Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who has been a leading critic of the Trump administration, says he is running for governor of California in the 2026 election.
He made the announcement on his official campaign website, which went live Thursday night ahead of a scheduled appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Swalwell got a standing ovation from the audience when he then announced his run on Kimmel’s show.
“Our state, this great state, needs a fighter and a protector,” Swalwell told Kimmel.
“I’ve been in these fights as a city council member up in Dublin, my hometown, as a prosecutor in Oakland and taking on the most corrupt president ever in the U.S. Congress, but I’m ready to bring this fight home,” Swalwell said.
He also said he doesn’t trust that the files concerning convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein will be released in their entirety.
Swalwell, 45, joins an already crowded field of high-profile candidates. Gov. Gavin Newsom cannot run for reelection because he is term-limited by California law.
The field includes several other Democratic hopefuls, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, former Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and entrepreneur Tom Steyer, among others. Republican candidates include political pundit Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Swalwell represents the state’s 14th Congressional District, which encompasses a large swath of the East Bay. He has held office in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2013, and before that, he was a prosecutor for Alameda County. His political career includes a run for president in the 2020 election, during which he made gun control one of his main focuses and called for a complete ban on assault rifles.
Last week, the Trump administration referred Swalwell to the Justice Department over alleged tax and mortgage fraud. Swalwell addressed these allegations with Kimmel, calling them “nonsense.”
In a statement following the referral, Swalwell said, “The only thing I am surprised about is that it took him this long to come after me.”
Swalwell and the Trump administration have a history stretching back to Mr. Trump’s first term. Swalwell described himself earlier this month as “the most vocal critic of Donald Trump over the last decade.” He also served as one of the impeachment managers during Mr. Trump’s second impeachment trial.
In addition, there is an ongoing lawsuit filed by Swalwell against Mr. Trump that alleges his actions led to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
SAN JOSE — Forward Philipp Kurashev scored on his shootout attempt, and rookie goalie Yaroslav Askarov didn’t allow a goal at the other end to continue his exceptional play of late as the San Jose Sharks earned a raucous 4-3 win over the Los Angeles Kings on Thursday at SAP Center.
After the Kings scored late in the third period to tie the game 3-3, and following a scoreless overtime, Kurashev beat goalie Anton Forsberg with a wrist shot for the Sharks’ only goal of the shootout. But Askarov stopped shots by Trevor Moore and Adrian Kempe before Corey Perry’s attempt went wide, helping to give the Sharks their sixth win in their last eight games.
Adam Gaudette and Ty Dellandrea also scored, Collin Graf had two assists, and Askarov made 31 saves through three periods and overtime in another solid performance.
“I haven’t seen this team have any mental weakness,” Sharks coach Ryan Warsofsky said. “We’re excited to come to the rink every day. They take the coaching, the constructive criticism, and they want to get better, individually and collectively. There’s a real care to win, which we haven’t had in a long time. And you can see it.”
With the victory, the Sharks, at 10-8-3, already have half of the wins they had through 82 games last season (20-50-12). They’re also 6-0-1 at home since late October, and are one point out of a playoff spot going into Friday’s games.
“We’re finding a rhythm. And I don’t think it’s just at home,” Sharks defenseman Mario Ferraro said. “We’re just finding our game altogether.”
The Sharks could have sagged after allowing a game-tying goal to Kempe with 58.3 seconds left in regulation time. But they were probably the better team in overtime, and once the shootout began, they might have felt some peace with the way Askarov has been playing of late.
This month, after Thursday, Askarov is 6-1-0 with a .957 save percentage with one of the NHL’s best marks in goals saved above expected. Askarov also had 24 saves in the Sharks’ 3-2 overtime win over the Utah Mammoth on Tuesday.
After Thursday’s shootout, Askarov pumped his fist before his Sharks teammates swarmed him.
“Awesome, unbelievable, clutch,” Dellandrea said of Askarov. “He wants the big moments. He wants a lot of saves. He could be the first star every night, it seems. He’s been playing great, winning us games, keeping us in games. We’ve got to tighten it up a bit and not rely on him.”
Thursday’s atmosphere was reminiscent of the glory days of the Sharks-Kings rivalry, as the announced attendance of 16,387 witnessed a back-and-forth game featuring dynamic playmaking and elevated physicality.
“It was great, eh?” Dellandrea said. “The Tank was loud. It was fun to play in. You hear the chants during play, during whistles. It’s a great spot to be in when it’s like that.”
“I wasn’t here when the Shark Tank was alive and well, but I’ve heard a lot about it, and we want to make it like that very, very soon,” Warsofsky said.
Anze Kopitar, in his last regular-season game in San Jose after a 20-year NHL career, scored on a breakaway on Askarov 1:47 into the second period to tie the game 2-2.
Kurashev, though, scored a go-ahead goal late in the second period.
Setting up near the slot, Kurashev created some space for himself, took a pass from Will Smith, and beat Kings goalie Anton Forsberg five-hole for his sixth goal of the season.
At the 11:46 mark of the second period, a Joel Armia goal was taken off the board, as, after a Sharks challenge, it was determined Kings forward Kevin Fiala had preceded the puck into the offensive zone.
Macklin Celebrini recorded his third career NHL hat trick in the Sharks’ win over Utah. Still, the Sharks did not like how they played, especially 5-on-5, as their lack of connectivity defensively allowed the Mammoth to create almost twice as many high-danger chances as they did, per Natural Stat Trick.
Thursday, the Sharks’ recently formed third line of Graf, Gaudette, and Dellandrea helped give the Sharks a 2-1 lead after the first period.
Gaudette scored his fourth of the season at the 2:33 mark off assists from Dellandrea and Graf.
Then, after Joel Armia scored a shorthanded goal off a Celebrini turnover at the 16:04 mark, Dellandrea gave the Sharks back the lead as a Graf pass to the front of the net went off his skate and past Forsberg for his second of the season.
The Trump administration filed a federal suit Thursday against California and its public university systems, alleging the practice of offering in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants who graduate from California high schools is illegal.
The suit, which named Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the UC Board of Regents, the Cal State University Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges, also seeks to end provisions in the California Dream Act that allow students who lack documentation to apply for state-funded financial aid.
“California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a Department of Justice statement, saying the state has a “flagrant disregard for federal law.”
“These laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates, scholarships, or subsidies, create incentives for illegal immigration, and reward illegal immigrants with benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for, all in direct conflict with federal law,” the statement said.
Spokespersons for Bonta and CSU declined to comment, saying they had not seen copies of the complaint.
UC officials and a spokesperson for Newsom, who was named because he is an ex-officio board member for CSU and UC, were not immediately available to comment.
The tuition suit targets Assembly Bill 540, which passed with bipartisan support in 2001 and offers in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who completed high school in California. The law also offers in-state tuition to U.S. citizens who graduated from California schools but moved out of the state before enrolling in college.
Between 2,000 and 4,000 students attending the University of California — with its total enrollment of nearly 296,000 — are estimated to be undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, are community college students.
The Trump administration’s challenge to California’s tuition statute focuses on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
Critics say the law does not speak specifically to tuition rates. Some courts have interpreted the word “benefit” to include cheaper tuition.
Scholars have also debated whether the federal law affects California tuition rates for because it applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.
The California law has withstood earlier challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld it in 2010 after out-of-state students sued. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case.
In those cases, judges said undocumented immigrants were not receiving preferential treatment because of their immigration status but because they attended and graduated from California schools. They said U.S. citizens who graduated from the state’s schools had the same opportunity.
Thursday’s complaint was filed in Eastern District of California. It follows actions the Trump administration has taken against tuition practices in Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma and Minnesota.
In June, after the Trump administration sued over the law in Texas, the state agreed to stop giving in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students.
President Donald Trump is considering pressuring states to stop regulating artificial intelligence in a draft executive order obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, as some in Congress also consider whether to temporarily block states from regulating AI.
Trump and some Republicans argue that the limited regulations already enacted by states, and others that might follow, will dampen innovation and growth for the technology.
Critics from both political parties — as well as civil liberties and consumer rights groups — worry that banning state regulation would amount to a favor for big AI companies who enjoy little to no oversight.
While the draft executive order could change, here’s what to know about states’ AI regulations and what Trump is proposing.
What state-level regulations exist and why
Four states — Colorado, California, Utah and Texas — have passed laws that set some rules for AI across the private sector, according to the International Association of Privacy Professionals.
Those laws include limiting the collection of certain personal information and requiring more transparency from companies.
The laws are in response to AI that already pervades everyday life. The technology helps make consequential decisions for Americans, including who gets a job interview, an apartment lease, a home loan and even certain medical care. But research has shown that it can make mistakes in those decisions, including by prioritizing a particular gender or race.
“It’s not a matter of AI makes mistakes and humans never do,” said Calli Schroeder, director of the AI & Human Rights Program at the public interest group EPIC.
“With a human, I can say, ‘Hey, explain, how did you come to that conclusion, what factors did you consider?’” she continued. “With an AI, I can’t ask any of that, and I can’t find that out. And frankly, half the time the programmers of the AI couldn’t answer that question.”
States’ more ambitious AI regulation proposals require private companies to provide transparency and assess the possible risks of discrimination from their AI programs.
Beyond those more sweeping rules, many states have regulated parts of AI: barring the use of deepfakes in elections and to create nonconsensual porn, for example, or putting rules in place around the government’s own use of AI.
What Trump and some Republicans want to do
The draft executive order would direct federal agencies to identify burdensome state AI regulations and pressure states to not enact them, including by withholding federal funding or challenging the state laws in court.
It would also begin a process to develop a lighter-touch regulatory framework for the whole country that would override state AI laws.
Trump’s argument is that the patchwork of regulations across 50 states impedes AI companies’ growth, and allows China to catch up to the U.S. in the AI race. The president has also said state regulations are producing “Woke AI.”
The draft executive order that was leaked could change and should not be taken as final, said a senior Trump administration official who requested anonymity to describe internal White House discussions.
The official said the tentative plan is for Trump to sign the order Friday.
Separately, House Republican leadership is already discussing a proposal to temporarily block states from regulating AI, the chamber’s majority leader, Steve Scalise, told Punchbowl News this week.
It’s yet unclear what that proposal would look like, or which AI regulations it would override.
TechNet, which advocates for tech companies including Google and Amazon, has previously argued that pausing state regulations would benefit smaller AI companies still getting on their feet and allow time for lawmakers develop a country-wide regulatory framework that “balances innovation with accountability.”
Why attempts at federal regulation have failed
Some Republicans in Congress have previously tried and failed to ban states from regulating AI.
Part of the challenge is that opposition is coming from their party’s own ranks.
Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, said a federal law barring state regulation of AI was “Not acceptable” in a post on X this week.
DeSantis argued that the move would be a “subsidy to Big Tech” and would stop states from protecting against a list of things, including “predatory applications that target children” and “online censorship of political speech.”
A federal ban on states regulating AI is also unpopular, said Cody Venzke, senior policy council at the ACLU’s National Political Advocacy Department.
“The American people do not want AI to be discriminatory, to be unsafe, to be hallucinatory,” he said. “So I don’t think anyone is interested in winning the AI race if it means AI that is not trustworthy.”
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.
California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.
The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program.
The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year.
It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create.
There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.
During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.
“If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”
Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation.
“We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”
Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them.
“The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.
In your report on the horrific killing of coach John Beam, Alameda County Chief Public Defender Brendon Woods argued that “Instead of more jail and prison, we should invest in more effective solutions, such as diversion, mentorship and violence interruption.”
Ironically, Coach Beam exemplified the diversion, mentorship and violence prevention programs that Woods advocates, but the effective result was Beam’s own murder. Stop coddling offenders and restore punishment as a societal norm.
The government shutdown is finally over. This is good news for the nearly 42 million people receiving SNAP, as their full benefits will resume soon. But there is something seriously wrong when our government can take benefits from low-income people (many of whom have jobs). Food banks, though important and appreciated, are simply not in a position to substitute for SNAP funding. Our government has trodden on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and my personal values that food is a right.
But Congress still must pass a budget that protects critical programs that reduce poverty and ensures that the money is spent as directed. They have until Jan. 30 to get it done. Email your representatives and senators now. Tell them to protecty health care, nutrition and housing programs, and include safeguards to ensure the administration spends taxpayer funds as Congress intended.
Sue Oehser Oakland
Healthy diets are good if you can get food
President Trump’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Casey Means, is a proponent of lifestyle changes, including healthy eating, over medical interventions to treat diseases.
While there is certainly wisdom in eating properly to lower the risk of some illnesses, SNAP benefits in this country are in peril, not just during the recent government shutdown, but from other messages coming out of this administration critical of helping the poor.
It is wrong to insist that people should eat healthy who don’t have the means to do so. It is ignorant to then expect people won’t need medical care to treat the problems that proper nutrition might prevent.
What’s impressive in our democracy is the decision that we, the people, will allot some of our funds to ensure that those in need will have enough to eat.
If Means is serious about changes to medical care, she must also insist that our government fully fund SNAP.
Teri Shikany Danville
Trump will play system again in Epstein case
President Trump suddenly switched his position on the Epstein files by encouraging the House and Senate to vote on its release while simultaneously suggesting the Department of Justice investigate other people he knows had relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and, possibly, Epstein’s underage girls.
Trump’s tactic of running out the clock in court was successful with the Jan. 6 charges against him and will likely achieve the same result when Attorney General Pam Bondi claims the Epstein files can not be opened while the other investigations are underway. They have their ducks lined up. The clock will tick well past the midterms and the ‘28 election as additional names are suggested. Nothing will be released.
While all this might seem legal, a coordinated effort by the DOJ and the president to bury anything about his own participation and avoid possible consequences is corruption … no more, no less.
Barry Brynjulson Pleasanton
Stabilize energy costs before going green
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) will propose a 4% rate increase to the Santa Clara City Council in December.
We must help power companies stay solvent, but spiraling energy costs are not sustainable and are reflected in the cost of everything in California, from rent to food. We need nuclear and hydro to generate electricity, and we are way behind in developing those energy sources.
In the meantime, we must reauthorize natural gas. It’s the bridge fuel that’s supposed to sustain us until greener alternatives are online. California politicians burned that bridge before we could get across it. Imagine millions of electric cars returning home to recharge in 2035 with a grid that can’t support them. And dare I say it, we also need to pump more oil in California to make gas more affordable.
Green — yes, but on a realistic, science-based timeline.
Jim Stoch Carnelian Bay
No evidence Newsom cares about state either
On X, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote that “He (President Trump) doesn’t give a damn about you.”
But considering that California’s record on homelessness, taxes and schools leaves much to be desired, I have to wonder whether Newsom truly gives a damn about California voters, besides getting their votes in the 2028 presidential election.
After a panel of federal judges in Texas this week struck down that state’s recently redrawn congressional maps, voters in California might be wondering if that means the Golden State will halt its own mid-decade redistricting plan.
After all, when Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats began talking about redistricting early on, they framed it as a counter to the gerrymandering in Texas that was meant to benefit Republicans there. In selling the idea to voters that California should adopt new maps that benefit Democrats, Newsom said, just before he signed a bill to call the special election, “We’re responding (to) what occurred in Texas; we’re neutralizing what occurred.”
However, now that Texas may not be able to move forward with its redistricting plan — the recent decision could still be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court — some voters may wonder if California ought to proceed with its new maps.
Newsom’s office confirmed that California can still go forward with its plan because it is not contingent on what happens in any other state.
That’s because on the day the California Legislature passed bills to call for a special election and put new maps before voters, language that said California’s new maps would be implemented “only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map” was removed. At the time, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said that wording was removed because Texas had, by then, voted to redistrict.
“Because Texas Republicans have voted,” spokesperson Nick Miller said in an August email, “the original trigger language in our measure is no longer necessary.”
“To make sure the measure is clear to California voters when they have the final say, it has been removed,” he added.
Some voters may still be surprised, though, thinking California would only move forward with redistricting if Texas does. The title of the ballot measure had stated that Proposition 50 “authorizes temporary changes to congressional district maps in response to Texas’ partisan redistricting.”
“There is more than one reason that Californians may feel misled, including the reason for (our) lawsuit,” Mike Columbo, the lead attorney in a case challenging the state’s new congressional maps, said in an email.
That lawsuit — brought by California Republicans, and which the U.S. Department of Justice later joined — alleged California’s maps are unconstitutional because districts were racially gerrymandered. A spokesperson for Newsom previously expressed confidence that the state will prevail in court.
Asked if California still plans to redistrict in light of this week’s ruling on the Texas maps, Newsom’s office responded with a statement from the governor: President Donald Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott “played with fire, got burned — and democracy won. This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”
To be clear: Texas has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 2-1 decision by the federal district court judges. Should the nation’s highest court ultimately side with Texas, the maps that Abbott is pushing for could be implemented after all.
Meanwhile, irrespective of the Texas case, there’s still the matter of the Republicans’ lawsuit challenging California’s maps.
With that case still pending, voters and candidates alike may be asking what this means for California and the 2026 midterm elections. When will they know what the districts look like?
After all, a key date for candidates is coming up: Starting Dec. 19, candidates who don’t want to pay the filing fee to run for a House seat can begin gathering voter signatures to have the fee waived.
Knowing by then what the boundaries are for the district they’re running in is important, said Columbo.
“It will create a problem for voters and those candidates if the districts change after that date,” he said.
His team is seeking a preliminary injunction and requesting that California’s current congressional maps — used in the 2024 elections — remain in place until a final decision is rendered about the legality of those established by Proposition 50.
A three-judge panel will hear the matter on Dec. 3, and attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked for a decision on the preliminary injunction by Dec. 5 so that if the losing side appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court would have two weeks to weigh in before Dec. 19, Columbo said.
“The reason we are asking for such a quick decision is to avoid the confusion and disruption that would occur if we don’t have a decision by Dec. 19 and then later, the court determines that the maps are unconstitutional,” he said.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who has taught courses on constitutional law and election law, said in these types of cases, a court generally will indicate which map shall be used for the next election while a case is still being heard.
“People need to know which lines are in place before they have to declare their candidacy,” Levinson said. “Judges will have to give some indication about whether or not the new lines can be used. That will obviously have huge implications for who runs, in which district and what the contest looks like.”
“We just need to know which lines to use,” she added. “But the case doesn’t need to have a final resolution” yet.
In the meantime, candidates have already started announcing their plans to run in districts based on the Proposition 50 maps. With California’s June 2 primary election just over six months away, a number of candidates have started fundraising and seeking endorsements.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration announced on Thursday new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems, as President Donald Trump seeks to expand U.S. oil production.
The oil industry has been seeking access to new offshore areas, including Southern California and off the coast of Florida, as a way to boost U.S. energy security and jobs. The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Florida and part of offshore Alabama, since 1995, because of concerns about oil spills. California has some offshore oil rigs, but there has been no new leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s.
Since taking office for a second time in January, Trump has systematically reversed former President Joe Biden’s focus on slowing climate change to pursue what the Republican calls U.S. “energy dominance” in the global market. Trump, who recently called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” created a National Energy Dominance Council and directed it to move quickly to drive up already record-high U.S. energy production, particularly fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.
Meanwhile, Trump’s administration has blocked renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and canceled billions of dollars in grants that supported hundreds of clean energy projects across the country.
Even before it was released, the offshore drilling plan met strong opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run and has emerged as a leading Trump critic. Newsom pronounced the idea “dead on arrival” in a social media post. The proposal also is likely to draw bipartisan opposition in Florida. Tourism and access to clean beaches are key parts of the economy in both states.
Plans to allow drilling off California, Alaska and Florida’s coast The administration’s plan proposes six offshore lease sales between 2027 and 2030 in areas along the California coast.
It also calls for new drilling off the coast of Florida in areas at least 100 miles from that state’s shore. The area targeted for leasing is adjacent to an area in the Central Gulf of Mexico that already contains thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms.
The five-year plan also would compel more than 20 lease sales off the coast of Alaska, including a newly designated area known as the High Arctic, more than 200 miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in announcing the sales that it would take years for the oil from those parcels to get to market.
“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” Burgum said in a statement.
The American Petroleum Institute said in response that the announced plan was a “historic step” toward unleashing vast offshore resources. Industry groups have pointed to California’s history as an oil-producing state and say it already has infrastructure to support more production.
Opposition from California and Florida Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican and Trump ally, helped persuade Trump officials to drop a similar offshore plan in 2018 when he was governor. Last week, Scott and fellow Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody co-sponsored a bill to maintain a moratorium on offshore drilling in the state that Trump signed in his first term.
“As Floridians, we know how vital our beautiful beaches and coastal waters are to our state’s economy, environment and way of life,” Scott said in a statement. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come.”
A Newsom spokesman said Trump officials had not formally shared the plan, but said “expensive and riskier offshore drilling would put our communities at risk and undermine the economic stability of our coastal economies.”
California has been a leader in restricting offshore oil drilling since the infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped spark the modern environmental movement. While there have been no new federal leases offered since the mid-1980s, drilling from existing platforms continues.
Newsom expressed support for greater offshore controls after a 2021 spill off Huntington Beach and has backed a congressional effort to ban new offshore drilling on the West Coast.
A Texas-based company, with support from the Trump administration, is seeking to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The administration has hailed the plan by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. as the kind of project Trump wants to increase U.S. energy production as the federal government removes regulatory barriers.
Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term reversing Biden’s ban on future offshore oil drilling on the East and West coasts. A federal court later struck down Biden’s order to withdraw 625 million acres of federal waters from oil development.
Environmental and economic concerns over oil spills Democratic lawmakers, including California Sens. Alex Padilla and Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, warned that opening vast coastlines to new offshore drilling would hurt coastal economies, jeopardize national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put the health and safety of millions of people at risk.
“With this draft plan, Donald Trump and his Administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry,” Padilla and Huffman said in a joint statement.
One disastrous oil spill can cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, cleanup costs and ecosystem restoration, they said.
Joseph Gordon, campaign director for the environmental group Oceana, called the Trump administration’s latest plan “an oil spill nightmare.”
Coastal communities “depend on healthy oceans for economic security and their cherished way of life,” he said. “There’s too much at stake to risk more horrific oil spills that will haunt our coastlines for generations to come.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration announced on Thursday new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems, as President Donald Trump seeks to expand U.S. oil production.
The oil industry has been seeking access to new offshore areas, including Southern California and off the coast of Florida, as a way to boost U.S. energy security and jobs. The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Florida and part of offshore Alabama, since 1995, because of concerns about oil spills. California has some offshore oil rigs, but there has been no new leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s.
Since taking office for a second time in January, Trump has systematically reversed former President Joe Biden’s focus on slowing climate change to pursue what the Republican calls U.S. “energy dominance” in the global market. Trump, who recently called climate change “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” created a National Energy Dominance Council and directed it to move quickly to drive up already record-high U.S. energy production, particularly fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.
Meanwhile, Trump’s administration has blocked renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and canceled billions of dollars in grants that supported hundreds of clean energy projects across the country.
Even before it was released, the offshore drilling plan has been met with strong opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is eyeing a 2028 presidential run and has emerged as a leading Trump critic. Newsom pronounced the idea “dead on arrival” in a social media post. The proposal also is likely to draw bipartisan opposition in Florida. Tourism and access to clean beaches are key parts of the economy in both states.
Plans to allow drilling off California, Alaska and Florida’s coast
The administration’s plan proposes six offshore lease sales off the coast of California.
It also calls for new drilling off the coast of Florida in areas at least 100 miles from that state’s shore. The area targeted for leasing is adjacent to an area in the Central Gulf of Mexico that already contains thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms.
The five-year plan also would compel more than 20 lease sales off the coast of Alaska, including a newly designated area known as the High Arctic, more than 200 miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean.
All offshore areas “with the potential to generate jobs, new revenue and additional production to advance America’s energy dominance should be considered for inclusion,” the American Petroleum Institute and other groups said in a joint letter to the Trump administration in June.
The groups cited California’s history as an oil-producing state. “Undiscovered resources could be readily produced given the array of existing infrastructure in the area, particularly in southern California,” the letter said.
Opposition from California and Florida
Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican and Trump ally, helped persuade Trump officials to drop a similar offshore plan in 2018 when he was governor. Last week, Scott and fellow Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody’ co-sponsored a bill to maintain a moratorium on offshore drilling in the state that Trump signed in his first term.
“As Floridians, we know how vital our beautiful beaches and coastal waters are to our state’s economy, environment and way of life,″ Scott said in a statement. “I will always work to keep Florida’s shores pristine and protect our natural treasures for generations to come.”
A Newsom spokesman said Trump officials had not formally shared the plan, but said “expensive and riskier offshore drilling would put our communities at risk and undermine the economic stability of our coastal economies.”
California has been a leader in restricting offshore oil drilling since the infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill that helped spark the modern environmental movement. While there have been no new federal leases offered since the mid-1980s, drilling from existing platforms continues.
Newsom expressed support for greater offshore controls after a 2021 spill off Huntington Beach and has backed a congressional effort to ban new offshore drilling on the West Coast.
A Texas-based company, with support from the Trump administration, is seeking to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The administration has hailed the plan by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. as the kind of project Trump wants to increase U.S. energy production as the federal government removes regulatory barriers.
Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term reversing former President Joe Biden’s ban on future offshore oil drilling on the East and West coasts. A federal court later struck down Biden’s order to withdraw 625 million acres of federal waters from oil development.
Environmental and economic concerns over oil spills
Democratic lawmakers, including California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff and Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, warned that opening vast coastlines to new offshore drilling “would devastate coastal economies, jeopardize our national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put millions of Americans’ health and safety at risk.”
Oil spills “not only cause irreparable environmental damage, but also suppress the value of coastal homes, harm tourism economies and weaken coastal infrastructure,” the lawmakers said in a letter signed by dozens of Democrats. One disastrous oil spill can cost taxpayers billions in lost revenue, cleanup costs and ecosystem restoration, they said.
Joseph Gordon, campaign director for the environmental group Oceana, called the Trump administration’s latest plan “an oil spill nightmare.”
Coastal communities “depend on healthy oceans for economic security and their cherished way of life,” he said. “We need to protect our coasts from more offshore drilling, not put them up for sale to the oil and gas industry. There’s too much at stake to risk more horrific oil spills that will haunt our coastlines for generations to come.”
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The 2026 California gubernatorial race has reached a new chapter following months of cordiality and politeness in the growing field of mostly Democratic candidates: Antonio Villaraigosa released a series of videos and a website against Xavier Becerra, with the latest clip leveraging a campaign funds scandal.
The Villaraigosa for Governor campaign Wednesday released a video on social media platforms, claiming the federal investigation into Becerra’s longtime aide is the “biggest scandal to hit Sacramento in years.” This is the third video released by the Villaraigosa camp to question Becerra’s candidacy.
Last week, a former top aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom was indicted for an alleged scheme to steal campaign money from Becerra, who served as Health Human Services secretary in the Biden administration. The federal indictment accuses the Newsom aide of colluding with a longtime Becerra aide to steal $225,000 from a dormant campaign account from when Becerra ran for California attorney general.
Becerra has not been implicated in the investigation, according to federal officials. Becerra said he is voluntarily cooperating with authorities.
The new video features footage from local TV programs and interviews with Becerra himself, making the argument that it was irresponsible of Becerra not to have been aware of the activity with his unused campaign account.
In one of the television news segments used in the video, a panelist said he doesn’t know how Becerra “would run away from” the scandal, given that it involves the former California attorney general’s campaign account and his adviser.
It is not clear how many political candidates keep active tabs on their previous campaign accounts, especially after they are elected or occupy an office. When the alleged scheme happened, Becerra was two years into the Biden Cabinet job.
The Villaraigosa camp also launched a new website, specifically targeting the former congressman and state attorney general, singling him out in the crowded field of candidates who hope to replace Newsom in 2026.
Villaraigosa’s spokesperson explained to NBC Los Angeles that the anti-Becerra videos and website aim to inform voters about “the truth about Xavier Becerra’s past.”
“As a former Attorney General, he admittedly knew the payments were happening. Are we supposed to believe he didn’t know they were illegal?” Kerry Jacob from Villaraigosa’s team said. “If he didn’t know, then why should voters entrust Becerra to manage the state budget after turning a blind eye while his Chief of Staff fleeced him for $240,000?”
In response, Becerra’s spokesperson said Villaraigosa’s camp is attacking Becerra because “Antonio is trailing in every poll.”
“(There’s) a reason no one is attacking Villaraigosa: he’s not a serious candidate,” Owen Kilmer from Becerra’s campaign team told NBCLA in a statement.
Kilmer also emphasized that Becerra was not involved in any wrongdoing.
“What’s also clear is Secretary Becerra’s record: he took on the Trump Administration as CA Attorney General and won, delivered affordable care for millions, and negotiated lower drug prices to save California families thousands of dollars,” the spokesperson said.
The latest poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed, while 44% of the registered voters in California were undecided, 8% of them said they would support Becerra, after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco (13%) and Katie Porter (11%). Villaraigosa was trailing in the fifth place with 5% of support as of late October.
It may be no coincidence that Villaraigosa is starting to attack Becerra, one year before the 2026 midterm elections. With a number of parallels between the two prominent Latino candidates, they may be seeking support from the same or similar voting blocks.
Both are second-generation Americans after their parents immigrated from Mexico; both are fluent in Spanish with the ability to reach out to the most populous demographic in California; both spent decades holding public offices as Democrats.
Villaraigosa and Becerra hold a law degree although Villaraigosa’s People’s College of Law was unaccredited and lost its degree-granting authority in 2023. Becerra is a graduate of Stanford Law.
Villaraigosa’s camp may also try to land the first punch before more candidates throw their hats into the race. That’s because if Rick Caruso, who is also rumored to be considering running for governor, announce his candidacy, the entire dynamic of the contest will change.
While Newsom has not officially endorsed any of the gubernatorial candidates, LA Mayor Karen Bass, who ran against Caruso, endorsed Villaraigosa in September.
Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers abruptly went on leave Wednesday from teaching at Harvard University, where he once served as president, over recently released emails showing he maintained a friendly relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Summers’ spokesperson said.
Summers had canceled his public commitments amid the fallout of the emails being made public and earlier Wednesday severed ties with OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. Harvard had reopened an investigation into connections between him and Epstein, but Summers had said he would continue teaching economics classes at the school.
That changed Wednesday evening with the news that he will step away from teaching classes as well as his position as director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government with the Harvard Kennedy School.
“Mr. Summers has decided it’s in the best interest of the Center for him to go on leave from his role as Director as Harvard undertakes its review,” Summers spokesperson Steven Goldberg said, adding that his co-teachers would finish the classes.
Summers has not been scheduled to teach next semester, according to Goldberg.
A Harvard spokesperson confirmed to The Associated Press that Summers had let the university know about his decision. Summers decision to go on leave was first reported by The Harvard Crimson.
Harvard did not mention Summers by name in its decision to restart an investigation, but the move follows the release of emails showing that he was friendly with Epstein long after the financier pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.
By Wednesday, the once highly regarded economics expert had been facing increased scrutiny over choosing to stay in the teaching role. Some students even filmed his appearance in shock as he appeared before a class of undergraduates on Tuesday while stressing he thought it was important to continue teaching.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, said in a social media post on Wednesday night that Summers “cozied up to the rich and powerful — including a convicted sex offender. He cannot be trusted in positions of influence.”
Messages appear to seek advice about romantic relationship
The emails include messages in which Summers appeared to be getting advice from Epstein about pursuing a romantic relationship with someone who viewed him as an “economic mentor.”
“im a pretty good wing man , no?” Epstein wrote on Nov. 30, 2018.
The next day, Summers told Epstein he had texted the woman, telling her he “had something brief to say to her.”
“Am I thanking her or being sorry re my being married. I think the former,” he wrote.
Summers’ wife, Elisa New, also emailed Epstein multiple times, including a 2015 message in which she thanked him for arranging financial support for a poetry project she directs. The gift he arranged “changed everything for me,” she wrote.
“It really means a lot to me, all financial help aside, Jeffrey, that you are rooting for me and thinking about me,” she wrote.
New, an English professor emerita at Harvard, did not respond to an email seeking comment Wednesday.
An earlier review completed in 2020 found that Epstein visited Harvard’s campus more than 40 times after his 2008 sex-crimes conviction and was given his own office and unfettered access to a research center he helped establish. The professor who provided the office was later barred from starting new research or advising students for at least two years.
Summers appears before Harvard class
On Tuesday, Summers appeared before his class at Harvard, where he teaches “The Political Economy of Globalization” to undergraduates with Robert Lawrence, a professor with the Harvard Kennedy School.
“Some of you will have seen my statement of regret expressing my shame with respect to what I did in communication with Mr. Epstein and that I’ve said that I’m going to step back from public activities for a while. But I think it’s very important to fulfill my teaching obligations,” he said.
Summers’ remarks were captured on video by several students, but no one appeared to publicly respond to his comments.
Epstein, who authorities said died by suicide in 2019, was a convicted sex offender infamous for his connections to wealthy and powerful people, making him a fixture of outrage and conspiracy theories about wrongdoing among American elites.
Summers served as treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. He was Harvard’s president for five years from 2001 to 2006. When asked about the emails last week, Summers issued a statement saying he has “great regrets in my life” and that his association with Epstein was a “major error in judgement.”
Other organizations that confirmed the end of their affiliations with Summers included the Center for American Progress, the Center for Global Development and the Budget Lab at Yale University. Bloomberg TV said Summers’ withdrawal from public commitments included his role as a paid contributor, and the New York Times said it will not renew his contract as a contributing opinion writer.
___
This story has been corrected to show that Summers is a former treasury secretary, not treasurer; to show that Summers’ statement about stepping back from public commitments was issued late Monday, not Tuesday; and to show that the school is known as the Harvard Kennedy School, not Kennedy Harvard School.
___
Associated Press journalist Hallie Golden contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — U.S. employers added a surprisingly solid 119,000 jobs in September, the government said, issuing a key economic report that had been delayed for seven weeks by the federal government shutdown.
What You Need To Know
U.S. employers added a suprisingly solid 119,000 jobs in September, the government said, issuing a key economic report that had been delayed seven weeks by the federal government shutdown
The Labor Department also said Thursday that the unemployment rate rose to 4.4% from 4.3% in August
The increase in payrolls was more than double the 50,000 economists had forecast
But Labor Department revisions showed that jobs fell by 4,000 in August instead of increasing by 22,000 as originally reported
The unemployment rate rose to 4.4% from 4.3% in August, the Labor Department said Thursday.
The increase in payrolls was more than double the 50,000 economists had forecast. But Labor Department revisions showed that the economy lost 4,000 jobs in August instead of gaining 22,000 as originally reported.
During the 43-day U.S. government shutdown, investors, businesses, policymakers and the Federal Reserve were groping in the dark for clues about the health of the American job market because federal workers had been furloughed and couldn’t collect the data.
The report comes at a time of considerable uncertainty about the economy. The job market has been strained by the lingering effects of high interest rates and uncertainty around President Donald Trump’s erratic campaign to slap taxes on imports from almost every country on earth and on specific products — from copper to foreign films.. But economic growth at midyear was resilient.
The Federal Reserve policymakers are divided over whether to cut interest rates for the third time this year when they meet next month.
Economists expected to see a continuation of what was happening in the spring and summer: weak hiring but few layoffs, an awkward pairing that means Americans who have work mostly enjoy job security – but those who don’t often struggle to find employment.
Labor Department revisions in September showed that the economy created 911,000 fewer jobs than originally reported in the year that ended in March. That meant that employers added an average of just 71,000 new jobs a month over that period, not the 147,000 first reported.
Since March, job creation has slowed even more — to an average 53,000 a month. During the 2021-2023 hiring boom that followed COVID-19 lockdowns, by contrast, the economy was creating 400,000 jobs a month.
Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is expected to reduce the number of people looking for work, which means that the economy can create fewer jobs without sending the unemployment rate higher.
With September numbers out, businesses, investors, policymakers and the Fed will have to wait awhile to get another good look at the numbers behind the American labor market.
The Labor Department said Wednesday that it won’t won’t release a full jobs report for October because it couldn’t calculate the unemployment rate during the government shutdown.
Instead, it will release some of the October jobs data — including the number of jobs that employers created last month — along with the full November jobs report on Dec. 16, a couple of weeks late.
That puts an even more intense focus on September jobs numbers released Thursday. They are the last full measurement of hiring and unemployment that Fed policymakers will see before they meet Dec. 9-10 to decide whether to cut their benchmark interest rate for the third time this year.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Meta has prevailed over an existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling Tuesday after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision runs in sharp contrast to two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing regulatory blows to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.
The Federal Trade Commission “continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” Boasberg wrote in his ruling. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.”
The federal agency had argued that Meta maintained a monopoly by pursuing an expression CEO Mark Zuckerberg made in 2008: “‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”
During his April testimony, Zuckerberg pushed back against claims that Facebook bought Instagram to neutralize a threat. In his line of questioning, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson repeatedly brought up emails — many of them more than a decade old — written by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram.
While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote the emails early in the acquisition process and that the notes did not fully capture the scope of his interest in the company. But the case was not about the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago, which the FTC approved at the time, but about whether Meta holds a monopoly now. Prosecutors, Boasberg wrote in the ruling, could only win if they proved “current or imminent legal violation.”
The FTC’s complaint said Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.
Meta said Tuesday’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”
“Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America,” said Jennifer Newstead, chief legal officer, in a statement.
The social media landscape has changed so much since the FTC filed its lawsuit in 2020, Boasberg wrote, that each time the court examined Meta’s apps and competition, they changed. Two opinions to dismiss the case — filed in 2021 and 2022 — didn’t even mention popular social video platform TikTok. Today, it “holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival.”
Quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” Boasberg said the same is true for the online world of social media as well.
“The landscape that existed only five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission brought this antitrust suit has changed markedly. While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” he wrote.
Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley said Meta’s win “is not necessarily surprising considering the lengths it’s gone to in recent years to keep up with TikTok.”
“But from a regulatory standpoint, Meta is far from out of the woods: next year, major social networks will face landmark trials in the US regarding children’s mental health,” she added. “Still, today’s win is surely a boost for the company as it battles criticism and questions over how its massive AI spending will ultimately benefit Meta in the long run.”
Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.
Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Up until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a type of popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.
WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Meta’s competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp.
Investors didn’t appear surprised at the ruling. Shares of the Menlo Park, California-based company were down $1.52 at $600.49 in afternoon trading Tuesday, in line with broader market trends.
At a contentious meeting Wednesday night, the Santa Clara County Office of Education’s board delivered the results of a lengthy investigation into an alleged misuse of public funds by the county’s former superintendent of schools — but conflicting claims by county office of education leaders made it clear that many questions still swirl around the findings.
They come more than a year after former Superintendent Mary Ann Dewan was unexpectedly removed from her position in a 4-2 vote; the action was classified as “without cause.” The board declined to expand on the reasoning for Dewan’s mysterious removal for months, but says now the decision stemmed from her handling of several complaints regarding the county’s Head Start program, which helps low-income children under the age of five access critical resources.
The report did not cite specific examples of wrongdoing, or include the names of the two law firms that conducted the independent review. But it contained 14 findings, including that under Dewan’s leadership, the Santa Clara County Office of Education misused public funds and violated several board policies, that the county superintendent’s segregated account was used to redirect grant funding for unrelated purposes and that public dollars were used for legal expenses and investigations of the board of education.
A federal audit released earlier this year said the county office of education misused more than $135,370 in federal Head Start funds under Dewan, an error the board called a failed cover-up and an intentional effort to undermine the board’s authority — but which Dewan said was a communication error.
The county office of education said Wednesday that the board and staff were not aware of any charges being filed by law enforcement or the district attorney’s office.
The report’s summarized findings presented Wednesday were written by board counsel and the board’s governance committee — comprised of board president Maimona Afzal Berta, vice president Victoria Chon and trustee Jessica Speiser as well as current county superintendent David Toston — the board’s legal counsel said Wednesday and the findings stemmed from multiple investigations and reports conducted in the last two years.
The report’s findings also said several office of education contracts were awarded in a manner that suggested personal favoritism and that “ethical safeguards” were ignored, with several county office of education employees allegedly using “public resources” to show support for their superior.
In a statement Wednesday, Dewan condemned the board’s findings, calling them “meritless, malicious and baseless attacks unsupported by any evidence.”
“I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing and fulfilled all of my duties with integrity and within the statutory framework of my role,” Dewan said. “This pattern of public attacks, mischaracterizations and personal targeting is harmful to the institution and discourages talented educators from serving our students.”
Dewan also pointed out that whether appointed by the board — in the case of Santa Clara County — or elected by the community, a county superintendent has independent authority under the law to enter into agreements and contracts. She also said that employees, like all individuals, have First Amendment rights and the board’s effort to frame employee free speech as misconduct is troubling.
At Wednesday’s meeting, a handful of community members and head start staff expressed their gratitude to the board for investigating the misuse of funds and Dewan’s “unethical” requests.
“The findings are astonishing but not surprising given that I and Head Start staff have been saying this for the last two years,” said Mercedes Hill, a Head Start office specialist within the county office of education.
But Riju Krishna, the president of the Association of County Educators — a group of local teachers unions — pointed out that the amount of improperly misused funding alleged in the investigation’s findings “cannot possibly be the work of one single superintendent” in a system that requires multiple checks and balances, and called on the current county superintendent Toston to implement significant policy reform.
“What is your plan…to rebuild the school oversight, repair the damage and ensure that this never happens again?” Krishna asked. “How will you repair this harm?”
The board of education presented several suggested policy changes in response to the investigation’s findings Wednesday in an effort to prevent the misuse of funds from reoccurring.
But Tara Sreekrishnan, who said she was speaking as an individual member of the board and not on behalf of the board itself, expressed concerns about the proposed board policy changes, which she said centralizes authority in the board president, restricts speech, reduces transparency and moves the county office of education toward “punitive, politically motivated governance.”
She also expressed deep concerns about the investigation’s findings.
“The findings raise broad and serious concerns but they are presented without evidence or specific examples, which makes it difficult for the public trustees or any oversight agency to fully evaluate them,” Sreekrishnan said in a statement Wednesday.
Several other former county office of education leaders came to the defense of Dewan Wednesday, including former board president Claudia Rossi and former trustee Kathleen King.
“Countless public dollars have been poured into this two-year witch hunt and still not a shred of evidence of wrongdoing has been produced,” Rossi said in a statement Wednesday.
But current board member Don Rocha cautioned the community that in his more than 30 years of public service, he’s never seen an agency as unconcerned with serving community interests as the Santa Clara County Office of Education was under Dewan.
“The evidence speaks for itself unless you choose to look the other way,” Rocha said.
SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta spent $468,000 of his campaign cash on lawyers while reportedly being interviewed by federal authorities investigating Oakland’s former mayor and others in a sprawling federal bribery and corruption inquiry.
The longtime East Bay politician’s senior adviser, Dan Newman, told this news organization Wednesday that Bonta’s legal bills were for the sole purpose of “providing information that could be helpful to the investigation of those implicated” in the ongoing criminal probe.
Bonta — who lives in Alameda and has worked his way from city councilman to the state’s top prosecutor — was never a target of the investigation, Newman said.
“The AG’s involvement is over,” Newman added. “But this is an ongoing legal proceeding that we don’t want to hinder — with no relation to or involvement of the AG — so unable to provide further information.” He said the work required of those attorneys ended in 2024, the adviser said.
Newman initially told the KCRA this week that the attorney general used the campaign funds “to help his law enforcement partners pursue justice” in the East Bay corruption probe. The Sacramento station was the first to report Bonta’s legal spending.
Newman later changed that stance, claiming in a subsequent interview with KCRA that Bonta spent the money on attorneys for himself while being questioned by federal investigators. The adviser stressed Bonta was never a target of the investigation, and the funds were needed “because of the nature of the charges against the people implicated,” the station reported.
The size of Bonta’s legal bills appear historically large, and they reflect the fact that Bonta retained one of the premier law firms in Silicon Valley — Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati — which routinely charges four figures an hour for its work, said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political science professor. That also highlights the stakes Bonta faces as a politically ambitious state attorney general, particularly one who has taken a leading stand against the current White House administration by filing dozens of lawsuits against it, the professor said.
“His problems are the appearance of impropriety when he is the poster child against Donald Trump and the administration,” McCuan said. “So if he has an image problem that is created by this expenditure, then that is a problem for him.”
McCuan added that California campaign finance law is considered “murky” when it comes to when candidates can use campaign cash for legal help.
In general, campaign funding can only be used “if the litigation is directly related to activities of the committee that are consistent with its primary objectives,” said Shery Yang, a spokesperson for the Fair Political Practices Commission, in an email. While she said she couldn’t speak specifically to this case, instances where that money can be used include defending against claims that a candidate violated election laws, or ensuring compliance with state campaign disclosure reports.
The five payments to Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati were made two days before Bonta announced he would not run for governor and seek reelection as attorney general in February, the records show.
It all casts a fresh spotlight on Bonta’s ties to many of the main players charged in the ongoing bribery and pay-to-play probe that has roiled the East Bay’s political scene, including former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and Andy Duong, who helps run a recycling company contracted by the city of Oakland.
In charges unsealed in January, federal prosecutors accused former Thao of accepting bribes from Andy Duong and his father, David, in the form of political favors and a $95,000 no-show job for Thao’s romantic partner, Andre Jones. In return, prosecutors claimed Thao promised to secure lucrative city contracts for a fledgling housing company co-founded by David Duong, as well as for Duongs recycling business, California Waste Solutions.
Thao, Jones and David and Andy Duong have all pleaded not guilty and could face trial by next year.
Bonta has known Andy Duong for years, even becoming a frequent presence on his Instagram page before federal agents raided the businessman’s house in June 2024.
In an August 2021 social media post, Bonta was seen standing alongside Andy Duong and the famed Filipino boxer and retired politician Manny Pacquiao, each of them giving a “thumbs up” to the camera. In another, Bonta appeared to be sitting in a limousine, smiling at the camera with one arm around Andy Duong and another around his wife, California Assemblymember Mia Bonta.
“Cannot wait to see what else the future has to offer to you,” wrote Andy Duong, calling the state’s top prosecutor a “brother” while recounting his rise from “Vice Mayor to State Assembly and now CA Attorney General.” The post included no less than nine other photos of the two together over the years, often at campaign events or, in one instance, together at a Golden State Warriors game.
Rob Bonta has since sought to distance himself from the Duongs. Shortly after the FBI and other federal authorities raided the family’s Oakland hills houses on June 20, 2024, Bonta said he planned to give back $155,000 in political contributions that he had previously received from the Duong family.
The political fortunes of Thao and Mia Bonta also nearly collided several years ago. Before running for mayor, Thao briefly considered campaigning for the state assembly seat once held by Rob Bonta before he became the state’s attorney general. Instead, Thao opted to run for the mayor of Oakland, while Mia Bonta ran and filled her husband’s post in Sacramento.
Bonta ties to people investigated in the corruption probe extend to an unnamed co-conspirator widely believed to be longtime Oakland political operative Mario Juarez. Bonta and Juarez enjoyed “close financial and political ties,” such as when Bonta helped secure a $3.4 million grant in 2017 from the California Energy Commission for a company that Juarez co-owned, according to a filing late last year by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.
“They have publicly endorsed each other and have used the same office for their business dealings,” said the filing, adding that Juarez and the Bontas’ “extensive intertwined political and business dealings are widely known.”
Jakob Rodgers is a senior breaking news reporter. Call, text or send him an encrypted message via Signal at 510-390-2351, or email him at jrodgers@bayareanewsgroup.com.
Billionaire businessman and activist Tom Steyer, who once self-financed an unsuccessful White House campaign and spent his own money advocating for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, has launched his bid for California governor as a Democrat.
The 68-year-old’s tremendous wealth immediately makes him a notable contender in a free-for-all that includes more than a half-dozen Democrats and two Republicans competing in an all-party June primary, with the top two vote-getters advancing to a November general election to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Steyer announced his candidacy with a pledge to improve economic conditions and by framing his political record as friendly to consumers, working-class voters and the environment.
“Californians deserve a life they can afford,” he said in a video released Wednesday morning. “But the Californians who make this state run are being run over by the cost of living.”
The approach puts Steyer on a collision course with other candidates like progressive Congresswoman Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.
At one time, Porter was viewed as a top contender but the contest is now seen as wide open. Steyer’s wealth could give him an advantage in reaching voters through television and digital advertising in an expansive state with nearly 40 million people and multiple media markets.
Steyer nodded to his wealth Wednesday, noting his business enterprises made “billions of dollars.” But he also sounded populist tones.
“The richest people in America think that they earned everything themselves,” he said, before dismissing that notion with an expletive for bovine excrement. “That’s so ridiculous.”
Steyer said he would “make corporations pay their fair share again,” and his campaign cited his previous work on ballot initiatives with similar aims. Steyer was a leading advocate for a 2012 ballot initiative that made it harder for corporations to avoid certain taxes. The new revenue was steered to energy improvements in the state’s public schools.
In other referendum work, Steyer helped lead the 2016 campaign that yielded a $2 per-pack tax hike on tobacco products. The money was steered to state health care programs, including tobacco-prevention efforts. And Steyer was a top opponent of a 2010 ballot initiative that would have rolled back California’s clean air and climate law, which has been viewed as a national standard on climate policy.
Steyer spent millions of his own money touring the country and pushing for Trump’s impeachment during the Republican president’s first term. He then ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, spending more than $200 million of his fortune and receiving no pledged delegates. After distant finishes in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, Steyer doubled-down with an expensive push in South Carolina, only to finish a distant third behind eventual nominee and President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Steyer then ended his presidential bid, and he financially supported Biden’s reelection in 2024 before the Democrat bowed out in favor of then-Vice President Kamala Harris, another Californian.
Steyer’s latest campaign comes amid some Democrats questioning Porter’s candidacy after her combative exchanges with a TV journalist spread online in October. He has long been mentioned, along with Harris, as a potential heavyweight candidate who could join the field.
Harris, who is on a national tour promoting her 2024 campaign memoir, has said consistently that she has no plans to run — suggesting instead that any future campaign would be for the presidency.
“I will be voting,” she told The Associated Press on Oct. 17 when asked about entering the governor’s race. Asked whether she was satisfied with the field as Porter faced her most intense criticism, Harris said only that she wanted Democrats to have “the best and the brightest running and winning” and that she was “not actively involved.”
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced Wednesday that he is running for governor of California, arguing that he is not beholden to special interests and can take on corporations that are making life unaffordable in the state.
“The richest people in America think that they earned everything themselves. Bull—, man. That’s so ridiculous,” Steyer said in an online video announcing his campaign. “We have a broken government. It’s been bought by corporations and my question is: Who do you think is going to change that? Sacramento politicians are afraid to change up this system. I’m not. They’re going to hate this. Bring it on.”
Steyer, 68, founded Farallon Capital Management, one of the nation’s largest hedge funds, and left it in 2012 after 26 years. Since his departure, he has become a global environmental activist and a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes.
But the hedge firm’s investments — notably a giant coal mine in Australia that cleared 3,700 acres of koala habitat and a company that runs migrant detention centers on the U.S.-Mexico border for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will make him susceptible to political attack by his gubernatorial rivals.
Steyer has expressed regret for his involvement in such projects, saying it was why he left Farallon and started focusing his energy on fighting climate change.
Tom Steyer, who ran for president in 2020, addresses a crowd during a primary election night party in Columbia, S.C.
(Sean Rayford / Getty Images)
Steyer previously flirted with running for governor and the U.S. Senate but decided against it, instead opting to run for president in 2020. He dropped out after spending nearly $342 million on his campaign, which gained little traction before he ended his run after the South Carolina primary.
Next year’s gubernatorial race is in flux, after former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla decided not to run, and Proposition 50, the successful Democratic effort to redraw congressional districts, consumed all of the political oxygen during an off-year election.
In recent years, Steyer has been a longtime benefactor of progressive causes, most recently spending $12 million to support the redistricting ballot measure. But when he was the focus of one of the ads, rumors spiraled that he was considering a run for governor.
In prior California ballot initiatives, Steyer successfully supported efforts to close a corporate tax loophole and to raise tobacco taxes, and fought oil-industry-backed efforts to roll back environmental law.
His campaign platform is to build 1 million homes in four years, lower energy costs by ending monopolies, make preschool and community college free and ban corporate contributions to political action committees in California elections.
Steyer’s brother Jim, the leader of Common Sense Media, and former Biden administration U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy are aiming to put an initiative on next year’s ballot to protect children from social media, specifically the chatbots that have been accused of prompting young people to kill themselves. Newsom recently vetoed a bill aimed at addressing this artificial intelligence issue.
As President Donald Trump laid it out to reporters this summer, the plan was simple.
Republicans, the president said, were “entitled” to five more conservative-leaning U.S. House seats in Texas and additional ones in other red states. The president broke with more than a century of political tradition in directing the GOP to redraw those maps in the middle of the decade to avoid losing control of Congress in next year’s midterms.
Four months later, Trump’s audacious ask looks anything but simple. After a federal court panel struck down Republicans’ new map in Texas on Tuesday, the entire exercise holds the potential to net Democrats more winnable seats in the House instead.
“Trump may have let the genie out of the bottle,” said UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, “but he may not get the wish he’d hoped for.”
Trump’s plan is to bolster his party’s narrow House margin to protect Republicans from losing control of the chamber in next year’s elections. Normally, the president’s party loses seats in the midterms. But his involvement in redistricting is instead becoming an illustration of the limits of presidential power.
Gov. Greg Abbott announces his re-election campaign for Texas governor in Houston, Sunday, Nov. 9, 2025. (Jason Fochtman/Houston Chronicle via AP)
Gov. Greg Abbott announces his re-election campaign for Texas governor in Houston, Sunday, Nov. 9, 2025. (Jason Fochtman/Houston Chronicle via AP)
Playing with fire
To hold Republicans’ grip on power in Washington, Trump is relying on a complex political process.
Redrawing maps is a decentralized effort that involves navigating a tangle of legal rules. It also involves a tricky political calculus because the legislators who hold the power to draw maps often want to protect themselves, business interests or local communities more than ruthlessly help their party.
And when one party moves aggressively to draw lines to help itself win elections — also known as gerrymandering — it runs the risk of pushing its rival party to do the same.
That’s what Trump ended up doing, spurring California voters to replace their map drawn by a nonpartisan commission with one drawn by Democrats to gain five seats. If successful, the move would cancel out the action taken by Texas Republicans. California voters approved that map earlier this month, and if a Republican lawsuit fails to block it, that map giving Democrats more winnable seats will remain in effect even if Texas’ remains stalled.
“Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, posted on X after the Texas ruling, mentioning his Republican counterpart in Texas along with the president.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, a Republican whose northern California district would be redrawn under the state’s new map, agreed.
“It could very well come out as a net loss for Republicans, honestly when you look at the map, or at the very least, it could end up being a wash,” Kiley said. “But it’s something that never should have happened. It was ill-conceived from the start.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally with Harris County Democrats at the IBEW local 716 union hall in Houston, on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Karen Warren)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally with Harris County Democrats at the IBEW local 716 union hall in Houston, on Saturday, Nov. 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Karen Warren)
For Trump, a mix of wins and losses
There’s no guarantee that Tuesday’s ruling on the Texas map will stand. Many lower courts have blocked Trump’s initiatives, only for the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to put those rulings on hold. Texas Republicans immediately appealed Tuesday’s decision to the high court, too.
Even before Tuesday, Trump’s push for mid-decade redistricting was not playing out as neatly as he had hoped, though he had scored some apparent wins. North Carolina Republicans potentially created another conservative-leaning seat in that battleground state, while Missouri Republicans redrew their congressional map at Trump’s urging to eliminate one Democratic seat. The Missouri plan faces lawsuits and a possible referendum that would force a statewide vote on the matter.
Trump’s push has faltered elsewhere. Republicans in Kansas balked at trying to eliminate the state’s lone swing seat, held by a Democratic congresswoman. Indiana Republicans also refused to redraw their map to eliminate their two Democratic-leaning congressional seats.
After Trump attacked the main Indiana holdout, state Sen. Greg Goode, on social media, he was the victim of a swatting call over the weekend that led to sheriff’s deputies coming to his house.
Trump’s push could have a boomerang effect on Republicans
The bulk of redistricting normally happens once every 10 years, following the release of new population estimates from the U.S. Census. That requires state lawmakers to adjust their legislative lines to make sure every district has roughly the same population. It also opens the door to gerrymandering maps to make it harder for the party out of power to win legislative seats.
Inevitably, redistricting leads to litigation, which can drag on for years and spur mid-decade, court-mandated revisions.
Republicans stood to benefit from these after the last cycle in 2021 because they won state supreme court elections in North Carolina and Ohio in 2022. But some litigation hasn’t gone the GOP’s way. A judge in Utah earlier this month required the state to make one of its four congressional seats Democratic-leaning.
Trump broke with modern political practice by urging a wholesale, mid-decade redraw in red states.
Democrats were in a bad position to respond to Trump’s gambit because more states they control have lines drawn by independent commissions rather than by partisan lawmakers, the legacy of government reform efforts.
But with Newsom’s push to let Democrats draw California’s lines successful, the party is looking to replicate it elsewhere.
Next up may be Virginia, where Democrats recaptured the governor’s office this month and expanded their margins in the Legislature. A Democratic candidate for governor in Colorado has called for a similar measure there. Republicans currently hold 9 of the 19 House seats in those two states.
Overall, Republicans have more to lose if redistricting becomes a purely partisan activity nationally and voters in blue states ditch their nonpartisan commissions to let their preferred party maximize its margins. In the last complete redistricting cycle in 2021, commissions drew 95 House seats that Democrats would have otherwise drawn, and only 13 that Republicans would have drawn.
The State Capitol is seen in Austin, Texas, on June 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
The State Capitol is seen in Austin, Texas, on June 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
Gerrymandering’s unintended consequences
On Tuesday, Republicans were reappraising Trump’s championing of redistricting hardball.
“I think if you look at the basis of this, there was no member of the delegation that was asked our opinion,” Republican Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas told reporters.
Incumbents usually don’t like the idea of radically redrawing districts. It can lead to what political experts call a “dummymander” — spreading the opposing party’s voters so broadly that they end up endangering your own incumbents in a year, like 2026, that is expected to be bad for the party in power.
Incumbents also don’t like losing voters who have supported them or getting wholly new communities drawn into their districts, said Jonathan Cervas, who teaches redistricting at Carnegie Mellon University and has drawn new maps for courts. Democratic lawmakers in Illinois and Maryland have so far resisted mid-decade redraws to pad their majorities in their states, joining their GOP counterparts in Indiana and Kansas.
Cervas said that’s why it was striking to watch Trump push Republicans to dive into mid-decade redistricting.
“The idea they’d go along to get along is basically crazy,” he said.
___
Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google is unleashing its Gemini 3 artificial intelligence model on its dominant search engine and other popular online services in the high-stakes battle to create technology that people can trust to enlighten them and manage tedious tasks.
The next-generation model unveiled Tuesday comes nearly two years after Google took the wraps off its first iteration of the technology. Google designed Gemini in response to a competitive threat posed by OpenAI’s ChatGPT that came out in late 2022, triggering the biggest technological shift since Apple released the iPhone in 2007.
Google’s latest AI features initially will be rolled out to Gemini Pro and Ultra subscribers in the United States before coming to a wider, global audience. Gemini 3’s advances include a new AI “thinking” feature within Google’s search engine that company executives believe will become an indispensable tool that will help make people more productive and creative.
“We like to think this will help anyone bring any idea to life,” Koray Kavukcuoglu, a Google executive overseeing Gemini’s technology, told reporters.
As AI models have become increasingly sophisticated, the advances have raised worries that the technology is more prone to behave in ways that jumble people’s feelings and thoughts while feeding them misleading information and fawning flattery. In some of the most egregious interactions, AI chatbots have faced accusations of becoming suicide coaches for emotionally vulnerable teenagers.
The various problems have spurred a flurry of negligence lawsuits against the makers of AI chatbots, although none have targeted Gemini yet.
Google executives believe they have built in guardrails that will prevent Gemini 3 from hallucinating or be deployed for sinister purposes such as hacking into websites and computing devices.
Gemini 3 ‘s responses are designed to be “smart, concise and direct, trading cliche and flatter for insight — telling you what you need to hear, not just what you want to hear. It acts as a true thought partner,” Kavukcuoglu and Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google’s DeepMind division, wrote in a blog post.
Besides providing consumers with more AI tools, Gemini 3 is also likely to be scrutinized as a barometer that investors may use to get a better sense about whether the massive torrent of spending on the technology will pay off.
After starting the year expecting to spend $75 billion, Google’s corporate parent Alphabet recently raised its capital expenditure budget from $91 billion to $93 billion, with most of the money earmarked for AI. Other Big Tech powerhouses such as Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook parent Meta Platforms are spending nearly as much — or even more — on their AI initiatives this year.
Investors so far have been mostly enthusiastic about the AI spending and the breakthroughs they have spawned, helping propel the values of Alphabet and its peers to new highs. Alphabet’s market value is now hovering around $3.4 trillion, more than doubling in value since the initial version of Gemini came out in late 2023. Alphabet’s shares edged up slightly Tuesday after the Gemni 3 news came out.
But the sky-high values also have amplified fears of a potential investment bubble that will eventually burst and drag down the entire stock market.
Like Gemini, both ChatGPT and Claude are capable of responding rapidly to conversational questions involving complex topics — a skill that has turned them into the equivalent of “answer engines” that could lessen people’s dependence on Google search.
Google quickly countered that threat by implanting Gemini’s technology into its search engine to begin creating detailed summaries called “AI Overviews” in 2023, and then introducing an even more conversational search tool called “AI mode” earlier this year.
Those innovations have prompted Google to de-emphasize the rankings of relevant websites in its search results — a shift that online publishers have complained is diminishing the visitor traffic that helps them finance their operations through digital ad sales.
The changes have been mostly successful for Google so far, with AI Overviews now being used by more than 2 billion people every month, according to the company. The Gemini app, by comparison, has about 650 million monthly users.
With the release of Gemini 3, the AI mode in Google’s search engine is also adding a new feature that will allow users to click on a “thinking” option in a tab that company executives promise will deliver even more in-depth answers than has been happening so far. Although the “thinking” choice in the search engine’s AI mode initially will only be offered to Gemini Pro and Ultra subscribers, the Mountain View, California, company plans to eventually make it available to all comers.
Mourners exhibiting their depth of feeling struggled at times to pay tribute during the funeral service on Tuesday, Nov. 18, for San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez, who was slain as he arrived at a home in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27 in an attempt to rescue a woman who authorities say was being forced into a car at gunpoint by her ex-husband.
Nunez, 28, had been a deputy for six years when a man identified as Angelo Jose Saldivar hid behind a building and fired a single shot when Nunez got out of his patrol car on Hollyhock Drive. Saldivar fled on a motorcycle and was arrested after a deputy used his car to knock over Saldivar’s bike as it sped away on the 210 Freeway in Upland. Saldivar has pleaded not guilty to murder, attempted kidnapping and other charges.
“There was a victim in distress, and Andrew got to her as soon as possible,” sheriff’s Capt. Mike Smith, who was Nunez’s commander at the Rancho Cucamonga station, said at the Toyota Arena in Ontario. “He ran toward danger to protect a victim he did not know. His life was taken by the senseless act of a coward.”
Nunez is survived by his wife, 2-year-old daughter and an unborn daughter.
A San Bernardino County sheriff’s Honor Guard fold the flag a top slain Deputy Andrew Nunez’s casket during funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus salutes during funeral services for slain Deputy Andrew Nunez at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
San Bernardino County sheriff’s Sgt. David Rayenhartz speaks about his close friend slain Deputy Andrew Nunez during funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department Honor Guard stand watch over the casket of slain Deputy Andrew Nunez during funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department Honor Guard stand watch over the casket of slain Deputy Andrew Nunez, as Nunez’s family, top, sit near by during funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
San Bernardino County sheriff deputies salute as the casket containing slain Deputy Andrew Nunez enters Toyota Arena during funeral services in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus salutes during funeral services for slain Deputy Andrew Nunez at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department Honor Guard walk off stage during the funeral services for slain Deputy Andrew Nunez at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
1 of 8
A San Bernardino County sheriff’s Honor Guard fold the flag a top slain Deputy Andrew Nunez’s casket during funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
The stage was adorned with photographs and flowers. An honor guard stood watch beside the casket draped with an American flag.
Nunez’s mother, Yolanda, described her son as having strong convictions, fearless, impulsive, “stubborn at times, yes … ready to embrace life with both hands. He always looked out for me, that I was loved, that I was OK.”
A supporter rubbed Nunez’s arm as she spoke through her tears.
“He loved praying. He loved playing golf …
“I can’t … Nunez said, unable to continue.
The supporter took over Nunez’s eulogy.
“I will forever carry the honor of having loved him and the even bigger honor of having been loved by him,” she said.
Nunez’s wife, Roxana, wore dark glasses as she spoke inside the 11,000-seat arena that hosted law enforcement officers from Southern California and beyond.
“He was an incredible father and loving partner,” she said. “He was ambitious and fearless, always pushing himself. But he had the softest heart when it came to our family.”
She inhaled deeply.
“He was proud to stand beside all of you,” Nunez’s wife said. “He made things lighter, he made things better. And if he were here now, he’d be laughing at us for crying. … I love you, baby.”
Andrew Nunez grew up without a strong father figure in his life, Roxana Nunez said, so as the eldest child in the family, he pushed his four siblings to “never give up and be strong. As he got older, he learned to step back a bit, but he never truly left. He was always there on the sideline, ready to help.”
When it came to sports, Nunez was rarely on the sideline. He played football, basketball and soccer, and he was a member of the football team at Los Osos High in Rancho Cucamonga, Deputy Chief Ernie Perez said. And Nunez was a fan of the Lakers and Dodgers.
“Especially the Dodgers,” Perez said.
Nunez dreamed early on of becoming a sheriff’s deputy and patrolling Rancho Cucamonga, where he attended church at the time of his death. He told anybody who’d listen, including co-workers at a cellular company.
“Andrew’s friend told me he talked too much to customers and he talked himself right out of sales,” Capt. Smith said, adding that Nunez made sure to tell his bosses when he exceeded sales goals.
Nunez graduated from the sheriff’s academy in September 2019 and worked in the jails and in transportation before getting the call to realize his dream by reporting to the Rancho Cucamonga station for patrol duty almost three years ago. Most recently, he was assigned to the theft detail at Victoria Gardens, where he kept his partners entertained with his witticisms and good-natured sarcasm, Smith said.
Nunez was training harder and eating healthier foods as he sought a coveted position on the SWAT team.
“I have no doubt you were going to be a member of the SWAT team,” Smith said.
Sheriff Shannon Dicus remembered Nunez as “a servant, a guardian and a protector.”
“To Andrew, it didn’t matter that they were strangers. What mattered was that it was his duty as a peace officer and most of all, it was his duty to his lord and savior, Jesus Christ. He established a legacy of service that will echo far beyond this moment in the hearts of everyone who had the privilege of knowing him.”
A colleague and friend, Sgt. David Rayenhartz, said he would counsel Nunez on how to improve his work, and he did. Rayenhartz exhorted Nunez to exceed the sergeant’s accomplishments and said Nunez did, as a father, husband and cop.
Rayenhartz paused a few times to compose himself.
“He was simply Andrew … he was like a son,” Rayenhartz said.
Toward the end of the two-hour ceremony, a video showed images of Nunez with family and friends at various stages of his life. It concluded with his eldest daughter pulling a photo of her father, in his deputy’s uniform, off a table. She placed it on the floor and kissed it.
“Daddy!” she exclaimed.
Law enforcement and guests arrive for the funeral of slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez prior to funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
The funeral procession for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez arrives at Toyota Arena in Ontario prior to funeral services on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
On lookers show their support for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez as the deputies funeral procession arrives at Toyota Arena in Ontario Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
The funeral procession for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez arrives at Toyota Arena in Ontario prior to funeral services on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
Law enforcement and guests arrive for the funeral for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
On lookers show their support for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez as the deputies funeral procession arrives at Toyota Arena in Ontario Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
San Bernardino County Fire Department firefighters Jeremy Hanson, Craig Lynde and Blake Nakaoka stand on their engine as they wait along the procession route for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot while on duty in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27, 2025. (Photo by Anjali Sharif-Paul, The Sun/SCNG)
The procession for San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez travels along the westbound 10 Freeway in Ontario as law enforcement officers and firefighters pay tribute on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot while on duty in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27, 2025. (Photo by Anjali Sharif-Paul, The Sun/SCNG)
San Bernardino County Fire Department firefighters Blake Nakaoka, Craig Lynde and Jeremy Hanson stand atop their engine and salute as the procession for slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez passes by in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot while on duty in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27, 2025. (Photo by Anjali Sharif-Paul, The Sun/SCNG)
A picture of slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez is seen prior to funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
1 of 10
Law enforcement and guests arrive for the funeral of slain San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Andrew Nunez prior to funeral services at Toyota Arena in Ontario on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Nunez was shot to death in the line of duty while responding to a domestic violence call in Rancho Cucamonga on Oct. 27. (Photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)
