov. 1 — further fueling Democratic confidence that Republicans will face a political backlash for their shutdown stance.

    Now, Democratic demands have expanded, insisting Republicans guarantee that federal workers get paid back for their time furloughed or working without pay — and that those who were fired get their jobs back.

    A bill introduced by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, called the Shutdown Fairness Act, would ensure that federal workers receive back pay during a government funding lapse. But Democrats have objected to a vote on the measure that’s not tied to their other demands, on ACA tax breaks and the status of fired workers.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has proposed passing a clean continuing resolution already passed by the House followed by separate votes on three bills that would fund the government through the year. But his Democratic counterpart said Friday he wants to attach a vote on extending the ACA tax credits to an extension of government funding.

    Democrats, joined by some Republicans, are also demanding protections built in to any government spending bills that would safeguard federal programs against the Trump administration withholding funds appropriated by Congress, a process known as impoundment.

    President Trump, for his part, blamed the ongoing shutdown for Tuesday’s election results earlier this week, telling Republican lawmakers that polling shows the continuing crisis is hurting their party. But he also continues to advocate for Thune to do away with the filibuster, a core Senate rule requiring 60 votes for bills that fall outside the budget reconciliation process, and simply reopen the government with a vote down party lines.

    “If the filibuster is terminated, we will have the most productive three years in the history of our country,” Trump told reporters on Friday at a White House event. “If the filibuster is not terminated, then we will be in a slog, with the Democrats.”

    So far, Thune has rejected that request. But the majority leader said Thursday that “the pain this shutdown has caused is only getting worse,” warning that 40 million Americans risk food insecurity as funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program lapses.

    The Trump administration lost a court case this week arguing that it could withhold SNAP benefits, a program that was significantly defunded in the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill” act earlier this year.

    “Will the far left not be satisfied until federal workers and military families are getting their Thanksgiving dinner from a food bank? Because that’s where we’re headed,” Thune added.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • California backs down on AI laws so more tech leaders don’t flee the state

    [ad_1]

    California’s tech companies, the epicenter of the state’s economy, sent politicians a loud message this year: Back down from restrictive artificial intelligence regulation or they’ll leave.

    The tactic appeared to have worked, activists said, because some politicians weakened or scrapped guardrails to mitigate AI’s biggest risks.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill aimed at making companion chatbots safer for children after the tech industry fought it. In his veto message, the governor raised concerns about placing broad limits on AI, which has sparked a massive investment spree and created new billionaires overnight around the San Francisco Bay Area.

    Assembly Bill 1064 would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors unless the chatbots weren’t “foreseeably capable” of certain conduct, including encouraging a child to engage in self-harm. Newsom said he supported the goal, but feared it would unintentionally bar minors from using AI tools and learning how to use technology safely.

    “We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether,” he wrote in his veto message.

    The bill’s veto was a blow to child safety advocates who had pushed it through the state Legislature and a win for tech industry groups that fought it. In social media ads, groups such as TechNet had urged the public to tell the governor to veto the bill because it would harm innovation and lead to students falling behind in school.

    Organizations trying to rein in the world’s largest tech companies as they advance the powerful technology say the tech industry has become more empowered at the national and state levels.

    Meta, Google, OpenAI, Apple and other major tech companies have strengthened their relationships with the Trump administration. Companies are funding new organizations and political action committees to push back against state AI policy while pouring money into lobbying.

    In Sacramento, AI companies have lobbied behind the scenes for more freedom. California’s massive pool of engineering talent, tech investors and companies make it an attractive place for the tech industry, but companies are letting policymakers know that other states are also interested in attracting those investments and jobs. Big Tech is particularly sensitive to regulations in the Golden State because so many companies are headquartered there and must abide by its rules.

    “We believe California can strike a better balance between protecting consumers and enabling responsible technological growth,” Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, said in a statement.

    Common Sense Media founder and Chief Executive Jim Steyer said tech lobbyists put tremendous pressure on Newsom to veto AB 1064. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that rates and reviews technology and entertainment for families, sponsored the bill.

    “They threaten to hurt the economy of California,” he said. “That’s the basic message from the tech companies.”

    Advertising is among the tactics tech companies with deep pockets use to convince politicians to kill or weaken legislation. Even if the governor signs a bill, companies have at times sued to block new laws from taking effect.

    “If you’re really trying to do something bold with tech policy, you have to jump over a lot of hurdles,” said David Evan Harris, senior policy advisor at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which supported AB 1064. The group focuses on finding state-level solutions to threats that AI, disinformation and emerging technologies pose to democracy.

    Tech companies have threatened to move their headquarters and jobs to other states or countries, a risk looming over politicians and regulators.

    The California Chamber of Commerce, a broad-based business advocacy group that includes tech giants, launched a campaign this year that warned over-regulation could stifle innovation and hinder California.

    “Making competition harder could cause California companies to expand elsewhere, costing the state’s economy billions,” the group said on its website.

    From January to September, the California Chamber of Commerce spent $11.48 million lobbying California lawmakers and regulators on a variety of bills, filings to the California secretary of state show. During that period, Meta spent $4.13 million. A lobbying disclosure report shows that Meta paid the California Chamber of Commerce $3.1 million, making up the bulk of their spending. Google, which also paid TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce, spent $2.39 million.

    Amazon, Uber, DoorDash and other tech companies spent more than $1 million each. TechNet spent around $800,000.

    The threat that California companies could move away has caught the attention of some politicians.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who has investigated tech companies over child safety concerns, indicated that despite initial concern, his office wouldn’t oppose ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s restructuring plans. The new structure gives OpenAI’s nonprofit parent a stake in its for-profit public benefit corporation and clears the way for OpenAI to list its shares.

    Bonta blessed the restructuring partly because of OpenAI’s pledge to stay in the state.

    “Safety will be prioritized, as well as a commitment that OpenAI will remain right here in California,” he said in a statement last week. The AG’s office, which supervises charitable trusts and ensures these assets are used for public benefit, had been investigating OpenAI’s restructuring plan over the last year and a half.

    OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said he’s glad to stay in California.

    “California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other companies do and threaten to leave if sued,” he posted on X.

    Critics — which included some tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Meta and former OpenAI executives as well as nonprofits and foundations — have raised concerns about OpenAI’s restructuring plan. Some warned it would allow startups to exploit charitable tax exemptions and let OpenAI prioritize financial gain over public good.

    Lawmakers and advocacy groups say it’s been a mixed year for tech regulation. The governor signed Assembly Bill 56, which requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another piece of signed legislation, Senate Bill 53, aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.

    The governor also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content. But advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, removed their support for Senate Bill 243 because they said the tech industry pushed for changes that weakened its protections.

    Newsom vetoed other legislation that the tech industry opposed, including Senate Bill 7, which requires employers to notify workers before deploying an “automated decision system” in hiring, promotions and other employment decisions.

    Called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” the legislation didn’t clear the governor, who thought it was too broad.

    “A lot of nuance was demonstrated in the lawmaking process about the balance between ensuring meaningful protections while also encouraging innovation,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.

    The battle over AI safety is far from over. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said she plans to revive the legislation.

    Child safety is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans are examining after parents sued AI companies such as OpenAI and Character.AI for allegedly contributing to their children’s suicides.

    “The harm that these chatbots are causing feels so fast and furious, public and real that I thought we would have a different outcome,” Bauer-Kahan said. “It’s always fascinating to me when the outcome of policy feels to be disconnected from what I believe the public wants.”

    Steyer from Common Sense Media said a new ballot initiative includes the AI safety protections that Newsom vetoed.

    “That was a setback, but not an overall defeat,” he said about the veto of AB 1064. “This is a David and Goliath situation, and we are David.”

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Nonprofits, credit unions help impacted federal workers from government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Nonprofits, credit unions help impacted federal workers from government shutdown

    Updated: 2:41 PM PDT Oct 16, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    From nonprofits to credit unions, organizations across the country are stepping up to help military families and federal workers as the government shutdown continues. Many are reporting an alarming surge in demand.Since the shutdown, military spouse Alicia Blevins has faced a mountain of stress. Her family’s savings are depleted, stress-related health issues are emerging, and her job search has been put on hold 16 days into the shutdown. “It’s the stress that’s really gotten to us,” Blevins said. “Right now, I’ve got my resume out to every customer service job, entry level or not. I’ve got it out everywhere.”The desperation is being felt at nonprofits like the Military Family Advisory Network (MFAN). This week, the organization launched its emergency grocery support program in response to the shutdown, noting that more than 6,000 verified military families applied for its 1,600 grocery packages in the first 24 hours alone.”This moment really puts families at a very fragile place,” MFAN’s Chief Advancement Officer Kara Pappas said. “The need has so quickly eclipsed the demand that we need support from Americans.”Financial institutions are also escalating aid to military members and federal workers who qualify. The Navy Federal Credit Union, for example, is offering 0% interest loans through its paycheck assistance program.The USAA is offering the same and reports that it’s issued nearly $270 million in loans to more than 71,000 of its members so far.The Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund (FEEA) is giving those eligible up to $150 in micro-grants to support federal employees impacted by the shutdown.Patrick Malone, Director at the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University, emphasizes prioritizing mental health during the shutdown. Malone advises those impacted to reach out and tap into resources immediately and scheduling time for self-care.Watch the latest coverage on the federal government shutdown:

    WASHINGTON —

    From nonprofits to credit unions, organizations across the country are stepping up to help military families and federal workers as the government shutdown continues. Many are reporting an alarming surge in demand.

    Since the shutdown, military spouse Alicia Blevins has faced a mountain of stress. Her family’s savings are depleted, stress-related health issues are emerging, and her job search has been put on hold 16 days into the shutdown.

    “It’s the stress that’s really gotten to us,” Blevins said. “Right now, I’ve got my resume out to every customer service job, entry level or not. I’ve got it out everywhere.”

    The desperation is being felt at nonprofits like the Military Family Advisory Network (MFAN). This week, the organization launched its emergency grocery support program in response to the shutdown, noting that more than 6,000 verified military families applied for its 1,600 grocery packages in the first 24 hours alone.

    “This moment really puts families at a very fragile place,” MFAN’s Chief Advancement Officer Kara Pappas said. “The need has so quickly eclipsed the demand that we need support from Americans.”

    Financial institutions are also escalating aid to military members and federal workers who qualify.

    The Navy Federal Credit Union, for example, is offering 0% interest loans through its paycheck assistance program.

    The USAA is offering the same and reports that it’s issued nearly $270 million in loans to more than 71,000 of its members so far.

    The Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund (FEEA) is giving those eligible up to $150 in micro-grants to support federal employees impacted by the shutdown.

    Patrick Malone, Director at the Key Executive Leadership Program at American University, emphasizes prioritizing mental health during the shutdown. Malone advises those impacted to reach out and tap into resources immediately and scheduling time for self-care.

    Watch the latest coverage on the federal government shutdown:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New California law banning officers, agents from covering their faces sparks enforcement debate

    [ad_1]

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt. Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.”ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X. As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.

    Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.

    The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt.

    Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.

    The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.

    “ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.

    Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.

    “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X.

    As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    “This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”

    Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”

    The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”

    Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link