ReportWire

Tag: President Trump

  • Newsom appears onstage at Texas rally to celebrate Prop. 50 victory, take swipes at Trump

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom strode onstage in Houston on Saturday to a cheering crowd of Texas Democrats, saying Proposition 50’s victory in California on election day was a win for the nation and a firm repudiation of President Trump.

    Newsom possessed the air of a politician running for president at the boisterous rally, a possibility the California governor says he is considering — and the location he chose was not happenstance.

    Newsom accused Trump of pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to rejigger the state’s congressional districts with the goal of sending more Republicans to Congress, an action that triggered California’s Proposition 50. Newsom successfully pushed for a special election on the ballot measure to counter the efforts in Texas, which the governor said wasan attempt by Trump and the Republicans to “rig” the 2026 midterm election.

    Cheers erupted from the friendly, union-hall crowd when Newsom belittled Trump as an “invasive species” and a “historically unpopular president.”

    “On every issue, on the economy, on terrorists, on immigration, on healthcare, [he’s a] historically unpopular president, and he knows it, and he knows it,” Newsom said. “Why else did he make that call to your governor? Why else did he feel the need to rig the election before even one vote was cast? That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. That’s Donald Trump, and he had a very bad night on Tuesday.”

    Newsom was the main political force behind Proposition 50, which California voters overwhelmingly approved in Tuesday’s special election. The statewide ballot measure was an attempt to counter Trump’s push to get Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. Newsom and California Democrats hope the change will net an additional five Democrats in California’s congressional delegation, canceling out any gains in Texas.

    Newsom thanked Texas Democrats for putting up a fight against the redistricting effort in their state, saying it inspired an uprising.

    “It’s dawning on people, all across the United States of America, what’s at stake,” Newsom told the crowd. “And you put a stake in the ground. People are showing up. I don’t believe in crowns, thrones. No kings.”

    Newsom’s trip to Texas comes as the former San Francisco mayor has been openly flirting with a 2028 run for president. In a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

    “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

    In July, Newsom flew to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he wanted to help his party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But South Carolina is a solidly conservative state and did not appear to have a single competitive race.

    During that trip, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.” Newsom received similar praise — and encouragement — when he was introduced at the “Take It Back” rally in Houston.

    Newsom now heads to Belém, Brazil, where representatives from 200 nations are gathering to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit. For Newsom, it’s a golden opportunity to appear on a world stage and sell himself and California as the antidote to Trump and his attacks on climate change policy.

    The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

    [ad_2]

    Phil Willon

    Source link

  • Presents to arrive in time for the holidays, but may be more expensive

    [ad_1]

    Consumers don’t have to worry about products arriving in time for the holidays, though they may be facing higher prices, say officials at one of America’s largest ports.

    Imports at the Port of Long Beach are flowing smoothly through its facilities despite the government shutdown and tariff uncertainties, port executives said. Still, they acknowledge that the volume and prices of products in the millions of containers coming through the port suggest that imports are becoming more costly and consumers are more cautious.

    Until now, retailers, manufacturers and other intermediaries have absorbed much of the cost of tariffs, but that is changing as it becomes more apparent which tariffs are here to stay, Mario Cordero, chief executive of the Port of Long Beach, said Friday during a virtual news conference.

    “Consumers will likely see price escalation in the coming months as shippers continue to pass along the cost of tariffs on goods, and a higher percentage of these costs will be passed on to the consumer,” he said.

    Cordero, who drinks Starbucks coffee, said he’s seen the price of a cup of coffee increase by 15% and that more consumers are going to discount stores to find deals. However, potential price hikes could be offset if the United States and China strike further trade agreements.

    The Port of Long Beach, a gateway for trade between the United States and Asia-Pacific, released new data that offers a glimpse into how President Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are affecting goods imported from key trade partners, such as China.

    This week, the U.S. Supreme Court also started to hear arguments as the justices examine the legality of Trump’s tariffs.

    Over the past year, the port saw a drop in the movement of containers filled with certain goods such as winter apparel, kitchen appliances and toys that people typically buy as gifts, a sign that consumers are likely wary about spending.

    Still, the impact of tariffs on cargo volume hasn’t been as bad as some experts predicted. Cordero said some experts had projected that the port could see as much as a 35% drop in cargo volume.

    “Clearly today, it’s fair to say that the worst scenarios some predicted did not occur,” Cordero said. “The challenges were many, and there’s no doubt that many companies and their workers suffered, but cargo volume is turning out to be just as high this year as it was last year.”

    In fiscal year 2025, which runs from October 2024 to September 2025, the port surpassed 10 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) for the first time, up 11% from the same period last year. TEU is a measurement used to describe cargo capacity for container ships and terminals.

    While the port saw a decline in the amount of TEUs moved in October compared with the same period in 2024, Cordero said he thinks the port will end 2025 in “positive territory.”

    In October, there were 839,671 TEUs moved. That’s because retailers and shippers started shipping goods earlier than normal to avoid fees and to stock up their warehouses because of tariffs.

    The Port of Long Beach is an economic engine for California. Officials say it helps create 691,000 jobs in Southern California. More than 2.7 million U.S jobs are connected to the Port of Long Beach, they say.

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Issues Emergency Order Blocking Full SNAP Payments – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON, DC (AP) – Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily halted an order requiring the Trump administration make full Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program November payments by Friday, November 7.

    A federal appeals court had left an order in place that required the administration to provide full SNAP food benefits for November. A U.S. district judge had given the administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

    Some states, such as California, New Jersey and Wisconsin, have already started distributing the payments. The ongoing court battle adds to weeks of uncertainty for the food program, which serves about 1 in 8 Americans.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Meta says it will invest $600 billion in the US, with AI data centers front and center

    [ad_1]

    Meta said on Friday that it’s investing $600 billion in US infrastructure and jobs by 2028. Although the announcement is light on specifics (and heavy on standard Big Tech self-congratulation), it sounds like much of it will go toward AI data centers.

    “At Meta, we’re focused on creating the next generation of AI products and building personal superintelligence for everyone,” the company wrote. “Data centers are crucial to reaching these goals and helping America maintain its technological edge.”

    If you feel like this isn’t the first you’ve heard of Meta and $600 billion in US spending, you’re right. That’s the figure Mark Zuckerberg gave during a September White House dinner with Big Tech CEOs. But more memorable was the hot-mic moment later captured between Zuckerberg and President Trump. “Sorry, I wasn’t ready,” the Meta CEO said to the president, referring to his $600 billion pledge. “I wasn’t sure what number you wanted to go with.”

    Meta’s announcement today includes figures intended to bolster its claim to be a champion of US infrastructure. The company says that, since 2010, its data centers have “supported over 30,000 skilled trade jobs and 5,000 operational jobs.” Meta adds that it’s currently bringing over $20 billion to US subcontractors.

    As for the “superintelligence” mention, it also surfaced when Zuckerberg announced data center investments in July. That term typically refers to a hypothetical point at which AI surpasses human cognitive abilities. (Steve Wozniak, Geoffrey Hinton and others want it banned until it’s proven safe and controllable.) The company views its AI glasses as a central part of that future. Zuckerberg said in July that anyone without them may eventually suffer from a “pretty significant cognitive disadvantage.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gov Kotek Directs $1 Million In Emergency Assistance To Oregon Tribes – KXL

    [ad_1]

    SALEM, OR – On Thursday, Governor Tina Kotek directed the Oregon Department of Human Services to distribute one-million dollars in emergency assistance to the nine federally recognized Native American Tribes in Oregon. The order in response to what she calls a food security emergency across the state and the ongoing federal government shutdown that has resulted in uncertainty about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding.

    The emergency funds are to be distributed to the Tribes to help address food security needs in their communities, and they are part of a broader effort that also includes five-million dollars in state-directed funding to the Oregon Food Bank statewide network of regional food banks and food pantries.

    The governor places blame for a lack of SNAP funding on President Trump.

    “The refusal of the Trump Administration to maintain SNAP benefits during the federal shutdown is creating instability for families and communities that rely on this critical help to buy food,’ said Kotek. “We are moving quickly to ensure that Tribal governments and local partners have the resources they need to meet immediate food security needs.”

    The state’s website for food resource information at the Oregon Department of Human Services is regularly updated for anyone in need. Go to needfood.oregon.gov or alimentos.oregon.gov. People can also call 2-1-1 for referral information.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Opinion | Trump Changed the Stakes in the Middle East

    [ad_1]

    In the 77 years since the formation of the Jewish state, and for the 2,000 years since the destruction of the Second Temple, the West has understood peace in the Middle East—peace between Arabs and Jews—as impossible.

    Semantically, the “Peace Process” was the continuing enjoyment of a process which could be ended only by peace. What, then, have the West, the world and the United Nations been doing in regard to the Mideast since 1948?

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    David Mamet

    Source link

  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, trailblazing Democratic leader from San Francisco, won’t seek reelection

    [ad_1]

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

    The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

    With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

    “With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

    Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

    “As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

    Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

    Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

    However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

    Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

    In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

    Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

    In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

    “I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

    While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

    Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

    However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

    That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

    Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

    By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

    Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

    The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

    On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

    In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

    She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with University of California San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

    She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

    “It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman Speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

    After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

    “She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

    The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

    Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

    “She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

    “Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • President Trump urges Republicans to reopen government as shutdown marks longest in US history

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.”It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.”Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing. The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.”The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.

    “It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.

    The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”

    The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.

    “Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.

    The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing.

    The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.

    Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”

    Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.

    See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 4 takeaways after Proposition 50’s big win in California

    [ad_1]

    Proposition 50’s big win Tuesday night is a political earthquake that is being felt nationally.

    Here are four takeaways:

    1. Trump toxicity in California.

    Prop. 50 supporters tried to make the ballot measure a referendum on President Trump — and it clearly worked.

    California has been a blue state for decades, but Trump’s second term has been particularly trying for critics.

    Huntington Beach resident Miko Vaughn, 48, supported Proposition 50 and saw the battle as a proxy war between President Trump and Newsom. It’s just “against Trump,” she said. “I feel like there’s not much we can do individually, so it does feel good to do something.”

    Indeed, a CNN exit poll of California voters found that about half said their vote on Prop. 50 was a way of opposing Trump.

    “Trump is such a polarizing figure,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “He commands great loyalty from one group of people and great animosity from others.”

    2. End of an era

    Proposition 50, a ballot measure about redrawing the state’s congressional districts, was crafted by Democrats in response to Trump urging Texas and other GOP-majority states to modify their congressional maps to favor Republicans, a move that was designed to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    California has been somewhat of an outlier. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger created—and voters approved in 2010—an independent redistricting commission aimed at keeping politics out of the process of drawing congressional districts.

    The panel of 14 citizens works to create districts for state lawmakers and for members of Congress that are contiguous and roughly equal in population. The districts must also follow the federal Voting Rights Act and group together “communities of interest,” a wide-reaching term of art for people who share languages, cultures, backgrounds, interests, ways of life or other traits.

    Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach, said the vote over Proposition 50 marks the end of an era for this process—and perhaps for the hope for fair politics.

    Many political scientists have long opposed political gerrymandering, applauding states like California for moving to an independent model where politicians aren’t determining boundaries. But not enough states joined California in that effort, Lesenyie said.

    “California probably should have done this—against my better judgment—a long time ago in acknowledging that our politics have become so extremely polarized and that we can’t in California hold that dam break back by ourselves,” he said.

    3. Big win for Newsom

    Newsom has emerged as a foil to Trump this year, challenging him on a variety of issues from environment to immigration and mocking him on X.

    Prop. 50 was a risk for Newsom, but it immediately became a rallying cry for Democrats looking for a way to fight back. Now, he can take his victory lap.

    “After poking the bear, this bear roared,” Newsom said Tuesday night.

    Newsom said he was proud of California for standing up to Trump and called on other states with Democrat-controlled legislatures to pass their own redistricting plans.

    “I hope it’s dawning on people, the sobriety of this moment,” he said.

    Newsom recently announced he is considering a run for president in 2028.

    4. More polarization

    The biggest loser from Tuesday night? California Republicans.

    California has 43 Democrats and nine Republicans in the House. Proposition 50 would shift five more House districts into competitive or easily winnable territory for Democrats.

    The new map would eliminate the Inland Empire district of Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona), the longest-serving member of California’s Republican delegation, and create a new seat in Los Angeles County that would skew heavily toward Democrats.

    The map would also dilute the number of GOP voters in the districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Kevin Kiley in Greater Sacramento, David Valadao in the San Joaquin Valley and Darrell Issa near San Diego.

    The maps would apply to the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. After the 2030 U.S. Census, California would return to having its lines drawn by the independent redistricting panel.

    Prop. 50 opponents cried foul, saying they were disenfranchised. Trump has mused about cutting some funding to California. And a lot of GOP voters are angry.

    California Republicans on Wednesday filed a lawsuit arguing the redistricting maps are unconstitutional because they use voters race as a factor in drawing districts.

    Race engine builder and Republican Robert Jung, 69, said “the changes are politically motivated.”

    “It doesn’t seem right to do this just to gain five seats. I know they did it in Texas, but we don’t have to do it just because they did it,” the Torrance resident said.

    Disabled Army veteran Micah Corpe, 50, added Prop. 50 is the result of Newsom believing he can “do whatever he wants because he doesn’t like Trump.”

    Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Laura J. Nelson contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Fry, Alex Wigglesworth, Connor Sheets, Jessica Garrison

    Source link

  • Democratic wins nationwide, a major rebuke of Trump, offer the left hope for 2026

    [ad_1]

    At the top of his victory speech at a Brooklyn theater late Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani — the 34-year-old democratic socialist just elected New York’s next mayor — spoke of power being gripped by the bruised and calloused hands of working Americans, away from the wealthy elite.

    “Tonight, against all odds, we have grasped it,” he said. “The future is in our hands.”

    The imagery was apropos of the night more broadly — when a beaten-down Democratic Party, still nursing its wounds from a wipeout by President Trump a year ago, forcefully took back what some had worried was lost to them for good: momentum.

    From coast to coast Tuesday night, American voters delivered a sharp rebuke to Trump and his MAGA movement, electing Democrats in important state and local races in New York, New Jersey and Virginia and passing a major California ballot measure designed to put more Democrats in Congress in 2026.

    The results — a reversal of the party’s fortunes in last year’s presidential election, when Trump swept the nation’s swing states — arrived amid deep political division and entrenched Republican power in Washington. Many voters cited Trump’s agenda, and related economic woes, as motivating their choices at the ballot box.

    The wins hardly reflected a unified Democratic Party nationally, or even a shared left-wing vision for a future beyond Trump. If anything, Mamdani’s win was a challenge to the Democratic Party establishment as much as a rejection of Trump.

    His vision for the future is decidedly different than that of other, more moderate Democrats who won elsewhere in the country, such as Abigail Spanberger, the 46-year-old former CIA officer whom Virginians elected as their first female governor, or Mikie Sherrill, the 53-year-old former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor who won the race for New Jersey governor.

    Still, the cascade of victories did evoke for many Democrats and progressives a political hope that they hadn’t felt in a while: a sense of optimism that Trump and his MAGA movement aren’t unstoppable after all, and that their own party’s ability to resist isn’t just alive and well but gaining speed.

    “Let me underscore, it’s been a good evening — for everybody, not just the Democratic Party. But what a night for the Democratic Party,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said during his own remarks on the national wins. “A party that is in its ascendancy, a party that’s on its toes, no longer on its heels.”

    “I hope it’s the first of many dominoes that are going to happen across this country,” Noah Gotlib, 29, of Bushwick said late Tuesday at a victory party for Mamdani. “I hope there’s a hundred more Zohrans at a local, state, federal level.”

    On a night of big wins, Mamdani’s nonetheless stood out as a thunderbolt from the progressive left — a full-throated rejection not just of Trump but of Mamdani’s mainstream Democratic opponent in the race: former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

    Mamdani — a Muslim, Ugandan-born state assemblyman of Indian descent — beat Cuomo first in the Democratic ranked-choice primary in June. Cuomo, bolstered by many of New York’s moneyed interests afraid of Mamdani’s ideas for taxing the rich and spending for the poor, reentered the race as an independent.

    Trump attacked Mamdani time and again as a threat. He said Monday that he would cut off federal funding to New York if Mamdani won. He even took the dramatic step of endorsing Cuomo over Curtis Sliwa, the Republican in the race, in a last-ditch effort to block Mamdani’s stunning political ascent.

    Instead, city voters surged to the polls and delivered Mamdani a resounding win.

    “To see him rise above all of these odds to actually deliver a vision of something that could be better, that was what really attracted me to the [Democratic Socialists of America] in the first place,” said Aminata Hughes, 31, of Harlem, who was dancing at an election-night party when Mamdani was announced the winner.

    “A better world is possible,” the native New Yorker said, “and we’re not used to hearing that from our politicians.”

    In trademark Trump fashion, the president dismissed the wins by his rival party, suggesting they were a result of two factors: the ongoing federal shutdown, which he has blamed on Democrats, and the fact that he wasn’t personally on people’s ballots.

    Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s chief advisors, posted a paragraph to social media outlining the high number of mixed-status immigrant families in New York being impacted by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and mass deportation campaign, which Miller has helped lead.

    Democrats in some ways agreed. They pointed to the shutdown and other disruptions to Americans’ safety and financial security as motivating the vote. They pointed to Trump’s immigration tactics as being an affront to hard-working families. And they pointed to Trump himself — not on the ballot but definitely a factor for voters, especially after he threatened to cut off funds to New York if the city voted for Mamdani again.

    “President Trump has threatened New York City if we dare stand up to him. The people of New York came together and we said, ‘You don’t threaten New York,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “We’re going to stand up to bullies and thugs in the White House.”

    “Today we said ‘no’ to Donald Trump and ‘yes’ to democracy,” New Jersey Democratic Chair LeRoy J. Jones Jr. told a happy crowd at Sherrill’s watch party.

    “Congratulations to all the Democratic candidates who won tonight. It’s a reminder that when we come together around strong, forward-looking leaders who care about the issues that matter, we can win,” former President Obama wrote on social media. “We’ve still got plenty of work to do, but the future looks a little bit brighter.”

    In addition to winning the New York mayoral and New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, Democrats outperformed Republicans in races across the country. They held several seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and won the Virginia attorney general’s race. In California, voters passed Proposition 50, a ballot measure giving state Democrats the power to redraw congressional districts in their favor ahead of next year’s midterms.

    Newsom and other Democrats had made Proposition 50 all about Trump from the beginning, framing it as a direct response to Trump trying to steal power by convincing red states such as Texas to redraw their own congressional lines in favor of Republicans.

    Trump has been direct about trying to shore up Republicans’ slim majority in the House, to help ensure they retain power and are able to block Democrats from thwarting his agenda. And yet, he has suggested California’s own redistricting effort was illegal and a “GIANT SCAM” under “very serious legal and criminal review.”

    Trump had also gone after several of the Democrats who won on Tuesday directly. In addition to Mamdani, Trump tried to paint Spanberger and Sherrill as out-of-touch liberals too, attacking them over some of his favorite wedge issues such as transgender rights, crime and energy costs. Similar messaging was deployed by the candidates’ Republican opponents.

    In some ways, Trump was going out on a political limb, trying to sway elections in blue states where his grip on the electorate is smaller and his influence is often a major motivator for people to get out and vote against him and his allies.

    His weighing in on the races only added to the sense that the Democrats’ wins marked something bigger — a broader repudiation of Trump, and a good sign for Democrats heading into next year’s midterms.

    Marcus LaCroix, 42, who voted for the measure at a polling site in Lomita on Tuesday evening, described it as “a counterpunch” to what he sees as the excesses and overreach of the Trump administration, and Trump’s pressure on red states to redraw their lines.

    “A lot of people are very concerned about the redistricting in Texas,” he said. “But we can actually fight back.”

    Ed Razine, 27, a student who lives in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, was in class when he heard Mamdani won. Soon, he was celebrating with friends at Nowadays, a Bushwick dance club hosting an election watch party.

    Razine said Mamdani’s win represented a “new dawn” in American politics that he hopes will spread to other cities and states across the country.

    “For me, he does represent the future of the Democratic Party — the fact that billionaires can’t just buy our election, that if someone really cares to truly represent the everyday person, people will rise up and that money will not talk,” Razine said. “At the end of the day, people talk.”

    The Associated Press and Times staff writer Connor Sheets contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Summer Lin

    Source link

  • Trump once again nominates tech space traveler Jared Isaacman to serve as NASA administrator

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he has decided to nominate Jared Isaacman to serve as his NASA administrator, months after withdrawing the tech billionaire’s nomination because of concerns about his political leanings.Trump announced in late May that he had decided to withdraw Isaacman after a “thorough review” of his “prior associations.” Weeks after the withdrawal, Trump went further in expressing his concerns about Isaacman’s Republican credentials.At the time, Trump acknowledged that he thought Isaacman “was very good,” but had become “surprised to learn” that Isaacman was a “ blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.”Isaacman had the endorsement of Trump’s former DOGE adviser and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The president and Musk had a very public falling out earlier this year but are now on better terms.Last week, Trump told reporters he and Musk have spoken “on and off” since sitting together at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s funeral last month in Arizona and that their relationship is “good.”Trump made no mention of his previous decision to nominate and then withdraw Isaacman in his Tuesday evening announcement of the re-nomination on his Truth Social platform. And the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s decision to reverse course.“This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA,” Trump posted. “Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been serving as interim NASA administrator. The president on Tuesday praised Duffy for doing an “incredible job.”Isaacman, CEO and founder of credit card-processing company Shift4, has been a close collaborator with Musk ever since buying his first chartered flight with SpaceX.He also bought a series of spaceflights from SpaceX and conducted the first private spacewalk. SpaceX has extensive contracts with NASA.The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved Isaacman’s nomination in late April and a vote by the full Senate had been expected when Trump announced he was yanking the nomination.In his own social media post Tuesday, Isaacman thanked Trump for the nomination and the “space-loving community.” He made no mention of the earlier turmoil.

    President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he has decided to nominate Jared Isaacman to serve as his NASA administrator, months after withdrawing the tech billionaire’s nomination because of concerns about his political leanings.

    Trump announced in late May that he had decided to withdraw Isaacman after a “thorough review” of his “prior associations.” Weeks after the withdrawal, Trump went further in expressing his concerns about Isaacman’s Republican credentials.

    At the time, Trump acknowledged that he thought Isaacman “was very good,” but had become “surprised to learn” that Isaacman was a “ blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.”

    Isaacman had the endorsement of Trump’s former DOGE adviser and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The president and Musk had a very public falling out earlier this year but are now on better terms.

    Last week, Trump told reporters he and Musk have spoken “on and off” since sitting together at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s funeral last month in Arizona and that their relationship is “good.”

    Trump made no mention of his previous decision to nominate and then withdraw Isaacman in his Tuesday evening announcement of the re-nomination on his Truth Social platform. And the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s decision to reverse course.

    “This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA,” Trump posted. “Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”

    Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been serving as interim NASA administrator. The president on Tuesday praised Duffy for doing an “incredible job.”

    Isaacman, CEO and founder of credit card-processing company Shift4, has been a close collaborator with Musk ever since buying his first chartered flight with SpaceX.

    He also bought a series of spaceflights from SpaceX and conducted the first private spacewalk. SpaceX has extensive contracts with NASA.

    The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved Isaacman’s nomination in late April and a vote by the full Senate had been expected when Trump announced he was yanking the nomination.

    In his own social media post Tuesday, Isaacman thanked Trump for the nomination and the “space-loving community.” He made no mention of the earlier turmoil.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Alex Padilla says he won’t run for California governor

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla announced Tuesday that he will not run for California governor next year, ending months of speculation about the possibility of the Democrat vying to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    “It is with a full heart and even more commitment than ever that I am choosing to not run for governor of California next year,” Padilla told reporters outside his Senate office in Washington.

    Padilla instead said he will focus on countering President Trump’s agenda in Congress, where Democrats are currently in the minority in both the House and Senate, but hope to regain some political clout after the 2026 midterm elections.

    “I choose not just to stay in the Senate. I choose to stay in this fight because the Constitution is worth fighting for. Our fundamental rights are worth fighting for. Our core values are worth fighting for. The American dream is worth fighting for,” he said.

    Padilla said his decision was influenced by his belief that under President Trump, “these are not normal times.”

    “We deserve better than this,” he said.

    Many contenders, no clear favorite

    Padilla’s decision to bow out of the 2026 governor’s race will leave a prominent name out of an already crowded contest with many contenders but not a clear favorite.

    For much of the year, the field was essentially frozen in place as former Vice President Kamala Harris pondered whether she would run, with many donors and major endorsers staying out of the game. Harris said at the end of July that she wouldn’t run. But another potential candidate — billionaire developer Rick Caruso — remains a question mark.

    Caruso said Monday night that he was still considering running for either governor or Los Angeles mayor, and will decide in the next few weeks.

    “It’s a really tough decision,” Caruso said. “Within a few weeks or so, or something like that, I’ll probably have a decision made. It’s a big topic of discussion in the house with my kids and my wife.”

    Major Democratic candidates include former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, current California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee and wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the most prominent Republicans running.

    Amid fire recovery aftermath, immigration raids and a high-octane redistricting battle, California voters have yet to turn their attention to next year’s gubernatorial matchup, despite the vast power that Newsom’s successor will wield. California is now the world’s fourth-largest economy, and policy decisions in the Golden State often have global repercussions. Newsom is nearing the end of his second and final term.

    Recent polling shows the contest as wide open, with nearly 4 in 10 voters surveyed saying they are undecided, though Porter had a slight edge as the top choice in the poll. She and Bianco were the only candidates whose support cracked the double digits.

    Candidates still have months to file their paperwork before the June 2 primary to replace Newsom.

    June incident brought attention

    Known for soft-spoken confidence and a lack of bombast, Padilla’s public profile soared in June after he found himself cuffed by federal agents, at the center of a staggering viral moment during a news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

    Despite identifying himself, Padilla was tackled after trying to interrupt Noem with a question. The manhandling of California’s senior senator was filmed by a staffer and broadcast around the world, provoking searing and widespread condemnation.

    Days later, Vice President JD Vance joked about the incident and referred to Padilla — his former Senate colleague — as “Jose Padilla,” a misnaming that Padilla suggested was intentional and others characterized as racist.

    The event put Padilla on the national spotlight and rumors of Padilla’s interest in the gubernatorial race ignited in late August.

    Padilla told reporters Tuesday that he received an “outpouring of encouragement and offers of support for the idea” of his candidacy and that he had “taken it to heart”

    Alongside his wife, Angela, the senator said he also heard from many people urging him to keep his fight going in Washington.

    “Countless Californians have urged me to do everything I could to protect California and the American Dream from a vindictive president who seems hell-bent on raising costs for working families, rolling back environmental protections, cutting access to healthcare, jeopardizing reproductive rights and more,” he said.

    Padilla said he had listened.

    “I will continue to thank them and honor their support by continuing to work together for a better future,” he said.

    Ceballos reported from Washington and Wick from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Noah Goldberg in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos, Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own in judging Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

    At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

    Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

    On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

    First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

    Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

    Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

    That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

    Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

    In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

    The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

    He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

    Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

    And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

    Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

    No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

    In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

    “IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

    For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

    Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

    Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

    The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

    In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

    He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

    “This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

    His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

    “Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

    He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

    Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

    The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

    But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

    Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

    Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

    The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

    The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • California voters pass anti-Trump, pro-Democrat ballot measure

    [ad_1]

    California Democrats’ effort to block President Trump’s agenda by increasing their party’s numbers in Congress was overwhelmingly approved by voters on Tuesday.

    The Associated Press called the victory moments after the polls closed Tuesday night.

    The statewide ballot measure will reconfigure California’s congressional districts to favor more Democratic candidates. The Democratic-led California Legislature placed the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot, at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s behest, after Trump urged Texas and other GOP-led states to modify their congressional maps to favor their party members, a move designed to keep the U.S. House of Representatives in Republican control during his final two years in office.

    Newsom watched the election results from across the country come in from the historic Victorian-style governor’s mansion in Sacramento with First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and his political team, his office said.

    Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, the chair of the Democratic Governors Assn., said they were thrilled by the passage of Proposition 50.

    “This is a clear victory for Americans who believe we should have fair elections and a major rejection of Donald Trump’s dangerous attempt to rig the midterms,” Kelly said in a statement.

    Charles Munger Jr., the chief donor to the anti-Proposition 50 efforts, pledged to continue his work promoting independent redistricting, while lamenting the ballot measure’s success.

    “For what looms for the people of California, I am saddened by the passage of Proposition 50,” he said. “But I am content in this, at least: that our campaign educated the people of California so they could make an informed, if in my view unwise, decision about such a technical but critical issue as redistricting reform, a decision forced to be made over such a very short time.”

    Proposition 50 was the sole item on the statewide, special election ballot Tuesday. Supporters hope the ballot measure has become a referendum about Trump, who remains extremely unpopular in California, while opponents call Proposition 50 an underhanded power grab by Democrats.

    Supporters of the proposal had the edge going into election day. They vastly outraised their rivals, and Proposition 50 led in recent polls.

    Elections took place across the nation Tuesday, with Democrats claiming major victories including in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests, the New York City mayoral race and Proposition 50.

    Supporters celebrate during the election night watch party for Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger.

    (Alex Wong / Getty Images)

    California voters had been inundated with television ads, mailers and social media posts for weeks about the high-stakes election, so much so that only 2% of the likely voters were undecided, according to a recent UC Berkeley poll co-sponsored by The Times.

    “Usually there was always a rule — look at undecideds in late-breaking polls and assume most would vote no,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies. “But this poll shows there are very few of them out there.”

    Polls opened at 7 a.m. Tuesday and closed at 8 p.m., although any voter in line at that time was allowed to cast a ballot. The state allows same-day voter registration on election day, permitting Californians to cast a conditional ballot that will be counted if their eligibility is verified.

    Minutes after polls opened, Trump posted on Truth Social that “The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED.”

    The president, who has not actively campaigned against the proposition aside from a few social media posts, provided no evidence for his allegations. His Department of Justice has said it was sending monitors to polling locations across the state.

    Secretary of State Shirley Weber pushed back at Trump’s claims along with similar ones made by the president’s press secretary.

    Election workers organize sorted ballots

    Election workers organize sorted ballots by precinct for the California Statewide Special Election at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana Tuesday.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    “If there are irregularities, what are they? Why won’t they identify them? Where exactly is this fraud?” Weber said in a statement. “Ramblings don’t equate with fact.”

    Voters, some in shorts and flip-flops, waited in line for 30 minutes or more outside a voting center in Huntington Beach on Tuesday afternoon.

    “Vote no, don’t ruin Huntington Beach!” one man shouted as he left the center.

    If the ballot measure is approved, the conservative seaside city would fall into a new congressional district that includes Long Beach, but no longer keeps some Republican-rich communities to the south. The politically divided district is currently represented by Dave Min (D-Irvine), but is designed to become a safer seat for Democrats under the new districts created by Proposition 50.

    Huntington Beach resident Luke Walker, 18, spent time researching the arguments for and against Proposition 50 and came down against it because he believes the redesigned districts will ignore residents’ voices.

    “You look at the people who will be voting and I don’t think they’ll be properly represented in the new state lines,” said Walker, who predicted that if the ballot measure passes, it will lead to more division. “It’s going to cause more of a rift in society. People are going to start disliking each other even more.”

    Sister Theres Tran, Lovers of the Holy Cross-Los Angeles, votes in the California Statewide Special Election

    Sister Theres Tran, Lovers of the Holy Cross-Los Angeles, votes in the California Statewide Special Election at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    DeAyn Van Eyk, 63, also voted against the proposition on Tuesday, believing that Newsom, who is considering running for president in 2028, is using it to further his own political interests.

    “It sounds like it’s good for him,” she said. “I totally dislike Newsom. … I don’t like Trump as a person — I think he can be a good leader.”

    Among those who voted for the proposition was Huntington Beach resident Miko Vaughn, 48, who said she wanted Democrats to “level the playing field.”

    “It’s a temporary thing, but I think it’s important with the changes in Texas that it stays even,” Vaughn said.

    Though some see Proposition 50 as a proxy war between Trump and Newsom, Vaughn views it differently and said it’s just “against Trump.”

    “I feel like there’s not much we can do individually, so it does feel good to do something,” Vaughn said, adding that she was impressed to see so many people turn out during a non-presidential election.

    Californians have been voting for weeks. Registered voters received mail ballots about a month ago, and early voting centers recently opened across the state.

    More than 7.2 million Californians — 31% of the state’s 23 million registered voters — had cast ballots as of Tuesday morning before the polls opened, according to a voting tracker run by Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the proposed districts on the ballot. Democrats were outpacing Republicans, though GOP voters were believed to be more likely to vote in person Tuesday.

    The gap in early voting alarmed GOP leaders and strategists.

    Matthew Harper votes in the California Statewide Special Election

    Matthew Harper, former Huntington Beach Mayor and former State Assemblyman, votes in the California Statewide Special Election at the Huntington Beach Central Library in Huntington Beach Tuesday.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    “In California, we already know they surrendered,” Steve Bannon, who served as Trump’s chief strategist for several months during his first term in office, said on his podcast over the weekend. “Huntington Beach, California … it is full MAGA, one of the most important parts of Southern California, yet we’re going to get blown out, I don’t know, by 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 points on the massive redistricting Prop. 50.”

    Congressional districts traditionally are drawn every decade after the U.S. census. In California, the boundaries are created by an independent commission created by voters in 2010.

    But after Trump urged Texas Republicans to alter their House boundaries to boost the number of GOP members in Congress, Newsom and other California Democrats countered by proposing new districts that could add five Democrats to the state’s 52-member delegation.

    The high-stakes election attracted tens of millions of dollars and a carousel of prominent politicians, notably former President Obama in support and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in opposition, who were featured in ads about the ballot measure, including some that aired during the World Series won by the Dodgers.

    Democrats who previously championed independent redistricting to remove partisan politics from the process argue that they needed to suspend that political ideal to stop the president from furthering his agenda during his last two years in the White House.

    Citing public opposition to immigration raids that began in Los Angeles in June, the military being deployed in American cities, and cuts to nutrition assistance programs for low-income families and healthcare programs for seniors and the disabled, Democrats argue that winning control of Congress in next year’s election is critical to stopping the president’s agenda.

    “Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama says in an ad that includes footage of ICE raids. “With Prop. 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop. 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, preserves independent redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today.”

    A sign points to a polling station at Culver City City Hall on Tuesday.

    A sign points to a polling station at Culver City City Hall on Tuesday.

    (Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

    Republicans who oppose the effort countered that Proposition 50 is an affront to the electorate that voted to create an independent redistricting commission.

    They want to “take us backwards. This is why it is important for you to vote no on Proposition 50,” Schwarzenegger says in an ad that was filmed when he spoke to USC students. “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people.’ … Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

    More than $193 million was contributed in support of and opposition to Proposition 50, making it one of the costliest ballot measures in state history.

    Even with passage of the ballot measure, it’s uncertain whether potential Democratic gains in California’s congressional delegation will be enough to offset the number of Republicans elected because of gerrymandering in GOP-led states.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • Both sides say democracy is at stake with Prop. 50 — but for very different reasons

    [ad_1]

    If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

    And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

    Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

    Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

    Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

    “Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

    Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

    Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

    That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

    Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

    Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

    “The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

    Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

    “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

    California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

    The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

    Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

    The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

    Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

    Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

    In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

    Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

    But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

    Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

    “I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

    Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

    Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

    The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

    Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

    Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

    Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

    “The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • President Trump threatens possible military action in Nigeria

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he is directing the Pentagon to prepare for possible military action in Nigeria, as he accused the country’s government of failing to stop the killing of Christians. “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” Trump wrote on social media. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom the Trump administration is now referring to as the Secretary of War, responded soon after with his own post, saying, “Yes sir.” “The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately,” Hegseth wrote.On Friday, Trump also said he would designate Nigeria “a country of particular concern” for allegedly failing to rein in the persecution of Christians. Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu responded on social media Saturday, saying his administration is open to deepening cooperation with the United States and the international community to protect people of all faiths. He also acknowledged the country’s security challenges but rejected Trump’s framing of his government’s response. “The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians,” Tinubu said. More from the Washington Bureau:

    President Donald Trump said on Saturday that he is directing the Pentagon to prepare for possible military action in Nigeria, as he accused the country’s government of failing to stop the killing of Christians.

    “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,” Trump wrote on social media.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom the Trump administration is now referring to as the Secretary of War, responded soon after with his own post, saying, “Yes sir.”

    “The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria — and anywhere — must end immediately,” Hegseth wrote.

    On Friday, Trump also said he would designate Nigeria “a country of particular concern” for allegedly failing to rein in the persecution of Christians.

    Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu responded on social media Saturday, saying his administration is open to deepening cooperation with the United States and the international community to protect people of all faiths. He also acknowledged the country’s security challenges but rejected Trump’s framing of his government’s response.

    “The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians,” Tinubu said.

    More from the Washington Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pentagon will reportedly award SpaceX a $2 billion contract to help develop the ‘Golden Dome’

    [ad_1]

    SpaceX will reportedly receive a $2 billion contract to develop satellites for the US government, according to the . The WSJ‘s report detailed that SpaceX will be tasked with developing up to 600 satellites that can track missiles and aircraft and will be used for President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” project.

    in May, the president introduced a project to build an anti-missile defense system that would intercept missile attacks before reaching their target. The Golden Dome is reminiscent of Israel’s system, but the Pentagon has yet to reveal concrete details about the project. Considering the scale of the project, it’s worth noting that SpaceX’s reported $2 billion contract could be one of many associated with the Golden Dome. According to the report, companies like Anduril Industries and Palantir Technologies could also be involved with the development, which the Trump administration wants to complete before the end of his presidential term.

    Beyond the Golden Dome, the WSJ reported that the Pentagon is planning to use SpaceX’s extensive satellite network for other purposes, including military communications and vehicle tracking. While the numbers are constantly fluctuating, SpaceX currently has more than 8,000 satellites for its Starlink service.

    [ad_2]

    Jackson Chen

    Source link

  • Judges order USDA to restart SNAP funding, but hungry families won’t get immediate relief

    [ad_1]

    Two federal judges told the U.S. Department of Agriculture in separate rulings Friday that it must begin using billions of dollars in contingency funding to provide federal food assistance to poor American families despite the federal shutdown, but gave the agency until Monday to decide how to do so.

    Both Obama-appointed judges rejected Trump administration arguments that more than $5 billion in USDA contingency funds could not legally be tapped to continue Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for nearly 42 million people — about 1 in 8 Americans — while the federal government remains closed. But both also left unclear how exactly the relief should be provided, or when it will arrive for millions of families set to lose benefits starting Saturday.

    The two rulings came almost simultaneously Friday.

    In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani stopped short of granting California and a coalition of 24 other Democrat-led states a temporary restraining order they had requested. But she ruled that the states were likely to succeed in their arguments that the USDA’s total shutoff of SNAP benefits — despite having billions in emergency contingency funds on hand — was unlawful.

    Talwani gave USDA until Monday to tell her whether they would authorize “only reduced SNAP benefits” using the contingency funding — which would not cover the total $8.5 billion to $9 billion needed for all November benefits, according to the USDA — or would authorize “full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.”

    Separately, in Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John McConnell granted a temporary restraining order requested by nonprofit organizations, ruling from the bench that SNAP must be funded with at least the contingency funds “as soon as possible,” and requesting an update on progress by Monday.

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — whose office helped bring the states’ lawsuit — praised the decisions of the two courts, saying SNAP benefits “provide an essential hunger safety net” to 5.5 million Californians. “Simply put, the stakes could not be higher.”

    Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which represented the nonprofit groups, said the ruling in that case “affirms what both the law and basic decency require” and “protects millions of families, seniors, and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight.”

    The White House referred questions about the ruling to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. It was not clear if the administration would appeal the rulings.

    While the orders were a win for states and the nation’s SNAP recipients, they do not mean that all those recipients will be spared a lapse in their food aid, state officials stressed. State and local food banks continued scrambling to prepare for a deluge of need starting Saturday.

    Asked Thursday if a ruling in the states’ favor would mean SNAP funds would be immediately loaded onto CalFresh and other benefits cards, Bonta said “the answer is no, unfortunately.”

    “Our best estimates are that [SNAP benefit] cards could be loaded and used in about a week,” he said, calling that lag “problematic.”

    “There could be about a week where people are hungry and need food,” he said. For new applicants to the program, he said, it could take even longer.

    The rulings came as the now monthlong shutdown continued Friday with no immediate end in sight.

    It also came after President Trump called Thursday for the Senate to end the shutdown by first ending the filibuster, a longstanding rule that requires 60 votes to overcome objections to legislation. The rule has traditionally been favored by lawmakers as a means of blocking particularly partisan measures, and is currently being used by Democrats to resist the will of the current 53-seat Republican majority.

    Los Angeles Regional Food Bank Chief Executive Michael Flood, standing alongside Bonta as members of the California National Guard worked behind them stuffing food boxes Thursday, said his organization was preparing for massive weekend lines, similar to those seen during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “This is a disaster type of situation,” Flood said.

    “5.5 million Californians, 1.5 million children and adults in L.A. County alone, will be left high and dry — illegally so, unnecessarily so, in a way that is morally bankrupt,” Bonta said.

    Bonta blamed the shutdown on Trump and his administration, and said the USDA broke the law by not tapping its contingency funds to continue payments.

    Bonta said SNAP benefits have never been disrupted during previous federal government shutdowns, and should never have been disrupted during this shutdown, either.

    “That was avoidable,” he said. “Trump created this problem.”

    The Trump administration has blamed the shutdown and the looming disruption to SNAP benefits entirely on Democrats in Congress, who have blocked short-term spending measures to restart the government and fund SNAP. Democrats are holding out to pressure Republicans into rescinding massive cuts to subsidies that help millions of Americans afford health insurance.

    Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told The Times that Democrats should be the ones getting asked “when the shutdown will end,” because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

    “Americans are suffering because of Democrats,” Jackson said.

    In their opposition to the states’ request for a temporary restraining order requiring the disbursement of funds, attorneys for the USDA argued that using emergency funds to cover November SNAP benefits would deplete funds meant to provide “critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes,” and could actually cause more disruption to benefits down the line.

    They wrote that SNAP requires between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month, and the USDA’s contingency fund has only about $5.25 billion, meaning it could not fully fund November benefits even if it did release contingency funding. Meanwhile, “a partial payment has never been made — and for good reason,” because it would force every state to recalculate benefits for recipients and then recalibrate their systems to provide the new amounts, they wrote.

    That “would take weeks, if it can be done at all,” and would then have to be undone in order to issue December benefits at normal levels, assuming the shutdown would have lifted by then, they wrote.

    Simply pausing the benefits to immediately be reissued whenever the shutdown ends is the smarter and less disruptive course of action, they argued.

    In addition to suing the administration, California and its leaders have been rushing to ensure that hungry families have something to eat in coming days. Gov. Gavin Newsom directed $80 million to food banks to stock up on provisions, and activated the National Guard to help package food for those who need it.

    Counties have also been working to offset the need, including by directing additional funding to food banks and other resource centers and asking partners in the private sector to assist.

    Dozens of organizations in California have written to Newsom calling on him to use state funds to fully cover the missing federal benefits, in order to prevent “a crisis of unthinkable magnitude,” but Newsom has suggested that is not possible given the scale of funding withheld.

    SNAP served about 41.7 million people in 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion, according to the USDA. Children and older people accounted for more than 63% of California recipients.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • News Analysis: Prop. 50 is just one part of a historically uncertain moment for American democracy

    [ad_1]

    Is President Trump going to restart nuclear weapons testing? When will this federal shutdown end? Will Californians pass Proposition 50, scramble the state’s congressional maps and shake up next year’s midterm elections?

    Amid a swirl of high-stakes standoffs and unprecedented posturing by Trump, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other leaders in Washington and Sacramento, the future of U.S. politics, and California’s role therein, has felt wildly uncertain of late.

    Political debate — around things such as sending military troops into American cities, cutting off food aid for the poor or questioning constitutional guarantees such as birthright citizenship — has become so untethered to longstanding norms that everything feels novel.

    The pathways for taking political power — as with Trump’s teasing a potential third term, installing federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation, slashing federal budgets without congressional input and pressuring red states to redistrict in his favor before a midterm election — have been so sharply altered that many Americans, and some historians and political experts, have lost confidence in U.S. democracy.

    “It’s completely unprecedented, completely anomalous — representative, I think, of a major transformation of our normal political life,” said Jack Rakove, a Stanford University emeritus professor of history and political science.

    “You can’t compare it to any other episode, any other period, any other set of events in American history. It is unique and radically novel in distressing ways,” Rakove said. “As soon as Trump was reelected, we entered into a constitutional crisis. Why? Because Trump has no respect for constitutional structures.”

    Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that “President Trump’s unorthodox approach is why he has been so successful and why he has received massive support from the American public.”

    Jackson said Trump has “achieved more than any President has in modern history,” including in “securing the border, getting dangerous criminals off American streets, brokering historic peace deals [and] bringing new investments to the U.S.,” and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly backed his approach as legal.

    “So-called experts can pontificate all they want, but President Trump’s actions have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court despite a record number of challenges from liberal activists and unlawful rulings from liberal lower court judges,” Jackson said.

    There are many examples of Trump flouting or suggesting he will flout the Constitution or other laws directly, and in ways that make people unsure and concerned about what will come next for the country politically, Rakove and other political experts said. His constant flirting with the idea of a third term in office does that, as does his legal challenge to birthright citizenship and his military’s penchant for blasting alleged drug vessels out of international waters.

    On Wednesday, Trump raised the prospect of further breaching international law and norms by appearing to suggest on social media that, for the first time in three decades, the U.S. would resume testing nuclear weapons.

    “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” Trump wrote — leaving it unclear whether he meant detonating warheads or simply testing the missiles that deliver them.

    There are also many examples, the experts said, of American political norms being tossed aside — and the nation’s political future tossed in the air — by others around Trump, both allies and enemies, who are trying to either please or push back against the unorthodox commander in chief with their own abnormal political maneuvers.

    One example is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R.-La.) refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva, despite her being elected in September to represent parts of Arizona in Congress. Johnson has cited the shutdown, but others — including Arizona’s attorney general in a lawsuit — have suggested Johnson is trying to prevent a House vote on releasing records about the late Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced billionaire sex offender whom Trump was friends with before a reported falling out years ago.

    Uncertainty about whether those records would implicate Trump or any other powerful people in any wrongdoing has swirled in Washington throughout Trump’s term — showing more staying power than perhaps any other issue, despite Trump’s insistence that he’s done nothing wrong and the issue is a distraction.

    The mid-decade redistricting battle — in which California’s Proposition 50 looms large — is another prime example, the experts said.

    Normally, redistricting occurs each decade, after federal census data comes out. But at Trump’s urging, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott agreed to redraw his state’s congressional lines this year to help ensure Republicans maintain control of the House in the midterms. In response, Newsom and California Democrats introduced Proposition 50, asking California voters to amend the state Constitution to allow Democrats to redraw lines in their favor.

    As a result, Californians — millions of whom have already voted — have been getting bombarded by messages both for and against Proposition 50, many of which are hyper-focused on the uncertain implications for American democracy.

    “Let’s fight back and democracy can be defended,” a Proposition 50 backer wrote on a postcard to one voter. “It is against democracy and rips away the power to draw congressional seats from the people,” opponents of the measure wrote to others.

    H.W. Brands, a U.S. history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said, “Americans who are worried about democracy are right to be concerned,” because Trump “has broken or threatened many of the guardrails of democracy.”

    But he also noted — partly as a reflection of the dangerous moment the country is in — that Trump has long rejected a particularly “sacred” part of American democracy by refusing to accept his loss to President Biden in 2020, and Americans reelected him in 2024 anyway.

    “Americans have always been divided politically. This is the first time (with the exception of 1860) that the division goes down to the fundamentals of democracy,” Brands wrote in an email — referencing the year the U.S. Confederacy seceded from the Union.

    High stakes

    The uncertainty has festered in an era of rampant political disinformation and under a president who has a penchant for challenging reality outright on a near-daily basis — who on a trip through Asia this week not only said he’d “love” a third term, which is precluded by the Constitution, but claimed, falsely, that he is experiencing his best polling numbers ever.

    The uncertainty has also been compounded by Democrats, who have wielded the only levers of power they have left by refusing to concede to Republicans in the raging shutdown battle in Washington and by putting Proposition 50 to California voters.

    The shutdown has major, immediate implications. Not only are federal employees around the country, including in California, furloughed or without pay checks, but billions in additional federal funding is at risk.

    Democrats have resisted funding the government in an effort to force Republicans to back down from massive cuts to healthcare subsidies that help millions of Californians and many more Americans afford health coverage. The shutdown means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits could be cut off for more than 40 million people — nearly 1 in 8 Americans — this weekend.

    California and other Democrat-led states have sued the Trump administration, asking a federal court to issue an emergency order requiring the USDA to use existing contingency funds to distribute SNAP funding.

    Jackson, the White House spokesperson, said Democrats should be asked when the shutdown will end, because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

    The redistricting battle could have even bigger impact.

    If Democrats retook the House next year, it would give them a real source of oversight power to confront Trump and block his MAGA agenda. If Republicans retain control, they will help facilitate Trump’s agenda — just as they have since he took office.

    But even if Proposition 50 passes, as polling suggests it will, it’s not clear that Democrats would win all the races lined up for them in the state, or that those seats would be enough to win Democrats the chamber given efforts to pick up Republican seats in Texas and elsewhere.

    The uncertainty around the midterms is, by extension, producing more uncertainty around the second half of Trump’s term.

    What will Trump do, particularly if Republicans stay in power? Is he stationing troops in American cities as part of some broader play for retaining power, as some Democrats have suggested? Is he setting the groundwork to challenge the integrity of U.S. elections by citing his baseless claims about fraud in 2020 and putting fellow election deniers in charge of reviewing the system?

    Is he really gearing up to contest the constitutional limits on his tenure in the White House? He said he’d “love” to stay in office this week, but then he said it’s “too bad” he’s not allowed to.

    Fire with fire?

    According to David Greenberg, a history professor at Rutgers University, it is Trump’s unorthodox policies and tactics but also his brash demeanor that “make this a more unsettled moment than we are used to feeling.”

    “Sometimes when he’s doing things that other presidents have done, he does it in such an outlandish way that it feels unprecedented,” or is “stylistically” but not substantively unprecedented, Greenberg said. “Self-aggrandizing claims, often untrue. The brazenness with which he insults people. The way he changes his mind on something. That all is highly unusual and unique to Trump.”

    In other instances, Greenberg said, Trump has pushed the boundaries of the law or busted political norms that previous presidents felt bound by.

    “One thing that Trump showed us is just how much of our functioning system depends not just on the letter of the law but on norms,” Greenberg said. “What can the president do? What kind of power can he exert over the Justice Department and who it prosecutes? Well, it turns out he probably can do a lot more than should be permissible.”

    However, the appropriate response is not the one seemingly gaining steam among Democrats — to “be more like Trump” themselves or “fight fire with fire” — but to look for ways to strengthen the political norms and boundaries Trump is ignoring, Greenberg said.

    “The more the public, citizens in general, feel that it’s OK to disregard long-standing ways of doing things that have stood the test of time until now, the more likely we are to enter into a more chaotic world — a world in which there will be less justice, less democracy,” Greenberg said. “It will be more subject to the whims or preferences of whoever is in power — and in a liberal democracy, that is what you are striving to fight against.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • President Trump calls for end of Senate filibuster to break funding stalemate

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump on Thursday urged congressional Republicans to unilaterally end the government shutdown by eliminating the filibuster — an unprecedented step that GOP leaders have opposed taking until now.”It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.Senate Republicans have so far ruled out changing the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold needed for passing legislation, arguing that it would ultimately benefit Democrats the next time they retake power.But Trump, in his post, brushed off that concern, contending that Republicans should take advantage of the opportunity first.”Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats,” Trump wrote.

    President Donald Trump on Thursday urged congressional Republicans to unilaterally end the government shutdown by eliminating the filibuster — an unprecedented step that GOP leaders have opposed taking until now.

    “It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

    Senate Republicans have so far ruled out changing the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold needed for passing legislation, arguing that it would ultimately benefit Democrats the next time they retake power.

    But Trump, in his post, brushed off that concern, contending that Republicans should take advantage of the opportunity first.

    “Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats,” Trump wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link