ReportWire

Tag: state

  • Race for California governor continues to heat up, with Trump critic Rep. Eric Swalwell jumping in

    [ad_1]

    San Francisco Bay Area Democrat Eric Swalwell, a nettlesome foil and frequent target of President Trump and Republicans, on Thursday announced his bid for California governor.

    The congressman declared his bid during an appearance on the ABC late-night show hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, adding a little Hollywood flourish to a crowded, somewhat sleepy race filled with candidates looking for ways to catch fire in the 2026 election.

    Voter interest in the race remains relatively moribund, especially after two of California’s most prominent Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris and current U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla — opted to skip the race after months of speculation. About 44% of registered voters said in late October that they had not picked a preferred candidate to lead California, which is the most populous state in the union and has the fourth-largest economy in the world.

    The lack of a blockbuster candidate in the race, however, continues to entice others to jump in. Earlier this week, billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer announced his bid, and other well-known Democrats are exploring a possible run.

    Swalwell, a 45-year-old former Republican and former prosecutor who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2020, said his decision was driven by the serious problems facing California and the threats posed to the state and nation with Trump in the White House.

    “People are scared and prices are high, and I see the next governor of California having two jobs — one to keep the worst president ever out of our homes, streets and lives,” Swalwell said in an interview with The Times. “The second job is to bring what I call a new California, and that’s especially and most poignantly on housing and affordability in a state where we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, and the average age for a first-time homebuyer is 40 years old, and so we need to bring that down.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom cannot run for reelection because of term limits, and he is currently weighing a 2028 presidential bid.

    None of the candidates in the race, including Swalwell, possess the statewide notoriety, success or fundraising prowess of California’s most recent governors: Newsom, California political icon Jerry Brown and movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    “If you look at the past three governors, they’ve all had personalities,” said Jim DeBoo, Newsom’s former chief of staff, at a political conference at USC on Tuesday. “When you’re looking at the field right now, most people don’t know” much about the candidates in the crowded race despite their political bona fides.

    Nearly a dozen prominent Democrats and Republicans are running for governor next year, including: former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond; former Controller Betty Yee and conservative commentator Steve Hilton. And speculation continues to swirl about billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta possibly entering the race.

    On Thursday, Thurmond proposed a tax on the wealthy to fund education, healthcare, firefighting and construction. The proposal was seen in part as a subtle dig at Steyer and Caruso, both of whom have used their wealth to fund previous runs for office.

    “The naysayers say California’s ultra wealthy already pay enough, and that taxing billionaires will stifle innovation and force companies to leave our state,” he said in an online video. “I don’t buy it.”

    Steyer painted his decision to leave the hedge fund he created in California as an example of his desire to give back to the state’s residents in an ad that will begin airing on Friday.

    “It’s really goddamn simple. Tackle the cost-of-living crises or get the hell out of the way. Californians are the hardest-working people in the country. But the question is who’s getting the benefit of this,” he says in the ad, arguing that he took on corporations that refused to pay state taxes as well as oil and tobacco companies. “Let’s get down to brass tacks: It’s too expensive to live here.”

    Porter also went after Steyer, another sign that the intensity of the race is heating up as the June primary fast approaches.

    “A new billionaire in our race claims he’ll fight the very industries he got rich helping grow — fossil fuel companies, tobacco and private immigration detention facilities — at great cost to Californians,” she wrote on X on Wednesday.

    The former congresswoman was the subject of recent attacks from Democratic rivals in the governor’s race after videos emerged of her scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide. Yee said she should drop out of the race and Villaraigosa blistered her in ads.

    Villaraigosa also attacked Becerra for his connection to the scandal that rocked Sacramento last week, involving money from one of his campaign accounts being funneled to his former chief of staff while Becerra served in the Biden administration.

    “We don’t have a strong or robust opposition party in California, so you end up like seeing a lot of this action on the dance floor in the primary, obviously, between Democrats, which is going to be interesting,” said Elizabeth Ashford, who worked for Schwarzenegger, Brown and Harris and currently advises Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. “There’s obviously a lot of longtime relationships and longtime loyalties and interactions between these folks. And so what’s going to happen? Big question mark.”

    The ability to protect California from Trump’s policies and political vindictiveness and deal with the state’s affordability, housing and homelessness crisis will be pivotal to Swalwell’s potential path to the governor’s mansion. His choice to announce his decision on Kimmel’s show was telling — the host’s show was briefly suspended by Walt Disney-owned ABC under pressure from Trump after Kimmel made comments about the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    Kimmel thanked Swalwell for his support during that period, which included the congressman handing out pro-Kimmel merchandise to his colleagues in Washington, D.C., before the two discussed the future of the state.

    “I love California, it’s the greatest country in the world. Country,” Swalwell said. “But that’s why it pisses me off to see Californians running through the fields where they work from ICE agents or troops in our streets. It’s horrifying. Cancer research being canceled. It’s awful to look at. And our state, this great state, needs a fighter and a protector, someone who will bring prices down, lift wages up.”

    There is a history of Californians announcing campaigns on late-night television. Schwarzenegger launched his 2003 gubernatorial bid on “The Tonight Show,” hosted by Jay Leno; Swalwell announced his unsuccessful presidential bid on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

    As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Swalwell said, he traveled to nearly 40 countries, and he would try to leverage the relationships he formed by creating an ambassador program to find global research money for California given the cuts the Trump administration has made to cancer research and other programs.

    The congressman is perhaps best known for criticizing Trump on cable news programs. But he’s faced ample attacks as well.

    In 2020, Swalwell came under scrutiny because of his association with Chinese spy Fang Fang, who raised money for his congressional campaign. He cut off ties with her in 2015 after intelligence officials briefed him and other members of Congress about Chinese efforts to infiltrate the legislative body. He was not accused of impropriety.

    He is also being investigated by the Department of Justice over mortgage fraud allegations, which he dismissed as retribution for him being a full-throated critic of Trump.

    Swalwell served on the City Council of the East Bay city of Dublin before being elected to Congress in 2012 by defeating Rep. Pete Stark, a fellow Democrat.

    An Iowa native, Swalwell grew up in Dublin, which he said was “a town of low-income expectations” that was smeared as “Scrublin” at the time. He said that after graduating from law school, he served on the local planning commission that helped transform Dublin. The town increased housing, attracted Fortune 500 employers, exponentially improved the number of students going to college and leveraged developers to improve schools, resources for senior citizens, and police and fire services.

    “We have a Whole Foods, which no one can afford to shop at,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • In-state college tuition for California’s undocumented students is illegal, Trump suit alleges

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration filed a federal suit Thursday against California and its public university systems, alleging the practice of offering in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants who graduate from California high schools is illegal.

    The suit, which named Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the UC Board of Regents, the Cal State University Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges, also seeks to end provisions in the California Dream Act that allow students who lack documentation to apply for state-funded financial aid.

    “California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a Department of Justice statement, saying the state has a “flagrant disregard for federal law.”

    “These laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates, scholarships, or subsidies, create incentives for illegal immigration, and reward illegal immigrants with benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for, all in direct conflict with federal law,” the statement said.

    Spokespersons for Bonta and CSU declined to comment, saying they had not seen copies of the complaint.

    UC officials and a spokesperson for Newsom, who was named because he is an ex-officio board member for CSU and UC, were not immediately available to comment.

    The tuition suit targets Assembly Bill 540, which passed with bipartisan support in 2001 and offers in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who completed high school in California. The law also offers in-state tuition to U.S. citizens who graduated from California schools but moved out of the state before enrolling in college.

    Between 2,000 and 4,000 students attending the University of California — with its total enrollment of nearly 296,000 — are estimated to be undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, are community college students.

    The Trump administration’s challenge to California’s tuition statute focuses on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

    Critics say the law does not speak specifically to tuition rates. Some courts have interpreted the word “benefit” to include cheaper tuition.

    Scholars have also debated whether the federal law affects California tuition rates for because it applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.

    The California law has withstood earlier challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld it in 2010 after out-of-state students sued. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case.

    In those cases, judges said undocumented immigrants were not receiving preferential treatment because of their immigration status but because they attended and graduated from California schools. They said U.S. citizens who graduated from the state’s schools had the same opportunity.

    Thursday’s complaint was filed in Eastern District of California. It follows actions the Trump administration has taken against tuition practices in Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma and Minnesota.

    In June, after the Trump administration sued over the law in Texas, the state agreed to stop giving in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • California regulators approve rules to curb methane leaks and prevent fires at landfills

    [ad_1]

    In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.

    California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.

    The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program.

    The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year.

    It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create.

    There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.

    During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.

    “If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”

    Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation.

    “We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”

    Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them.

    “The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.

    [ad_2]

    Tony Briscoe

    Source link

  • Florida State brings defensive ‘urgency’ into Georgia Southern tilt

    [ad_1]

    (Photo credit: Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)

    Luke Loucks made it clear he was bringing a fast tempo and a bunch of 3-point shooting to the Florida State basketball team.

    The defensive chaos the Seminoles have created early in his coaching tenure is a bit more of a surprise.

    Florida State forced 26 turnovers in Tuesday’s 87-73 win over UT Martin and will look to carry that success over into Friday’s game against Georgia Southern in Tallahassee, Fla.

    The Seminoles (3-1) had 19 steals in the win over the Skyhawks. It was their most in a game since 1996 and one off the program record, with five different players recording three-plus steals.

    Through four games, Florida State is averaging 20.5 forced turnovers per game (tied for fourth nationally) and 12 steals per game (tied for 12th nationally).

    ‘We have some good defenders that are aggressive. Sometimes I’ve just got to get out of their way,’ Loucks said. ‘… You could tell the urgency our guys were playing with defensively really helped force a lot of those turnovers. That’s the way we’re going to play.’

    Freshman Cam Miles scored a team-high 17 points Tuesday. He’s the fourth different Seminole to lead the team in scoring through four games this season.

    The game at Florida State presents a second opportunity this week for Georgia Southern (3-2) to defeat an Atlantic Coast Conference opponent.

    The Eagles nearly pulled off a win in the first chance Tuesday night, falling 68-66 at Georgia Tech. Georgia Southern led by 11 points in the first half and trailed by just two points with six seconds left when Nakavieon White got the ball knocked away while driving for the would-be tying basket.

    ‘We obviously saw space. Their guy made a play,’ Georgia Southern coach Charlie Henry said of the final play vs. Georgia Tech.

    Alden Applewhite posted a double-double with 11 points and 11 rebounds in the loss. The forward is averaging 13.3 points per game and shooting a team-high 46.7% from 3-point range.

    Georgia Southern forced 22 turnovers against Georgia Tech and is averaging 16.8 forced turnovers per game. However, the Seminoles are turning it over just 9.8 times per game.

    –Field Level Media

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 4 California wolves were eliminated, but there’s a new pack in town

    [ad_1]

    California wildlife officials have confirmed there’s a new wolf pack in the northern part of the state, as the population of the endangered canids — and the number of livestock they have preyed on — continues to rise.

    The freshly minted Grizzly pack is roaming southern Plumas County and consists of at least two adults and a pup, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reported this week.

    The pack consists of a male wolf that came over from Oregon and a female from the state’s Lassen pack. Recently, state wildlife officials also got photos of a wolf pup believed to be theirs.

    The news comes on the heels of the Beyem Seyo pack’s demise last month, when the Fish and Wildlife Department euthanized four wolves that had killed a large number of cattle in the Sierra Valley — marking the first time in about a century that state officials had taken lethal action against the animals.

    “As difficult of a decision as that was to make, from a conservation point of view, the population data that we’re getting does continue to suggest that the population is growing and is robust,” said Axel Hunnicutt, gray wolf coordinator for the agency. The action was taken after a months-long campaign of using nonlethal deterrents, he said.

    The Beyem Seyo pack shifted to a new area in October, and new wolves quickly moved into their old stomping ground, one sign that the population is strong, he said.

    With one pack gained and one pack lost, the state’s total remains at 10.

    It’s estimated that there are about 50 to 70 wolves in the Golden State. Although it’s a relatively small number, it represents a stunning recovery for the apex predators, which were hunted and trapped into extinction in the 1920s. Wolves began recolonizing California only 14 years ago.

    New reports from the Fish and Wildlife Department suggest more wolves are on the way.

    There are two areas where wolf activity indicates packs are likely to form, Hunnicutt said. There were also at least 31 pups born this year to packs in California, though some have died, and mortality in general is high during the first year of life. The Whaleback pack, in eastern Siskiyou County, had 10 pups this year — tying a record for the species, Hunnicutt said. Another breeding season will arrive in spring.

    Many of the current packs consist of just two wolves that are fairly young, which means they may not breed the first year. That creates “a lag,” he explained.

    “So what I suspect is that this year we might not see a massive amount of growth, or it might just be steady,” he said. But in a year or two, “probably the vast majority of these groups will be breeding and producing anywhere between six and 10 pups.”

    Wolves’ recovery is celebrated by conservationists who want to see the native animals thrive. The growing number of wolves, however, has rattled ranchers who lose cattle to them.

    The Beyem Seyo pack was responsible for 88 livestock kills or injuries, which Hunnicutt called an “unprecedented” number. Not all wolves in the state go after cows, though. There are several packs in the state that aren’t near livestock, he noted.

    “California wolf recovery is proceeding on a pretty good trajectory, population-wise,” Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said.

    The fact that things get “shaken up,” with wolves dispersing and packs changing, is a good thing, she said.

    “You want to see that dynamism continuing in an evolving population,” she said.

    Weiss sees wolves’ recovery as a testament to their protection under both the California and federal Endangered Species acts.

    There are three bills pending in the U.S. Congress, however, that would claw back federal protections, including one that would delist wolves as endangered nationwide, she said.

    In 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted most wolves in the Lower 48. Weiss’ organization sued, and the following year a federal district court in California overturned the delisting. In September 2024, the federal wildlife agency appealed the decision.

    If wolves were to be federally delisted, they would retain their state protections.

    [ad_2]

    Lila Seidman

    Source link

  • Education Department announces new steps in downsizing push

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Education announced new steps Tuesday in President Donald Trump’s push to downsize the federal agency. Trump signed an executive order in March that called for eliminating the Education Department, but his administration has previously acknowledged that dissolving it entirely would require an act of Congress, which created the agency in 1979. For now, the department is moving forward with plans to shift key services to other parts of the federal government through six new interagency agreements. “The Trump Administration is taking bold action to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission.”The announcement is already facing pushback. Critics fear that the Education Department shakeup will disrupt critical services that students rely on.The National Education Association called it an “illegal plan to further abandon students.”Minnetonka Public Schools Superintendent David Law, who serves as president of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said the reorganization could prove counterproductive. “It talks about streamlining and efficiency, and yet it’s counterintuitive to me that multiple agencies having their hand on something is more efficient,” Law said.Under the plan, the Labor Department will co-manage the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers K-12 grant programs and Title 1 funding for low-income schools, as well as the Office of Postsecondary Education, which oversees grants for institutions of higher education.The Department of the Interior will take on a greater role in administering Indian Education programs. The Department of Health and Human Services will co-manage the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program and Foreign Medical Accreditation. The State Department will help oversee international education and foreign language studies programs. In the past, the Trump administration has also talked about moving management of other Education Department services, like the student loan portfolio and civil rights enforcement. The administration is still “exploring options,” according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on Tuesday ahead of the official rollout. Tuesday’s announcement builds on a sweeping downsizing effort that started earlier this year. The Trump administration has already launched an interagency partnership with the Labor Department to manage adult education and career and technical education programs.In July, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Education Department to move forward with roughly 1,400 layoffs.The Education Department said in an email on Tuesday that no additional layoffs are expected at this time as a result of the new interagency agreements.

    The U.S. Department of Education announced new steps Tuesday in President Donald Trump’s push to downsize the federal agency.

    Trump signed an executive order in March that called for eliminating the Education Department, but his administration has previously acknowledged that dissolving it entirely would require an act of Congress, which created the agency in 1979.

    For now, the department is moving forward with plans to shift key services to other parts of the federal government through six new interagency agreements.

    “The Trump Administration is taking bold action to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission.”

    The announcement is already facing pushback. Critics fear that the Education Department shakeup will disrupt critical services that students rely on.

    The National Education Association called it an “illegal plan to further abandon students.”

    Minnetonka Public Schools Superintendent David Law, who serves as president of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said the reorganization could prove counterproductive.

    “It talks about streamlining and efficiency, and yet it’s counterintuitive to me that multiple agencies having their hand on something is more efficient,” Law said.

    Under the plan, the Labor Department will co-manage the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers K-12 grant programs and Title 1 funding for low-income schools, as well as the Office of Postsecondary Education, which oversees grants for institutions of higher education.

    The Department of the Interior will take on a greater role in administering Indian Education programs. The Department of Health and Human Services will co-manage the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program and Foreign Medical Accreditation. The State Department will help oversee international education and foreign language studies programs.

    In the past, the Trump administration has also talked about moving management of other Education Department services, like the student loan portfolio and civil rights enforcement. The administration is still “exploring options,” according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on Tuesday ahead of the official rollout.

    Tuesday’s announcement builds on a sweeping downsizing effort that started earlier this year.

    The Trump administration has already launched an interagency partnership with the Labor Department to manage adult education and career and technical education programs.

    In July, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Education Department to move forward with roughly 1,400 layoffs.

    The Education Department said in an email on Tuesday that no additional layoffs are expected at this time as a result of the new interagency agreements.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Played with fire, got burned’: GOP control of House at risk after court blocks Texas map

    [ad_1]

    A federal court on Tuesday blocked Texas from moving forward with its new congressional map, hastily drawn in hopes of netting up to five additional Republican seats and securing the U.S. House for the GOP in next year’s midterm elections.

    The ruling is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.

    The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.

    Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.

    Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.

    But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.

    “Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.

    Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.

    “Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

    An aide to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who led an effort in California to enshrine nonpartisan districting practices, suggested that California’s effort could face problems going forward after it was sold to the public as a response to Texas.

    “The title of the proposition said it was a response to Texas, and the voter guide mentioned Texas 13 times, so I’d imagine you will find voters who feel misled that if Texas’ gerrymander doesn’t happen, California’s still does,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger.

    Legal scholars had warned that Texas’ bid would invite accusations and legal challenges of racial gerrymandering that California’s maps would not.

    The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.

    Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.

    “I think the decision was both very smart and very careful in following the law,” Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, said of the 160-page opinion.

    “These are judges who took the law seriously,” Levitt said, “and also judges who were — rightly — absolutely furious at DOJ for a letter starting the whole charade, where the legal ‘reasoning’ wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.”

    While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.

    In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

    The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.

    J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas’ 2021 redistricting effort, said the potential downfall of Texas’ new map was an ironic twist for a president whose strategic goal was to give himself a leg up in the midterms.

    He blamed Tuesday’s court decision — written by a Trump appointee — on the president’s gutting of legal talent at the Justice Department, arguing its legal strategy was flawed from the start.

    “The California gerrymander is likely fixed in stone, because there is no evidence of ‘racial predominance’ in the California action, especially compared to the plentiful evidence of racial motives quoted carefully by the district court in Texas,” Kousser said, “and the opinion of the Texas district court is so meticulous and persuasive that the Supreme Court majority will have difficulty overturning it.”

    “Purging the DOJ left no one to warn the Trump appointees that what they were about to do would likely boomerang,” Kousser added. “This is the law of unintended consequences run riot.”

    Times staff writers Melody Gutierrez and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • California rejoins fight over Nazi-looted painting held by Spanish museum

    [ad_1]

    California is once again fighting in federal court for a Jewish family’s right to have a precious Impressionist painting returned to them by a Spanish museum nearly 90 years after it was looted by the Nazis.

    The state is also defending its own authority to legally require art and other stolen treasures to be returned to other victims with ties to the state, even in disputes that stretch far beyond its borders.

    The state has repeatedly weighed in on the case since the Cassirer family first filed it while living in San Diego in 2005. Last year, California passed a new law designed to bolster the legal rights of the Cassirers and other families in the state to recover valuable property stolen from them in acts of genocide or political persecution.

    On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office filed a motion to intervene in the Cassirer case directly in order to defend that law. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation — which is owned by Spain and holds the Camille Pissarro masterpiece — has claimed that the law is unconstitutional and should therefore be ignored.

    Bonta, in a statement to The Times, said the law is “about fairness, moral — and legal — responsibility, and doing what’s right,” and the state will defend it in court.

    “There is nothing that can undo the horrors and loss experienced by individuals during the Holocaust. But there is something we can do — that California has done — to return what was stolen back to survivors and their families and bring them some measure of justice and healing,” Bonta said. “As attorney general, my job is to defend the laws of California, and I intend to do so here.”

    Bonta said his office “has supported the Cassirers’ quest for justice for two decades,” and “will continue to fight with them for the rightful return of this invaluable family heirloom.”

    Thaddeus J. Stauber, an attorney for the museum, did not answer questions from The Times. Bonta’s office said Stauber did not oppose its intervening in the case.

    Sam Dubbin, the Cassirers’ longtime attorney, thanked Bonta’s office for “intervening in this case again to defend California’s interests in protecting the integrity of the art market and the rights of stolen-property victims.”

    “California law has always provided strong protections for the victims of stolen property and stolen art in particular, which the Legislature has consistently reinforced,” Dubbin said.

    The state bucked the powerful U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by passing the law last year. The appellate court found in a ruling in January 2024 that the painting was lawfully owned by the Spanish museum.

    Bonta’s latest move ratchets up the intrigue surrounding the 20-year-old case, which is being watched around the globe for its potential implications in the high-stakes world of looted art litigation.

    The painting in question — Pissarro’s “Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain” — is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Both sides acknowledge it was stolen from Lilly Cassirer Neubauer by the Nazis in 1939, after she agreed in desperation to surrender it to a Nazi appraiser in exchange for a visa to flee Germany at the dawn of World War II.

    The attention surrounding the case, and its potential to set new precedent in international law, likely makes the painting even more valuable.

    After World War II, Lilly received compensation for the painting from the German government, but the family never relinquished its right to the masterpiece — which at the time was considered lost. What she was paid was a fraction of the current estimated worth.

    In the decades that followed, Lilly’s grandson Claude Cassirer — who had also survived the Holocaust — moved with his family to San Diego.

    In 2000, Claude made the shocking discovery that the painting was not lost to time after all, but part of a vast art collection that Spain had acquired from the late Baron Hans Heinrich von Thyssen-Bornemisza, the scion of a German industrialist family with ties to Adolf Hitler’s regime. Spain restored an early 19th century palace near the Prado Museum in Madrid in order to house the collection as the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.

    Claude asked the museum to return the painting to his family. It refused. He sued in U.S. federal court in 2005. The case has been moving through the courts ever since.

    California passed its new law in response to the 9th Circuit ruling last year that held state law at the time required it to apply an archaic Spanish law. That measure dictates that the title to stolen goods passes legitimately to a new owner over time, if that owner wasn’t aware the goods were stolen when they acquired them — which the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection has argued makes its ownership of the painting legally sound.

    In September 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the new law during a small gathering with the families of Holocaust survivors at the Holocaust Museum LA. Lilly’s great-grandson and Claude’s son David Cassirer, who now lives in Colorado, was there, praising the state’s lawmakers for “taking a definitive stand in favor of the true owners of stolen art.”

    In March, the Supreme Court in a brief order ruled that the 9th Circuit must reconsider its ruling in light of California’s new law.

    In September, the Thyssen-Bournemisza Collection filed a motion asking the appellate court to rule in its favor once more. It put forward multiple arguments, but among them was that California’s new law was “constitutionally indefensible” and deprived the museum of its due process rights.

    “Under binding Supreme Court precedent, a State may not, by legislative fiat, reopen time-barred claims and transfer property whose ownership is already vested,” the museum argued.

    It said the U.S., under federal law, “does not seek to impose its property laws or the property laws of its own states on other foreign sovereigns, but rather expressly acknowledges that different legal traditions and systems must be taken into account to facilitate just and fair solutions with regard to Nazi-looted art cases.”

    It said California’s law takes an “aggressive approach” that “disrupts the federal government’s efforts to maintain uniformity and amicable relations with foreign nations,” and “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of federal policy.”

    David Cassirer, the lead plaintiff in the case since Claude’s death in 2010, argued the opposite in his own filing to the court.

    Cassirer argued that California’s new law requires an outcome in his favor — which he said would also happen to be in line with “moral commitments made by the United States and governments worldwide, including Spain, to Nazi victims and their families.”

    “It is undisputed that California substantive law mandates the award of title here to the Cassirer family, as Lilly’s heirs, of which Plaintiff David Cassirer is the last surviving member,” Cassirer’s attorneys wrote.

    They wrote that California law holds that “a thief cannot convey good title to stolen works of art,” and therefore requires the return of the painting to Cassirer.

    Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who sponsored the bill in the Legislature, praised Bonta for stepping in to defend the law — which he called “part of a decades-long quest for justice and is rooted in the belief that California must stand on the right side of history.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

    [ad_1]

    The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

    Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

    Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

    Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

    Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

    Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

    And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

    To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

    Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

    That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

    Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

    Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

    And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

    As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

    Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

    They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

    There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

    But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

    Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

    But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

    Barabak: It shouldn’t.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

    But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

    There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

    But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

    Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

    Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

    But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

    It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

    The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

    Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

    Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

    I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

    Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

    I’d wager more than a penny on that.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Supreme Court urged to block California laws requiring companies to disclose climate impacts

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

    One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

    Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

    “In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

    They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

    “Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

    One law, Senate Bill 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, SB 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could affect the climate.

    The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

    “No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

    Officials with the California Air Resources Board, whose chair Lauren Sanchez was named as defendant, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

    The first-in-the-nation carbon disclosure laws were widely celebrated by environmental advocates at the time of their passage, with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters describing them as a “game-changer not just for our state but for the entire world.”

    Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored SB 253, said at the time that the laws were “a simple but powerful tool in the fight to tackle climate change.”

    “When corporations are transparent about the full scope of their emissions, they have the tools and incentives to tackle them,” Wiener said.

    Michael Gerrard, a climate-change legal expert at Columbia University, described Friday’s motion as “the latest example of businesses and conservatives weaponizing the 1st Amendment.” He pointed to the Citizens United case, which said businesses have a free speech right to unlimited campaign contributions, as another example.

    “Exxon tried and failed to use this argument in 2022 when it attempted to block an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General into whether it misled consumers and investors about the risks of climate change,” he said in an email. “Exxon claimed this investigation violated its First Amendment rights; the Massachusetts courts rejected this attempt.”

    Under the Biden administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted similar climate-change disclosure rules. Companies would have been required to disclose the impact of climate change on their business and what they intended to do to mitigate the risk.

    But the Chamber of Commerce sued and won a lower court ruling that blocked those rules.

    And in March, Trump appointees said the SEC would retreat and not defend the “costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate-change disclosure rules.”

    The emergency appeal challenging California’s disclosure laws was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

    In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

    The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

    Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

    The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.

    Savage reported from Washington, D.C., Smith from Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage, Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • At Brazilian climate summit, Newsom positions California as a stand-in for the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    The expansive halls of the Amazon’s newly built climate summit hub echoed with the hum of air conditioners and the footsteps of delegates from around the world — scientists, diplomats, Indigenous leaders and energy executives, all converging for two frenetic weeks of negotiations.

    Then Gov. Gavin Newsom rounded the corner, flanked by staff and security. They moved in tandem through the corridors on Tuesday as media swarmed and cellphone cameras rose into the air.

    “Hero!” one woman shouted. “Stay safe — we need you,” another attendee said. Others didn’t hide their confusion at who the man with slicked-back graying hair causing such a commotion was.

    “I’m here because I don’t want the United States of America to be a footnote at this conference,” Newsom said when he reached a packed news conference on his first day at the United Nations climate policy summit known as COP30.

    In less than a year, the United States has shifted from rallying nations on combating climate change to rejecting the science altogether under President Trump.

    Newsom has engineered his own evolution when coping with Trump — moving from sharp but reasoned criticism to name-calling and theatrical attacks on the president and his Republican allies. Newsom’s approach adds fire to America’s political spectacle — part governance, part made-for-TV drama.

    On Wednesday, Newsom’s trip collided with unwelcome headlines at home after his former chief of staff was arrested on federal charges alleging she siphoned $225,000 from a dormant campaign account and claimed business tax write-offs for $1 million in luxury handbags and private jet travel. Newsom had left COP30 before the indictment was revealed, which kept the focus during his whirlwind trip to Belém on his climate policies.

    California’s carbon market and zero-emission mandates have given the state outsize influence at summits such as COP30, where its policies are seen as both durable and exportable. The state has invested billions in renewables, battery storage and electrifying buildings and vehicles and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 — even as its economy grew 81%.

    “Absolutely,” he said when asked whether the state is in effect standing in for the United States at climate talks. “And I think the world sees us in that light, as a stable partner, a historic partner … in the absence of American leadership. And not just absence of leadership, the doubling down of stupid in terms of global leadership on clean energy.”

    Newsom has honed a combative presence online — trading barbs with Trump and leaning into satire, especially on social media, tactics that mirror the president’s. Critics have argued that it’s contributing to a lowering of the bar when it comes to political discourse, but Newsom said he doesn’t see it that way.

    “I’m trying to call that out,” Newsom said, adding that in a normal political climate, leaders should model civility and respect. “But right now, we have an invasive species — in the vernacular of climate — by the name of Donald Trump, and we got to call that out.”

    At home, Newsom recently scored a political win with Proposition 50, the ballot measure he championed to counter Trump’s effort to redraw congressional maps in Republican-led states. On his way to Brazil, he celebrated the victory with a swing through Houston, where a rally featuring Texas Democrats looked more like a presidential campaign stop than a policy event — one of several moments in recent months that have invited speculation about a White House run that he insists he hasn’t launched.

    Those questions followed him to Brazil. It was the first topic posed from a cluster of Brazilian journalists in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and financial hub, where Newsom had flown to speak Monday with climate investors in what he conceded sounded more like a campaign speech.

    “I think it has to,” said Newsom, his talking points scribbled on yellow index cards still in his pocket from an earlier meeting. “I think people have to understand what’s going on, because otherwise you’re wasting everyone’s time.”

    In a low-lit luxury hotel adorned with Brazilian artwork and deep-seated chairs, Newsom showcased the well-practiced pivot of a politician avoiding questions about his future. His most direct answer about his presidential prospects came in a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning” in which he was asked whether he would give serious thought after the 2026 midterm elections to a White House bid. Newsom responded: “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise.”

    He laughed when asked by The Times how often he has fielded questions about his 2028 plans in recent days, and quickly deflected.

    “It’s not about me,” he said before fishing a malaria pill out of his suit pocket and chasing it with coffee from a nearby carafe. “It’s about this moment — and people’s anxiety and concern about this moment.”

    Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, said Newsom’s appearance in Brazil is symbolically important as the federal government targets California’s decades-old authority to enforce its own environmental standards.

    “California has continued to signal that it will play a leadership role,” she said.

    The Trump administration confirmed to The Times that no high-level federal representative will attend COP30.

    “President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.

    For his part, Trump told world leaders at the United Nations in September that climate change is a “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

    Since Trump returned to office for a second term, he’s 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 those of the federal government. He’s also withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, a seminal treaty signed a decade ago in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That move is seen as pivotal in preventing the worst effects of climate change.

    Leaders from Chile and Colombia called Trump a liar for rejecting climate science, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broadly warned that extremist forces are fabricating fake news and “condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming.”

    Terry Tamminen, former California Environmental Protection Agency secretary under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contended that with the Trump administration’s absence, Newsom’s attendance at COP30 thrusts an even brighter spotlight on the governor.

    “If the governor of Delaware goes, it may not matter,” Tamminen said. “But if our governor goes, it does. It sends a message to the world that we’re still in this.”

    The U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state leaders, said three governors from the United States are attending COP30-related events in Brazil: Newsom, Wisconsin’s Tony Evers and New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan Grisham.

    Despite the warm reception Newsom has received in Belém, environmentalists in California have recently questioned his commitment.

    In September, Newsom signed a package of bills that extended the state’s signature cap-and-trade program through 2045. That program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions of dollars for the state’s climate priorities. But, at the same time, he also gave final approval to a bill that will allow oil and gas companies to drill as many as 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County. Environmentalists called that backsliding; Newsom called it realism, given the impending refinery closures in the state that threaten to drive up gas prices.

    “It’s not an ideological exercise,” he said. “It’s a very pragmatic one.”

    Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist, called his record “pretty complex.”

    “In many ways, he is one of the leaders,” she said. “But some of the decisions that he’s made, especially recently, don’t move us in as good a direction on climate.”

    Newsom is expected to return to the climate summit Wednesday before traveling deeper into the Amazon, where he plans to visit reforestation projects. The governor said he wanted to see firsthand the region often referred to as “the lungs of the world.”

    “It’s not just to admire the absorption of carbon from the rainforest,” Newsom said. “But to absorb a deeper spiritual connection to this issue that connects all of us. … I think that really matters in a world that can use a little more of that.”

    [ad_2]

    Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Trump wants oil drilling off the coast of California. But does anyone else?

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration reportedly has plans to open the waters off California’s coast to new oil and gas drilling for the first time in four decades, drawing swift condemnation from Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers and environmental groups who say it would be disastrous for the state’s environment, economy and clean energy targets.

    Whether energy companies would be interested in such leases is another question. Experts say the resources are limited and oil majors may not clamor for leases that could ensnare them in the Golden State’s stringent environmental policies.

    Trump has focused heavily on increasing fossil fuel production in the United States, yet some say offering the opportunity to drill in the Pacific is more likely a political move from an administration that has repeatedly targeted California’s green ambitions.

    Details of the administration’s plan are still emerging, but maps from the Bureau of Ocean Energy identify four West Coast planning areas, three off the coast of California and one off Oregon and Washington. The administration is planning to propose up to six offshore lease sales off the coast of California between 2027 and 2030, according to internal documents first reported by the Washington Post.

    Officials with the U.S. Interior Department declined to comment, citing the U.S. government shutdown. Last month, the administration also announced plans to open the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing, which Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said would create jobs and strengthen U.S. energy independence.

    California has about two dozen operating oil platforms in state and federal waters, some of which are visible from the shore in different parts of Southern California. But new leases have not been granted in federal waters since 1984, in part due to strong opposition stemming from a 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara that spewed an estimated 100,000 barrels of crude oil into the water and helped jumpstart the modern environmental movement.

    The years that followed saw a string of actions to protect the Outer Continental Shelf from oil and gas development, including bipartisan actions from the state, Congress and presidents including George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama. In January, President Biden signed an executive order protecting more than 625 million acres of the U.S. ocean from offshore drilling, which Trump repealed on his first day back in office.

    Oil companies have expressed some interest in new offshore leases. The American Petroleum Institute and other leading oil and gas trade groups encouraged the Trump administration in a June letter to evaluate and consider all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas drilling, noting that “continuous exploration and drilling will be needed” to ensure long-term energy security and meet U.S. energy demands into 2050.

    But the opposition from California could be strong. The state has set ambitious climate goals, including reaching 100% carbon neutrality by 2045.

    “Nobody really wants offshore oil, except for maybe Texas and Louisiana,” said Clark Williams-Derry, an energy industry analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “In my mind, this is at least in part politically motivated rather than substantively motivated.”

    Trump — who received record donations from oil and gas companies during his 2024 presidential campaign — has moved to block clean energy projects in the state and repeal its authority to set strict tailpipe emissions standards, among other challenges.

    Williams-Derry noted that offshore oil drilling is a speculative and risk-laden venture for oil companies, and prospects are better in fracking basins in Texas and New Mexico.

    The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s most recent federal assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf estimates there are about 9.8 billion barrels of untapped oil off the coast of California — the majority off Southern California — compared with about 29.6 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Offshore oil platforms often send oil ashore, requiring pipelines and other infrastructure. California isn’t likely to cooperate with that onshore work, and in fact has built up something of a “blue wall” of opposition to offshore drilling through local resolutions and legislative efforts, according to Richard Charter, senior fellow with the nonprofit Ocean Foundation.

    A network of state laws such as the longstanding California Coastal Sanctuary law, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act and a 2025 assembly bill would effectively prevent oil companies from using existing oil and gas infrastructure in state waters to export or bring ashore new production from federal offshore leases, Charter said. State waters are the first three miles offshore.

    “I think we have as many layers of protection as it is possible to get — certainly more than any other state,” he said, adding that “the limited petroleum potential is not worth the effort and the risk.”

    However, it’s possible that interested oil companies could bypass the state altogether by loading crude onto tankers and shipping it elsewhere, something the Sable Offshore Corp. is now considering for its controversial project to restart oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara.

    Energy companies have also been making use of floating oil processing centers that dramatically reduce the need for pipelines.

    Rumors of the Trump administration’s plans drew sharp criticism from state leaders, including Sen. Alex Padilla, who led an Oct. 30 letter signed by more than 100 lawmakers demanding the administration reverse course to open up the Outer Continental Shelf.

    “This is a matter of national consequence for coastal communities across the country, regardless of political affiliation,” the letter said. “It puts our economies, national security, and our most vulnerable ecosystems at severe risk.”

    The lawmakers noted that the U.S. already leads the world in oil and gas production, and the industry already holds more than 2,000 offshore leases covering more than 12 million acres of federal waters, but fewer than 500 of those leases are actively producing oil and gas.

    “There is no justification for opening vast swaths of our oceans to leasing when existing leases remain largely unused, while imposing mounting environmental and economic costs on coastal communities,” they wrote.

    At the same time, any expanded drilling would meet with weakened oil spill prevention and response programs at the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which have lost about 30% of its staff to layoffs and buyouts and face a potential 50% budget cut.

    The Trump administration has caved to at least some political pressure on the issue: The administration largely backed off plans to open the Atlantic Ocean for drilling after reports drew the ire of Republican coastal state leaders.

    But advocacy groups say the administration is less likely to give favor to California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom — a 2028 presidential contender — has repeatedly sparred with Trump over energy and the environment. Newsom is currently at the United Nations climate conference in Brazil, which Trump opted not to attend.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • The federal SNAP-funding mess has made L.A.’s food-insecurity crisis clearer than ever

    [ad_1]

    A strange scene unfolded at the Adams/Vermont farmers market near USC last week.

    The pomegranates, squash and apples were in season, pink guavas were so ripe you could smell their heady scent from a distance, and nutrient-packed yams were ready for the holidays.

    But with federal funding in limbo for the 1.5 million people in Los Angeles County who depend on food aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP — the church parking lot hosting the market was largely devoid of customers.

    Even though the market accepts payments through CalFresh, the state’s SNAP program, hardly anyone was lined up when gates opened. Vendors mostly idled alone at their produce stands.

    A line of cars stretches more than a mile as people wait to receive a box of free food provided by the L.A. Food Bank in the City of Industry on Wednesday.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    As thousands across Southern California lined up at food banks to collect free food, and the fight over delivering the federal allotments sowing uncertainty, fewer people receiving aid seemed to be spending money at outdoor markets like this one.

    “So far we’re doing 50% of what we’d normally do — or less,” said Michael Bach, who works with Hunger Action, a food-relief nonprofit that partners with farmers markets across the greater L.A. area, offering “Market Match” deals to customers paying with CalFresh debit cards.

    The deal allows shoppers to buy up to $30 worth of fruit produce for only $15. Skimming a ledger on her table, Bach’s colleague Estrellita Echor noted that only a handful of shoppers had taken advantage of the offer.

    All week at farmers markets where workers were stationed, the absence was just as glaring, she said. “I was at Pomona on Saturday — we only had six transactions the whole day,” she said. “Zero at La Mirada.”

    CalFresh customers looking to double their money on purchases were largely missing at the downtown L.A. market the next day, Echor said.

    A volunteer loads up a box of free food for a family at a drive-through food distribution site in the City of Industry.

    A volunteer loads up a box of free food for a family at a drive-through food distribution site in the City of Industry.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    “This program usually pulls in lots of people, but they are either holding on to what little they have left or they just don’t have anything on their cards,” she said.

    The disruption in aid comes as a result of the Trump administration’s decision to deliver only partial SNAP payments to states during the ongoing federal government shutdown, skirting court order to restart funds for November. On Friday night, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked the order pending a ruling on the matter by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    But by then, CalFresh had already started loading 100% of November’s allotments onto users’ debit cards. Even with that reprieve for food-aid recipients in California, lack of access to food is a persistent problem in L.A., said Kayla de la Haye, director of the Institute for Food System Equity at USC.

    A study published by her team last year found that 25% of residents in L.A. County — or about 832,000 people — experienced food insecurity, and that among low-income residents, the rate was even higher, 41%. The researchers also found that 29% of county residents experienced nutrition insecurity, meaning they lacked options for getting healthy, nutritious food.

    Those figures marked a slight improvement compared to data from 2023, when the end of pandemic-era boosts to state, county and nonprofit aid programs — combined with rising inflation — caused hunger rates to spike just as they did at the start of the pandemic in 2020, de la Haye said.

    “That was a big wake-up call — we had 1 in 3 folks in 2020 be food insecure,” de la Haye said. “We had huge lines at food pantries.”

    But while the USC study shows the immediate delivery of food assistance through government programs and nonprofits quickly can cut food insecurity rates in an emergency, the researchers discovered many vulnerable Angelenos are not participating in food assistance programs.

    Despite the county making strides to enroll more eligible families over the last decade, de la Haye said, only 29% of food insecure households in L.A. County were enrolled in CalFresh, and just 9% in WIC, the federal nutrition program for women, infants and children.

    De la Haye said participants in her focus groups shared a mix of reasons why they didn’t enroll: Many didn’t know they qualified, while others said they felt too ashamed to apply for aid, were intimidated by the paperwork involved or feared disclosing their immigration status. Some said they didn’t apply because they earned slightly more than the cutoff amounts for eligibility.

    Even many of those those receiving aid struggled: 39% of CalFresh recipients were found to lack an affordable source for food and 45% faced nutrition insecurity.

    De la Haye said hunger and problems accessing healthy food have serious short- and long-term health effects — contributing to higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, as well greater levels of stress, anxiety and depression in adults and children. What’s more, she said, when people feel unsure about their finances, highly perishable items such as fresh, healthy food are often the first things sacrificed because they can be more expensive.

    The USC study also revealed stark racial disparities: 31% of Black residents and 32% of Latinos experienced food insecurity, compared to 11% of white residents and 14% of Asians.

    De la Haye said her team is analyzing data from this year they will publish in December. That analysis will look at investments L.A. County has made in food system over the last two years, including the allocation of $20 million of federal funding to 80 community organizations working on everything from urban farming to food pantries, and the recent creation of the county’s Office of Food Systems to address challenges to food availability and increase the consumption of healthy foods.

    “These things that disrupt people’s ability to get food, including and especially cuts to this key program that is so essential to 1.5 million people in the county — we don’t weather those storms very well,” de la Haye said. “People are just living on the precipice.”

    [ad_2]

    Tyrone Beason

    Source link

  • 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

  • Joe Biden calls for Democratic momentum in Nebraska speech, urges party to ‘dream big’

    [ad_1]

    Former President Joe Biden spoke to Nebraska Democrats on Friday evening.His appearance at the annual Ben Nelson Gala comes just days after nationwide elections. And, it was one of a handful of times we’ve heard from the former president since he left office and was undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer.On Friday, he addressed a crowd of several hundred in downtown Omaha with a message of momentum for the state of Nebraska.“Did you see the results Tuesday?” he asked, igniting another round of cheers as he listed Democratic victories from governorships in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayoral seat in New York to a redistricting decision in California, according to the Associated Press.It was a joyful return to the political stage for the former president, whose party’s effort to remain in the White House was rejected just over a year ago. Biden called for a political comeback, though not for himself, but to an audience hungry for a fight.”You have an election soon, an open seat right here in Omaha,” Biden said. “We can’t be afraid to dream big.”“You know what it feels like to be outnumbered,” he told Democrats in Nebraska, where Republicans have carried the state in every presidential election since 1968. “But every election, you put up the yard signs and you make your voices heard. The country needs you badly.”It was the kind of pep talk that sells in a place where Democrats lose statewide but have staged winning races for the Omaha area’s 2nd District electoral vote, elected a Democratic mayor for the first time since 2009 and feel energized about capturing the 2nd District seat in 2026.Biden’s speech centered around his time in office and the changes he said now hit American families during President Donald Trump’s term.He brought up the ongoing pause of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits and the demolition of the East Wing.The major point from the former president centered around the future of his party.”The Democratic Party is back,” Biden said. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal. We’ve never lived up to it, but we’ve never walked away from it. And folks, we’re not going to walk away from it now. Tuesday night was a good start.”Biden was honored at the gala by four Native Nebraska tribes, draping a blanket quilt over his shoulders, which was then followed by a performance dedicated to the former president.Several other Democrats were at the gala, including Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Omaha Mayor John Ewing Jr.__The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Former President Joe Biden spoke to Nebraska Democrats on Friday evening.

    His appearance at the annual Ben Nelson Gala comes just days after nationwide elections. And, it was one of a handful of times we’ve heard from the former president since he left office and was undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

    On Friday, he addressed a crowd of several hundred in downtown Omaha with a message of momentum for the state of Nebraska.

    “Did you see the results Tuesday?” he asked, igniting another round of cheers as he listed Democratic victories from governorships in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayoral seat in New York to a redistricting decision in California, according to the Associated Press.

    It was a joyful return to the political stage for the former president, whose party’s effort to remain in the White House was rejected just over a year ago. Biden called for a political comeback, though not for himself, but to an audience hungry for a fight.

    “You have an election soon, an open seat right here in Omaha,” Biden said. “We can’t be afraid to dream big.”

    “You know what it feels like to be outnumbered,” he told Democrats in Nebraska, where Republicans have carried the state in every presidential election since 1968. “But every election, you put up the yard signs and you make your voices heard. The country needs you badly.”

    It was the kind of pep talk that sells in a place where Democrats lose statewide but have staged winning races for the Omaha area’s 2nd District electoral vote, elected a Democratic mayor for the first time since 2009 and feel energized about capturing the 2nd District seat in 2026.

    Biden’s speech centered around his time in office and the changes he said now hit American families during President Donald Trump’s term.

    He brought up the ongoing pause of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits and the demolition of the East Wing.

    The major point from the former president centered around the future of his party.

    “The Democratic Party is back,” Biden said. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal. We’ve never lived up to it, but we’ve never walked away from it. And folks, we’re not going to walk away from it now. Tuesday night was a good start.”

    Biden was honored at the gala by four Native Nebraska tribes, draping a blanket quilt over his shoulders, which was then followed by a performance dedicated to the former president.

    Several other Democrats were at the gala, including Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Omaha Mayor John Ewing Jr.

    __
    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump administration suggests it may ‘raid school lunch money’ to cover SNAP benefits

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.

    The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.

    “There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.

    The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

    On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

    SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

    Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

    The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

    But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

    Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

    “Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

    “Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

    On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

    “Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

    “This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

    The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.

    But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.

    While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

    More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

    But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

    “This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

    In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • California steps in as Trump skips global climate summit in Brazil

    [ad_1]

    Nearly 200 nations are gathering this week in Belém, Brazil, to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit, but there is one glaring exception: The Trump administration is not sending any high-ranking officials.

    California hopes it can fill in the gap. The state, as it usually does, is sending a large delegation to the Conference of the Parties, including first-time attendee Gov. Gavin Newsom and top officials from the California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Food and Agriculture, Air Resources Board, Public Utilities Commission and Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs.

    The state aims to build on its reputation as a global climate leader, sharing its experience with clean energy technology and job creation and showcasing its track record of climate agreements with other countries and regions.

    Newsom, who is positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run, told The Times he “absolutely” sees California as a proxy for the U.S. at this year’s conference, which is the main global venue for countries to strengthen their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases.

    “California has a responsibility, but also a unique opportunity at this moment, to remind the world that we’re here, that we believe these issues matter, and that there’s an opportunity here to reinforce existing alliances and develop new ones,” the governor said.

    California’s strong presence at COP also marks an escalation of Newsom’s ongoing battle with President Trump. The two have clashed over immigration and climate, with the president’s energy and environment agenda often targeting the state. 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.

    But this year’s Nov. 10-21 gathering also comes at a critical moment for the world. It’s the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, a seminal treaty signed at the 2015 COP in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels, and preferably below 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C), in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

    Most experts and scientists agree that the 2.7 degree target is no longer within reach. The last 10 years have been Earth’s hottest on record, driven largely by greenhouse gas emissions that come from the burning of fossil fuels.

    “One thing is already clear: We will not be able to contain the global warming below 1.5 degrees [C] in the next few years,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a recent gathering of the World Meteorological Organization. “The overshooting is now inevitable.”

    The U.N.’s annual Emissions Gap report released in conjunction with the conference finds that without immediate and aggressive action, the world is on track to warm between 4.14 and 5.04 degrees (2.3 and 2.8 degrees Celsius) over this century.

    Yet Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on his first day back in office, a move he also made during his first term as president. In a January executive order he stated that the Paris Agreement and other international climate compacts pose an unfair burden on the U.S. and steer American dollars to other countries.

    The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is expected to add an additional 0.18 degree to the latest warming projections, in effect nullifying a small gain made since last year, the U.N. report says. It notes that every fraction of a degree of warming means more losses for people and ecosystems, higher costs to adapt, and more reliance on uncertain techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    However, the report underscores that the technology to deliver big emissions cuts already exists, pointing to booming developments in wind and solar energy, much of which is occurring overseas.

    It’s a sector where California can lead, Newsom said, adding that the Trump administration has “doubled down on stupid” by ceding so much ground to China. The Golden State has invested heavily in renewables, battery energy storage and the electrification of buildings and vehicles. California has also set ambitious decarbonizaiton targets and reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 while its economy has grown 81%.

    “We want to continue to tip the scales, and this is about economic growth, this is about jobs, and this is about addressing the other crisis of our time: affordability,” Newsom said. “When you talk about energy efficiency, you’re talking about affordability. When you talk about wind and solar, you’re talking about abundance and you’re talking about affordability.”

    California has already helped to spread a lot of real technology. The state’s aggressive emission rules were pivotal in pushing automakers toward electric vehicles, with Toyota largely developing its Prius for California’s market. The state was the first to mandate battery energy storage at its major utilities, helping jump-start the modern grid-battery market, while its cap-and-trade carbon market program has been emulated in places around the world.

    State leaders hope to highlight more than their progress at home. In recent years, California has also forged subnational agreements and partnerships with other regions and countries on issues such as delivering clean transportation, cutting pollution and developing hydrogen and renewables. Newsom is expected to sign additional agreements at COP this year, although his team declined to provide a preview of what they will entail.

    Among the state’s dozens of existing agreements are a memorandum with Mexico’s Baja California Energy Commission focused on clean ports, zero-emission transportation and grid reliability; and memorandums with several provinces in China on pollution reduction and offshore wind power. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection also has partnerships with several countries that are sharing resources and best practices for managing vegetation and combating wildfires.

    Focusing on these actions at the state and regional level has become a key part of COP conferences as the conversation gains urgency and shifts to deployment, according to Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “There is a whole other face of the United States — we have a lot of subnational actors, including leading states and cities and forward-looking businesses, who will be at COP showing the rest of the world that the United States does understand that it’s both in the interest of our country, as well as the global interest, to tackle climate change,” Cleetus said.

    California’s delegation in Brazil also includes Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot, who represented the state at the Local Leaders Forum in Rio de Janeiro this week.

    “This year, our federal government is totally missing in action … and the rest of the world needs to understand that America is still in this fight, and we’re moving forward,” Crowfoot said in a briefing.

    Crowfoot highlighted California’s carbon market partnership with Quebec and one with Denmark that yielded groundwater monitoring technology that California uses today, among other examples of international efforts.

    This year’s COP conference, which is taking place near the Amazon River delta in northern Brazil, is heavily focused on forest restoration and nature-based solutions, which California also focuses on through its 30×30 program to conserve 30% of the state’s lands and coastal waters by 2030, Crowfoot said. The Golden State already has deep ties to the region stemming from its landmark 2019 Tropical Forest Standard program, which set guidelines on carbon credits awarded for reducing deforestation.

    Newsom said that at COP, he will highlight climate action as the defining economic opportunity of the 21st century. He is slated to speak at the Milken Institute’s Global Investors’ Symposium, a gathering of leading investors and business executives, about how California shows that clean energy investments create jobs and profit. Green jobs now outnumber fossil fuel jobs in the state, 7 to 1.

    “Were not just talking about this from the perspective of trying to be good citizens,” Newsom said. “We’re also trying to be competitive geopolitical players. We want to dominate in the next big global industry.”

    Still, there is much work to be done.

    Every five years, parties to the Paris Agreement are required to submit targets for their greenhouse gas emissions. The targets so far have “barely moved the needle,” according to the U.N. report, and the ones handed in this year aren’t nearly aggressive enough.

    “It’s devastating to see that now we are definitely going to breach the 1.5 C benchmark,” said Cleetus, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    “But world leaders still have the power to sharply cut these emissions,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith, Melody Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Republicans, including ‘cowardly’ Schwarzenegger, take heat for lopsided loss on Prop. 50

    [ad_1]

    Republican infighting crescendoed in the aftermath of California voters overwhelmingly approving a Democratic-friendly redistricting plan this week that may undercut the GOP’s control of Congress and derail President Trump’s polarizing agenda.

    The state GOP chairwoman was urged to resign and former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the state’s independent redistricting commission, was called “cowardly” by one top GOP leader for not being more involved in the campaign.

    Leaders of the Republican-backed committees opposing the ballot measure, known as Proposition 50, were questioned about how they spent nearly $58 million in the special election after such a dismal outcome.

    Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the once-prodigious Republican fundraiser, reportedly had vowed that he could raise $100 million for the opposition but ended up delivering a small fraction of that amount.

    Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), a conservative firebrand, called on state GOP Chair Corrin Rankin to step down and faulted other Republican leaders and longtime party operatives for their failure to defeat the measure, calling them “derelict of duty and untrustworthy and incompetent.”

    “Unless serious changes are made at the party, the midterms are going to be a complete disaster,” DeMaio said, also faulting the other groups opposing the effort. “We need accountability. There needs to be a reckoning because otherwise the lessons won’t be learned. The old guard needs to go. The old guard has failed us too many times. This is the latest failure.”

    Rankin pushed back against the criticism, saying the state party was the most active GOP force in the final stretch of the election. Raising $11 million during the final three weeks of the campaign, the party spent it on mailers, digital ads and text messages, as well as organizing phone banks and precinct walking, she said.

    Former Speaker of the House and California Republican Kevin McCarthy speaks to the press at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 19, 2023.

    (Samuel Corum / AFP via Getty Images)

    “We left it all on the field,” Rankin said Wednesday morning at a Sacramento news conference about a federal lawsuit California Republicans filed arguing that Proposition 50 is unconstitutional. “We were the last man standing … to reach out to Republicans and make sure they turned out.”

    Responding to criticism that their effort was disorganized, including opposition campaign mailers being sent to voters who had already cast ballots, Rankin said the party would conduct a review of its efforts. But she added that she was extremely proud of the work her team did in the “rushed special election.”

    Barring successful legal challenges, the new California congressional districts enacted under Proposition 50 will go into effect before the 2026 election. The new district maps favor Democratic candidates and were crafted to unseat five Republican incumbents, which could erase Republicans’ narrow edge in the the U.S. House of Representatives.

    If Democrats win control of the body, Trump’s policy agenda will probably be stymied and the president and members of his administration could face multiple congressional investigations.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats proposed Proposition 50 in response to Trump urging elected officials in Texas and other GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to the House next year.

    The new California congressional boundaries voters approved Tuesday could give Democrats the opportunity to pick up five seats in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation.

    Proposition 50 will change how California determines the boundaries of congressional districts. The measure asked voters to approve congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections, overriding the map drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission.

    Some Republicans lamented that Schwarzenegger was not more involved in the election. The movie star championed the creation of the independent commission in 2010, his final year in office. He campaigned for the creation of similar bodies to fight partisan drawing of district lines across the nation after leaving office.

    Shawn Steel, one of California’s three representatives on the Republican National Committee, called Schwarzenegger “a cowardly politician.”

    “Arnold decided to sit it out,” Steel said. “Arnold just kind of raised the flag and immediately went under the desk.”

    Steel said that the former governor failed to follow through on the messages he repeatedly delivered about the importance of independent redistricting.

    “He could have had his name on the ballot as a ballot opponent,” Steel said. “He turned it down. So I’d say, with Arnold, just disappointing but not surprised. That’s his political legacy.”

    Schwarzenegger’s team pushed back at this criticism as misinformed.

    “We were clear from the beginning that he was not going to be a part of the campaign and was going to speak his mind,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesman for the former governor. “His message was very clear and nonpartisan. When one campaign couldn’t even criticize gerrymandering in Texas, it was probably hard for voters to believe they actually cared about fairness.”

    Schwarzenegger spoke out against Proposition 50 a handful of times, including at an appearance at USC that was turned into a television ad by one of the anti-Proposition 50 committees that appeared to go dark before election day.

    On election day, he emailed followers about gut health, electrolytes, protein bars, fitness and conversations to increase happiness. There was no apparent mention of the Tuesday election.

    The Democratic-led California Legislature in August voted to place Proposition 50 on the November ballot, costing nearly $300 million, and setting off a sprint to Tuesday’s special election.

    The opponents were vastly outspent by the ballot measure’s supporters, who contributed nearly $136 million to various efforts. That financial advantage, combined with Democrats’ overwhelming edge in voter registration in California, were main contributors to the ballot measure’s success. When introduced in August, Proposition 50 had tepid support and its prospects appeared uncertain.

    Nearly 64% of the nearly 8.3 million voters who cast ballots supported Proposition 50, while 36% opposed it as of Wednesday night, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

    In addition to the state Republican Party, two main campaign committees opposed Proposition 50, including the one backed by McCarthy. A separate group was funded by more than $32 million from major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr., the son of a billionaire who was Warren Buffet’s right-hand man; he bankrolled the creation of the independent congressional redistricting commission in 2010.

    Representatives of the two committees — who defended their work Tuesday night after the election was called moments after the polls closed, saying that they could not overcome the vast financial disadvantage and that the proposition’s supporters must be held to their promises to voters such as pushing for national redistricting reform — did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Wednesday.

    Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50 had prominent Democrats stumping for the effort, including former President Obama starring in ads.

    That’s in stark contrast to the opposition efforts. Trump was largely absent, possibly because he is deeply unpopular among Californians and the president does not like to be associated with losing causes.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Promises of lower energy bills win big on election day

    [ad_1]

    Key races in New Jersey, Virginia and Georgia made it clear that energy affordability was on the ballot this election day as Democrats who campaigned on the issue swept the field.

    Candidates in the three states campaigned on tackling rising energy costs through renewables, such as wind and solar, or by supporting the Trump administration in promoting fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal.

    Trump has said that ramping up the production of fossil fuels will “unleash American energy” and save taxpayers money. But residential electric bills have increased about 10% nationwide this year — from 15.9 cents per kilowatt hour in January to 17.6 cents at the end of August, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    At the same time, wind and solar remain the least expensive form of new-build electricity generation, according to the financial advisory firm Lazard.

    The race for New Jersey governor saw Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill face off against Republican Jack Ciattarelli after state residents saw a roughly 20% price spike in electricity rates this year driven by reduced supply and growing demand from data centers and a slow rollout of renewables, among other challenges.

    Sherrill campaigned heavily on the issue, vowing to declare a state of emergency on utility costs on her first day in office and institute a utility rate freeze.

    “Prices are spiking because of a huge power shortage — I’ll transform New Jersey’s energy picture to build new, cheaper, and cleaner energy generation, bring down families’ bills, and put the Garden State on track to hit our emissions and clean air goals,” Sherrill wrote in her campaign materials.

    Ciattarelli, meanwhile, vowed to implement a state energy master plan fueled by natural gas, nuclear and solar power but not offshore wind, which he promised to ban. “I will cap property taxes for families and freeze them for seniors, while killing offshore wind farms and expanding safe and clean natural gas and nuclear to lower electricity rates, which are currently out of control,” he told the NJ Spotlight News.

    Ciattarelli also called for pulling the state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a market-based program to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in Mid-Atlantic states that is similar to California’s cap-and-trade program.

    Sherrill won the governor’s race with more than 56% of the vote.

    Energy prices are spiking in the U.S., in part, because the Trump administration has been cutting funding for wind, solar and battery energy storage, according to Nick Abraham, senior state communications director with the nonprofit League of Conservation Voters. The administration also has moved to block some projects that were almost completed.

    “These races were about energy costs and affordability, and there were two clear cases made by candidates on both sides,” Abraham said. “One side wanted to stick with the Trump agenda — trying to ban clean energy and focusing on fossil fuels — and one side was trying to lower costs and implement clean energy strategies. And the results speak for themselves.”

    According to Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar ranges from $38 to $78 per megawatt hour and offshore wind from $37 to $86 per megawatt hour.

    That’s compared with $71 to $173 per megawatt hour for coal and $149 to $251 per megawatt hour for gas peaking plants, among fossil fuels.

    The issue was also top-of-mind with voters in Virginia, who took to the polls in a governor’s race between Democrat Abigail Spanberger and Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears. The state is now home to more than a third of all data centers worldwide.

    Spanberger focused heavily on affordability in housing, healthcare and energy during her campaign and said she would expand and incentivize the development of solar energy projects, along with technologies such as fusion, geothermal and hydrogen.

    “Specific to energy, we have to have more generation here on the ground in Virginia,” Spanberger said in an interview with CBS in Richmond, adding that the state is already leading the way with the largest offshore wind farm in the country. The 2.6-gigawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project is slated to produce enough clean energy to power up to 660,000 homes when completed in 2026.

    Earle-Sears focused on an “all of the above” approach to energy generation including oil, natural gas and renewables, but also worked to remove the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which she described as an “energy tax” driving higher costs. She also promised to repeal the Virginia Clean Economy Act, a 2020 law that requires the state’s utilities to produce 100% renewable electricity by 2050.

    Spanberger won the governor’s race with more than 57% of the vote.

    Meanwhile, voters in Georgia also turned out in a race for two seats on their five-member Public Service Commission, which oversees the state’s utilities. The commission approved six utility bill rate hikes over the last two years.

    Democratic challengers Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson won out over Republicans in Tuesday’s race with the largest statewide margins of victory by Democrats in more than 20 years, according to the Associated Press.

    Both candidates made rising costs key in their campaigns, with Hubbard vowing to “bring clean, reliable and affordable energy to Georgia” and Johnson pushing for “bold investments in solar and wind.”

    Their opponents, Republicans Tim Echols and Fitz Johnson, backed a rate freeze but also resorted to Trump-style attacks, with Echols stating at a campaign event that Johnson, a Black woman, wanted to “bring DEI and wokeness” to the Public Service Commission.

    Policy experts said the races were not only a bellwether for the 2026 midterms, but a strong signal that Americans support the clean energy transition.

    “Voters chose leaders who see clean energy as the path to long-term affordability and reliability,” said Frederick Bell, associate director for state climate policy at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link