“Pro tip: unbranded gas comes from the same refineries, storage tanks, and pipelines, and it meets the same state standards to keep your engine running clean,” Newsom’s office posted Thursday on X. “Big Oil is already making billions off Trump’s Iran War; don’t let them rip you off even more by overpaying for the brand name.”

Newsom’s office cited an analysis by a group within the state’s energy commission, which oversees the oil and gas industry, that found that Chevron averaged more than 60 to 80 cents per gallon above unbranded alternatives.

The call-out follows Chevron posting signs at California gas stations blaming the state’s climate policies for the high cost of gas. The average price of gas in California sat at $6.14 per gallon on Thursday, about $1.58 higher than the national average, according to the American Automobile Association. The state taxes consumers about 70 cents per gallon of gas, according to the state’s energy commission. That is the highest gas tax in the country.

“California politicians are choosing foreign oil and fuels over local jobs and lower costs,” the signs read. They feature a QR code that directs to a Chevron webpage asking people to “speak up for affordable, reliable energy.”

It is not clear when Chevron put the signs up, but spokesman Ross Allen said they are part of a campaign the company launched three years ago to inform drivers on the price impacts of California policies.

“We’ve been very vocal about the importance of customer education in California so that our drivers and our consumers understand where their tax dollars are going,” Allen said.

There are hundreds of Chevron gas stations operating in California, and most of them are operated independently and set their own prices, he said.

Memorial Day is typically one of the busiest travel weekends of the year.

Prices at the pump have swelled nationwide since the Iran war began, launching a global energy crisis. The price of crude oil, which is the main ingredient in gasoline, has climbed during the war because the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage of the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of the world’s crude oil normally passes, has effectively been shut. Oil tankers have been stranded there unable to deliver crude.

Newsom, who often touts the state’s status as a global climate leader, has passed policies in recent years aimed at cracking down on oil company profits and reducing gas prices.

He signed a law in 2023 allowing the state’s energy commission to penalize oil companies for excess profits, declaring the state had “finally beat big oil.” But regulators voted last year to hold off on plans to penalize businesses until 2030 and prioritize other efforts to protect consumers at the pump.

The postponement came after two oil refineries that accounted for roughly 18% of the state’s refining capacity announced their plans to close, reigniting debate over the price impacts of the state’s ambitious climate policies.

Newsom signed another law in 2024 giving the commission the authority to require refineries to keep a certain amount of fuel on hand. The goal is to try to keep prices from increasing suddenly when refineries go offline for maintenance. But that regulation has also stalled.

The post Newsom’s office warns Californians to avoid Chevron this holiday weekend, citing high gas prices appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

It also left a litany of unanswered questions: who came up with the narrow criteria, how many hospitals would qualify and whether the funding will be enough to prevent hospital closures in the near term.

Assembly Bill 108, signed into law last week, will provide grants to public and nonprofit hospitals that meet several criteria, including having less than 10 days of cash on hand and having more than half of their patients on government-funded insurance programs or uninsured. The goal is to tide eligible hospitals over until July 1, when the new fiscal year begins, said Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and championed the funding bill.

The measure, put in print on May 4, flew through both legislative chambers in just three days before Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it within hours. By Monday, the program was up and running and hospitals had just a week to apply. The Department of Health Care Access and Information will announce recipients May 26.

“It is a rare occurrence for bills to go from the starting block to the finish line in just a few days,” said veteran lobbyist and Capitol watcher Chris Micheli, who said the speed reflects the urgent need of hospitals and a consensus among leaders.

Hospital leaders interested in applying said they were pleased the Legislature acted so quickly, though some are scrambling to meet the application deadline after learning about it just a week ago.

Laird told CalMatters that he knows of two to three hospitals that will likely qualify but declined to name them, arguing that doing so could scare off vendors and hospital staff.

When pressed, he acknowledged that potential recipients include Watsonville Community Hospital in his own district.

“This bill comes at a completely inopportune time in the budget process, and the time was not dictated by us,” Laird said during a budget hearing last Tuesday. “It was dictated by a few hospitals going under.”

The criteria are so narrow and the bill moved in such an “expedited fashion” that it seems tailored to the needs of a specific hospital, said Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chair David Tangipa, a Fresno Republican, who voted for the bill nonetheless.

“It says 10 days. Why not put it at 30 days?” he said. “They needed to make sure that even though it appears to be a general fund that all of these other hospitals could apply for, that probably only one hospital met all of those qualifications.”

Neither Laird nor the finance department staff was able to explain how they came up with the criteria, including why they picked 10 days — instead of any other number — of cash on hand to indicate a dire enough financial situation. Hospital administrators said the typical goal is at least 90 days of cash on hand.

The ambiguity frustrated some state lawmakers, who repeatedly pressed for clarity during the budget hearing. Sen. Chris Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat, called the lack of answers “profoundly disturbing.”

“It’s been one long ‘I said what I said’ hearing,” he said. Still, he voted for it.

Others lamented that the criteria, especially the 10-day threshold, should have been expanded to allow more hospitals to compete for the funding.

“Right now, it’s far too narrow, and really by this time the hospital has gone over the cliff,” Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a Los Angeles Democrat, told CalMatters in an interview. She, too, voted for it. “We want to figure out who’s standing on the cliff, who’s a few feet from the cliffs, who’s a mile from the cliff.”

The $25 million grant comes as hospitals across California, particularly in rural areas, say they are at risk of dropping services or shutting their doors due to rising labor costs and federal Medi-Cal funding cuts.

The funding woes sparked calls for renewed funding for the state’s Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which in 2023 gave 16 financially distressed hospitals nearly $300 million. Of those, 15 have asked for more time to repay the debt, and nine of them have also applied for loan forgiveness, according to the California Health Facilities Financing Authority.

The California Hospital Association, which represents nearly 400 hospitals, is sponsoring a bill to put another $300 million into the loan program. Senate Democrats proposed $200 million in funding in mid-April but have not specified if the dollars would be a loan or a grant.

Newsom proposed up to $50 million toward hospitals in “immediate and significant financial distress” in 2026-27 in his budget revision Thursday.

A few hospitals plan to apply

Watsonville Community Hospital, which has publicly shared its financial struggles, reported having 8 days of cash on hand in the last quarter of 2025, according to the most recent financial records collected by the state. The hospital received an $8.3 million state loan in 2023 as part of the distressed hospital program lawmakers passed that year. When asked about the hospital, Laird said the hospital is “quite likely” to be eligible.

“This is critically important for the hospital as we navigate fiscal challenges brought on by funding delays and cutbacks at the federal level,” hospital spokesperson Jennifer Murray said in an email.

Hospitals in the Central Valley and rural Southern California also could benefit from the grant, according to Laird.

Madera Community Hospital told CalMatters it intends to apply for a slice of the grant money. The hospital reopened its doors in March 2025 after closing at the start of 2023. American Advanced Management, the company that took over the hospital, received $57 million from the state to reopen it. State data show the hospital ended 2025 with two days of cash on hand.

Delays in reimbursements and low patient volume in its outpatient clinics are contributing to Madera Community’s slower-than-expected recovery, said Matthew Beehler, a spokesperson for the hospital. He said Madera Community is still working on contracting with some insurers and is not yet receiving funds from the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, a state-federal supplemental payment program for hospitals that serve a high number of Medi-Cal and uninsured patients. State data show that in 2022, before the hospital closed, it relied on more than $16 million in supplemental payments.

The $57 million from the state, Beehler said, helped cover the hospital’s first six months of operations. Beyond that, American Advanced Management has covered the shortfalls.

“I think that we are headed towards the path of real sustainability for the hospital,” Beehler said. “It just takes time to have all that sort of reach its state of equilibrium.”

In the Eastern Sierra, Dr. Kevin Flanigan, CEO of the Southern Inyo Healthcare District, said he, too, plans to apply for the state’s emergency grant. He said his hospital needs about $1 million to get through 2026. However, he does not know if his hospital will qualify given the 10 days of cash on hand criteria. He said Southern Inyo’s cash balance fluctuates anywhere between 18 to 20 days of cash to 8 to 10 days — grim in either case.

If his hospital doesn’t qualify for a grant? “Then God willing, we find money elsewhere. If not, we begin the process of closing certain things,” Flanigan said. Southern Inyo is a small hospital, with only four acute care beds, 30 skilled nursing beds and an outpatient clinic; there isn’t much to cut from, he said.

“We are clearly one of the most precarious hospitals in the state.”

Unanswered questions

Laird told CalMatters he is confident the $25 million will be enough to save hospitals facing the most imminent threat of closure.

But it’s unclear how he and the finance department arrived at the dollar amount. Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said the figure represents the administration’s “best assessment of potential funding needs” and is partly based on the Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which gave 16 hospitals an average of $19 million each to keep them afloat for several years.

Laird said the amount was based on the number of hospitals legislators “informally” think would be eligible. Whatever is left untapped by June 30 would revert back to the state, he said, and legislators could add more funding if it runs out.

“It is what we think is necessary now,” Laird said.

The Department of Health Care Access and Information collects and publishes financial data from hospitals quarterly, but that data lags. Which hospitals qualify for the grant will depend largely on their self-reported finances as of April 15, the department said.

Many state lawmakers want more answers, too. Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican, grilled finance department staff over the bill details.

“How long is this lifeline going to last? Is it even going to save the people who are in the 10-day timeframe?” she asked.

“That is the intent,” said Lupe Manriquez of the Department of Finance.

“I know it’s the intent. Is it going to save them?” Grove pressed.

“That’s the goal,” Manriquez answered.

Cabaldon told the staff he wouldn’t even bother asking about the criteria because “I already know what the answer is going to be.”

“It is incumbent on this committee to be able to have real answers to the questions that are posed about the why and the evidence,” Cabaldon said. “We are not having a conversation. We are asking questions of fulfilling our constitutional role in this process and getting zero answers.”

Palmer called the heat on his staff “undignified sniping and sarcasm,” noting that the bill originated from the same legislative chamber that’s now questioning it.

“They asked for our assistance in the expedited consideration of the bill outside of the regular budget process — and we complied and cooperated,” Palmer said in an email. “If members were either unable or unwilling to do some basic homework on their own bill that they wanted to be put on a fast track, then that’s a question that’s better posed to them — not us.”

How long a lifeline?

But throwing money at hospitals to keep them afloat is not the answer, some lawmakers argued.

“We can’t just keep giving $25 million handouts over 10 days where a hospital is looking to close,” Smallwood-Cuevas said, noting that President Donald Trump’s H.R. 1, which sharply reduces federal spending on Medicaid, could devastate hospitals.

“What is the state doing to identify and support vulnerable safety net hospitals before they reach the point of fiscal crisis? That is an answer I want to hear.”

Some hospital administrators also called for longer-term solutions. Katherine Burnworth, board president of the Imperial Valley Healthcare District, which oversees Imperial County’s two hospitals, told CalMatters that while she appreciates state action, $25 million statewide “is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the problem.”

“That may help a small number of hospitals avoid a near-term emergency, but it does not address the ongoing instability that communities like ours live with year after year,” Burnworth said.

While acknowledging the importance of emergency grants, Republicans on the committee argued that California has shortchanged hospitals’ Medi-Cal reimbursements. The California Hospital Association estimates that hospitals are reimbursed 74 cents for each dollar they spend on Medi-Cal patients. Hospitals that see a high share of Medi-Cal patients do get supplemental payments to help offset some of the gaps in reimbursement.

The GOP lawmakers also said that some state regulations, such as a minimum wage hike for health care workers and the requirement that all hospitals comply with new seismic safety requirements by 2030, will burden hospitals with high costs.

“We are throwing Band-Aids on everything, when really we need to just get together and fix the issues of what are the unfunded state mandates that are on our hospitals right now,” Tangipa said.

The post California lawmakers rush $25 million to hospitals without knowing who qualifies appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

While the former Hollywood mogul has been convicted of other sex crimes on two U.S. coasts and remains behind bars, the mistrial leaves the New York rape charge in limbo. Weinstein appeared expressionless as court officers ushered him out in his wheelchair.

The majority-male Manhattan jury had been weighing whether Weinstein raped Jessica Mann, a hairstylist and actor. Weinstein’s lawyers argued that the encounter was consensual. It happened in 2013 during a fraught relationship between the then-married Weinstein and the decades-younger Mann.

A juror, Josh Hadar, told reporters that he and eight others wanted to acquit Weinstein. He said Mann had an “incredible memory” when she testified for the prosecution but “forgot a lot of things” when questioned by defense attorneys.

Weinstein’s defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo called it “a great day for our jury system.”

Juror Sarae Perez, 25, said the threshold for a conviction — beyond a reasonable doubt — was on her mind.

“There were places where we couldn’t trust her word for it,” she said.

Mann said in a statement that the mistrial “doesn’t in any way detract from the truth I told.” She said she relived painful moments and faced public attacks while seeking justice because “the power of predators remains too great.”

No immediate decision about a fourth trial

Signs of a split jury emerged a few hours into their third day of deliberations, when they sent a note saying they couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict. Judge Curtis Farber told them to keep trying, a common step when a jury first says it’s stuck.

More than an hour later, they sent another note saying: “We feel that no one is going to change where they stand.”

A hearing was set for June 24 to learn whether prosecutors will choose to go to a fourth trial. District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he was disappointed with the result but “we deeply respect the jury system.”

Bragg said his staff will consult Mann about another trial and also take into account what happens to Weinstein when he’s sentenced in another case. Mann was not in court when the mistrial was declared.

How the case returned for a third trial

As an Oscar-winning movie producer and studio boss, Weinstein was one of Hollywood’s most powerful figures and a significant Democratic donor before the long-suppressed sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations against him cascaded into public view in 2017. The revelations galvanized the #MeToo movement ’s demands for accountability for sexual misconduct, made Weinstein a pariah, bankrupted the studio and ultimately led to criminal charges against him in New York and Los Angeles.

He was convicted of some and acquitted of others. Yet Mann’s allegation lingered. Weinstein was convicted of the charge in 2020. Then an appeals court overturned that verdict, and jury deliberations broke down at a 2025 retrial. That paved the way for this year’s retrial.

Weinstein has said he was unfaithful to his then-wife and “acted wrongly, but I never assaulted anyone.”

Jury heard from Weinstein’s accuser

Mann, now 40, met Weinstein at a Los Angeles party in early 2013, when she hoped to build a handful of acting credits into a big career. He took interest and soon showed that it wasn’t purely professional.

She said his initial, pushy overtures discomfited her, but she acceded to them and decided to develop a relationship with him.

She was staying with a friend at a Manhattan hotel in March 2013 when Weinstein showed up early for a planned breakfast and got a room over her objections, Mann testified. She said she accompanied Weinstein to the room to talk and made it clear she didn’t want sex.

“I said ‘no,’ over and over, and I tried to leave,” she told jurors during five days of intense testimony.

She said that Weinstein blocked her from leaving and grabbed her arms. Scared, she gave up protesting, complied with his demands to undress, and laid on a bed while he went into a bathroom, she told jurors. Then, Mann said, he raped her.

Mann told no one for years about the alleged rape. Nor did she mention it in her introspective, private writing two days later. In a note to herself, she grappled with conflicted feelings about becoming “emotionally attached” in a nonexclusive relationship with a man she didn’t name.

After Weinstein’s new lawyers confronted Mann with the note, she said she hadn’t needed to write down the allegation.

The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they choose to make their names public, as Mann has done.

Weinstein defense: Mann was supportive

Weinstein didn’t testify. In his lawyers’ telling, Mann was a willing partner in a close, supportive relationship with a show-business insider who opened doors for her, but she turned on him once he became an outcast.

In the months and years after the New York encounter, Mann kept seeing and communicating with Weinstein.

At times, she pulled away to pursue and preserve a relationship with a new boyfriend, according to her emails and testimony. At other times, she turned back to Weinstein, who validated her acting dreams, told her he was proud of her and responded caringly when her father was terminally ill.

“I love u. Anything u need,” Weinstein wrote.

Over the years, he helped Mann land a movie audition — it went nowhere — and a hairstyling job. She asked him for help with such things as a car problem and a club membership, though she declined a package his office tried to send in summer 2013, when she couldn’t make rent. Mann said she understood the envelope contained $1,000 in cash.

In one of her last emails to Weinstein, in February 2017, she wrote: “I love you, always do. But I hate feeling like a booty call.” When he responded by suggesting she was “joking” and should stop using his company email, she said it was a joke and apologized.

Eight months later, she saw the news reports that propelled his downfall and ultimately prompted her to go to police.

Mann never sued Weinstein, but after his 2020 conviction, she filed for and got about $500,000 from a sexual misconduct settlement fund set up during his company’s bankruptcy. The payout was mentioned at last year’s retrial, but the defense didn’t raise it this time after extensive arguments about what could and couldn’t be said.

The post Judge declares a mistrial in Harvey Weinstein’s rape retrial after jury deadlocks appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Newsom is eager to safeguard programs that have defined his tenure as the leader of the nation’s most populous state and one of the world’s largest economies. As he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2028, the Democrat is promoting the budget as fiscally responsible, saying it protects California’s values but also builds up the state’s rainy day funds — a pointed rebuke to critics who say the state spends more than it has.

The state’s spending has grown more than $100 billion since 2020, according to legislative budget analysts.

“We’re cutting deficits. But we’re not cutting corners,” Newsom said.

Newsom can’t seek a third term and will leave office in January.

Revenues, driven mostly by the booming stock market and the artificial intelligence industry, are $16.5 billion higher than projections in January. That will help the state avoid a $2.9 billion deficit projected in January, guarantee no budget hole next year and cut the shortfall the following year in half, his office said. Newsom also wants to set aside $9.7 billion in a holding account to help balance future budgets.

California faced tens of billions of dollars in budget deficits several years in a row, forcing painful cuts last year such as a rollback on a promise to provide free healthcare to low-income immigrants without legal status. Nonpartisan budget analysts previously projected the state will see budget holes upward of $20 billion each year in the next few years. Newsom and the analysts sometimes differ in their estimations.

Still, Democrats are bracing for federal funding cuts in healthcare and the impacts of high costs on everything from gas to energy because of the war in Iran. State officials repeatedly have said California can’t backfill all the federal dollars.

Republican lawmakers said Newsom’s plan didn’t go far enough to address future budget problems. Republicans are largely excluded from budget negotiations because Democrats have supermajorities in both chambers.

“Governor Newsom appears to define fiscal success narrowly: if the budget doesn’t collapse on his watch, it’s a balanced one,” Assemblymember David Tangipa said in a statement.

Newsom also blasted President Donald Trump and his policies, including in his budget presentation a photo depicting the president and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as characters in the movie “Dumb and Dumber.” Trump “doesn’t particularly give a damn about the financial situation of the average American,” Newsom said.

The budget proposal will officially kick off the final stretch of negotiations between Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature, who have to pass a budget by the end of June.

State lawmakers this year are considering several proposals to increase taxes on corporations to help with budget problems. Newsom has largely avoided raising taxes to boost revenues in past years. Now, he wants to cut fees for new small businesses, limit some tax credits starting in 2027 and impose a sales tax on some digital software and cloud-based services.

The two tax measures could generate more than $1 billion the first year of implementation, according to the governor’s estimation. Newsom is against a ballot initiative for a one-time tax on billionaires that will likely go before voters in November.

He also proposed to increase the monthly premiums for adult patients without legal status in the state-funded healthcare program, up to $50 from $30. The premiums were part of last year’s budget and are set to take effect in July for adults under 60 years old. Democrats in the Senate already signaled they will fight the plan.

California has a progressive tax system that relies on rich people, meaning it gets about half its revenues from just 1% of the population. When the economy is good, rich people pay more in taxes and revenues can soar quickly. When the economy is bad, they pay less and revenues can drop just as fast.

The state could also see a revenue boost from expected upcoming initial public offerings by several major artificial intelligence companies, which are expected to be the largest IPOs in history. But legislative budget experts warned of a potential AI bubble that could worsen the state’s finances.

Newsom’s Thursday proposal also includes a $300 million plan to backfill some of the loss of government-sponsored health subsidies, a $5 billion education grant for teacher training and $100 million to help Los Angeles-area homeowners rebuild after the devastating wildfires last year.

The post Newsom outlines his final budget proposal with no deficit, new major spending appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Deputy Public Defender Derek Dillman “expressed a doubt” that his client, 35-year-old speech pathologist Ivanna Ortiz, was competent to stand trial on charges of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon after she allegedly opened fire on the singer’s Bevelry Crest property on March 8.

But after a brief closed-door hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shannon Cooley did not find there was substantial evidence of Ortiz’s mental “incompetence” and ordered criminal proceedings to continue.

A spokeswoman for the public defender’s office declined to comment outside the courtroom, noting Cooley had sealed any discussion of Ortiz’s mental health. Dillman did not offer specifics about his concerns during the portions of the hearing open to the public.

Prosecutors say the shots fired by Ortiz struck Rihanna’s home, a neighbor’s residence and an Airstream parked on the grounds. No one was hit, but Rihanna and her husband — hip-hop and actor ASAP Rocky — were inside the Airstream at the time it was shot.

Ortiz has pleaded not guilty.

Earlier on Wednesday, Ortiz sought to have Dillman fired as her attorney during a closed-door hearing before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shannon Cooley, who presumably blocked that attempt as Dillman was still representing Ortiz late Wednesday morning.

Ortiz continued to bicker with Dillman later in the day when he tried to schedule a future hearing in the case for July, demanding he “do it sooner.”

After Dillman expressed concern about his client’s mental health, Cooley cleared the courtroom so she could question the attorney for evidence of Ortiz’s purported mental illness. Typically, when a defense attorney raises questions about their client’s mental fitness, judges refer such cases to the mental health court in Hollywood. L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Alexander Bott, who is prosecuting the case, said he had never seen anything like what happened on Wednesday.

On the day of the shooting, Rihanna said Rocky was sleeping when she “suddenly heard approximately ten loud sounds like something banging on metal,” according to a police report made public in a court filing in late March.

When the shooting stopped, she grabbed Rocky “out of bed, told him they were being shot at and pushed both of them to the ground,” according to the police report. The couple then ran to their house to check on their children, the police report said.

Ortiz had made a number of disparaging posts about Rihanna on social media in the weeks leading up to the shooting.

When police arrested her in Sherman Oaks an hour after the shooting, Ortiz was carrying a black Springfield Armory rifle and two 30-round rifle magazines, according to the police report. She legally owned the firearm, according to court records.

While Ortiz declined to answer specific questions from police after her arrest, she did make a brief statement to investigators.

“Can I say one sentence?” she asked, according to the report. “I would like to say that I wasn’t attempting murder. But that’s all I wanted to say.”

The post Case of shooting at Rihanna’s home clouded by concerns over accused woman’s mental health appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The debate, broadcast on CNN, was one of their last chances to pitch themselves to voters and stand out from the pack in their primary election bids to succeed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who terms out in January. Mail voting is already underway, and voters have until June 2 to cast their ballots. The top-two vote getters will advance to the general election in November, regardless of party.

Though California hasn’t had a Republican governor in more than a decade, the specter hangs over the race as the field is still crowded with less than a month to go.

Candidates who took part in the debate include Democrats Xavier Becerra, a former health secretary for the Biden administration; Katie Porter, a former congresswoman; Tom Steyer, a billionaire climate activist; Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose; and Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles; as well as Republicans Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator; and Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff.

Here’s how they responded on some of the key issues:

Universal healthcare

The candidates sparred over whether they’d eliminate private health insurance in favor of a state-run system, an idea that has failed repeatedly in Sacramento.

Porter, who backs a government-run healthcare system, pressed Becerra on his stance since he’s wavered on the issue recently.

“Do you support CalCare — California having its own state-run, single-payer system, yes or no?” Porter asked.

Becerra gave a vague answer.

“The most important thing about having a Medicare for All plan is that it includes everyone,” he said. “What we have to do is get to the point where we are covering everyone with something like Medicare for All.”

Mahan, who opposes a state-run system, later chimed in and said Becerra “was unable to clearly answer the most important question on healthcare.”

Becerra contested: “I did answer that question.”

Steyer joined Porter in saying he’d support it, while Bianco, Hilton, and Villaraigosa said it wasn’t practical or would cost too much.

When the debate turned to healthcare access for immigrants, the candidates were divided.

Steyer, Porter and Becerra said they supported state-funded healthcare coverage for low-income immigrants without legal status, which Newsom passed then pared back. Bianco called the policy “ridiculous.”

Immigration

Other arguments about immigration fell largely along party lines.

The Democrats sharply rebuked the Trump administration’s immigration raids.

Steyer said the state should prosecute federal agents and immigration enforcement leaders who racially profile or use violence against Californians. Mahan said business owners in San Jose have lost customers because many immigrants are afraid to leave their house.

But Bianco said he supported Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions, saying agents were enforcing the law and working to deport people he referred to as “criminals” in the country illegally.

Hilton, who’s from England, pointed out that he was the only immigrant on stage. The candidates shouldn’t conflate legal and illegal immigration, he said.

“Although it is the federal government’s responsibility to determine and implement immigration policy, I think it’s important that all the laws are peacefully enforced,” Hilton said. “As governor, I would make sure that we work with the federal government to enforce our laws.”

President Donald Trump

The Democrats each emphasized they would fight Trump on immigration policy in particular.

Neither Hilton, whom Trump has endorsed, nor Bianco, invoked him much except to say that Democrats unfairly blame him for the state’s woes.

Becerra mentioned Trump the most, noting he sued the administration many times while serving as state attorney general from 2017 to 2021, when he was appointed health secretary under then-President Joe Biden.

“I’m going to repeat Donald Trump as often as I have because he’s the menace,” Becerra declared.

When Villaraigosa pressed Hilton to acknowledge Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Hilton refused to answer.

“Endlessly going on about Donald Trump doesn’t serve the needs of the struggling families and small businesses,” Hilton said.

Mahan sought to find middle ground. He said Becerra was wrong to blame high gas prices solely on Trump, but also noted that San Jose has sued the Trump administration over immigration policy. He said it was disqualifying for the Republican candidates to support Trump’s “cruel and ineffective policies.”

Porter, meanwhile, put it simply: “Donald Trump sucks.”

Gas tax and proposed billionaires tax

Steyer was the only candidate on stage to say he’d vote for a proposed billionaires tax expected to appear before voters in November. The one-time tax proposal aims to backfill funding cuts signed into law by Trump that reduced healthcare access for low-income people.

Porter also supports some increased taxes on California’s ultrawealthy but called the proposed tax a temporary fix to a long-term problem.

Meanwhile Mahan said he would suspend the gas tax because it unfairly burdens working families.

Hilton would make people’s first $100,000 free of income tax.

Mahan and Steyer said they’d tax artificial intelligence companies and use the money to support workers, for example through workforce development training.

“The answer is to tax these companies, not to regulate them to the point that they simply go to other places,” Mahan said.

The post California governor candidates clash on taxes, Trump and healthcare in lively debate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    Dr. Vinay Prasad, who led the agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), officially departed on April 30. The division is responsible for reviewing experimental vaccines and other biologic products submitted for federal approval.

    Following his exit, Katherine Szarama, previously the center’s deputy director, has been elevated to serve as acting director, according to a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

    Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, who currently leads another FDA center in an acting capacity, publicly thanked Prasad for his work, describing his tenure as “transformational” in a post on X.

    Prasad had originally been brought into FDA leadership in 2025 by Commissioner Marty Makary, following the resignation of former CBER chief Peter Marks amid reported disagreements with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr..

    A professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Prasad gained national attention during the COVID-19 pandemic for questioning aspects of federal health policy, including the broad push for vaccinations among younger populations.

    His tenure at the FDA has not been without turbulence. He initially stepped away from the agency shortly after taking the role, following scrutiny over past social media activity. According to Makary, Prasad chose to step aside at the time to avoid becoming a distraction amid media coverage.

    He later returned in August 2025 to lead CBER, with federal officials emphasizing that the agency’s work would continue despite outside criticism.

    CBER plays a central role in evaluating vaccines, gene therapies and other biologic treatments, weighing potential risks and benefits before granting approvals. In recent months, some of its decisions have drawn criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

    Sen. Ron Johnson has publicly questioned the FDA’s handling of treatments for rare diseases, including its decision not to approve ataluren for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

    The agency has also faced pushback over its rejection of a skin cancer treatment developed by Replimune. Speaking to senators in April, Kennedy said the drug appeared ineffective based on internal FDA assessments and discussions with Makary, adding that the decision was made independently by the agency.

    With new leadership now in place at CBER, attention is likely to remain on how the FDA navigates ongoing debates over drug approvals, vaccine oversight and regulatory standards.

The post FDA Vaccine Chief Vinay Prasad Steps Down, New Acting Director Named appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A federal grand jury on Friday indicted Carlos Ivan Mendoza Hernandez, who has dual citizenship in El Salvador and Mexico, on two counts of assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon and one count of damaging government property.

Patrick Kolasinski, one of his lawyers, has said Mendoza panicked and tried to flee when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents blocked his car and that he did not intend to run over anyone. Kolasinski also disputed claims by officials that his client was a suspected gang member wanted in El Salvador for questioning in relation to a murder.

Salvadoran court documents show he was acquitted of murder in El Salvador and Mendoza has denied ever being in a gang, his lawyer has said. He came to the U.S. in 2019 and has no criminal record, Kolasinski has said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Monday that Mendoza has requested a jury trial. A status conference was set for July 27.

Mendoza is recovering after several surgeries for multiple gunshot wounds, including one to the jaw, his attorney said.

The Department of Homeland Security has said ICE officers fired defensive shots at Mendoza after he tried to drive into them. DHS said the officers were conducting an enforcement stop targeting Mendoza, 36, on April 7 in Patterson, a city about 75 miles (120 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco.

It was part of a series of shootings that have occurred during the Trump administration’s aggressive push to detain and deport immigrants in the country illegally. It is also among those where questions have been raised to federal officials about the circumstances since in some shootings, video evidence contradicted immigration officials’ initial accounts.

The post A man shot by ICE in California pleads not guilty to federal charges appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, which would largely be used to offset federal funding cuts to healthcare for low-income people.

“California’s health is at stake,” said Liz Perlman, executive director of a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a major labor union. “Hospitals are closing and people will die. Why? So billionaires can get another tax cut that they don’t need.”

The California Secretary of State still has to verify the signatures and officially place the measure on the ballot. Backers say they collected more than 1.5 million signatures, well over the roughly 875,000 they needed. California allows ballot initiative campaigns to pay people per signature they gather. The cost of gathering petition signatures can vary widely, but it typically runs around $15 for each signature.

If the measure goes before voters in November, it could prompt one of the costliest ballot fights ever and will draw national attention as a litmus test for voter attitudes on raising taxes on the rich. An effort to oppose the tax has already raised millions and led to proposals designed to nullify the tax. Meanwhile, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has campaigned in support of the idea.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Silicon Valley tech moguls are adamantly opposed. They warn it will drive California’s wealthiest residents out of the state. Nearly half of California’s personal income tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. Some have already purchased properties out of state in case it passes.

“After playing with matches since October the SEIU has succeeded in lighting a ‘Tax the Rich’ wildfire by getting enough signatures,” said David Lesperance, a tax consultant who’s advised some of his wealthy clients who left California because of the proposal. “The many billionaire targets of their efforts have already responded by executing fire escape plans by relocating to other states.”

Brian Brokaw, a longtime Newsom adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said the measure was poorly constructed and would deal a huge blow to the state’s budget.

“Enacting a so-called wealth tax in just one state wouldn’t target a small group — it would impact all 40 million Californians,” he said in a statement. “This proposal trades a short-term revenue bump for long-term losses.”

At least 25 billionaires listed among Forbes magazine’s 2025 rankings of the world’s 500 wealthiest people either lived in California or had some significant ties to the state, based on a review by The Associated Press. But determining whether they were full-time residents or just frequent visitors could turn into a matter of dispute, since many of them own property elsewhere.

The big tax and spending cuts law President Donald Trump signed last year will cut more than $1 trillion nationwide over a decade from Medicaid and federal food assistance.

The post Billionaire tax proposal in California is on track to qualify for the ballot, backers say appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

She had spent three daystelling a jury that the ex-movie mogul raped her, explaining why she continued a relationship with him afterward and discussing other deeply personal aspects of her life, once sobbing so hard that court ended early. Weinstein had then been convicted, in a 2020 verdict seen as a victory for the #MeToo campaign against sexual misconduct.

Yet six years later, Mann again walked to a witness stand, passing Weinstein in court on Monday, and beginning — for a third time — to give a jury her account of what happened between them.

Mann testified that she met Weinstein at an acquaintance’s engagement party around the beginning of 2013. She said he was wearing a tuxedo and “looked very jolly, so I went up and introduced myself to him.”

Mann was living in Los Angeles and trying to break into acting, she said. Later that evening, she said, she ran into Weinstein again. She testified that he boasted about his moviemaking prowess and his ability to spot talent.

“He said I was really pretty, prettier than Natalie Portman,” Mann testified, echoing her prior testimony. She added that she ended up giving Weinstein her phone number, thinking she’d make a professional — not romantic — connection.

“He was interested in my look. I thought I just got discovered,” she said.

Weinstein denies sexually assaulting anyone. He watched from his wheelchair at the defense table as Mann testified, occasionally leaning over to talk with his lawyer. Mann only looked at Weinstein when asked to point him out in the courtroom.

Mann’s allegation of a 2013 rape in a Manhattan hotel is again up for consideration because of a series of legal switchbacks. First, Weinstein’s 2020 conviction was overturned for reasons unrelated to her testimony. Then a jury failed to decide her part of a retrial that involved multiple accusers and allegations last year, leaving only her rape charge to be tried again.

“I am ready, willing and able to endure this as many times as it takes for justice and accountability to be served,” Mann said in a statement at the time.

That determination now stands to be tested.

Mann could face days of questioning by prosecutors and Weinstein’s new lawyers. Like their predecessors, they have portrayed Mann as a canny wannabe who got involved with a Hollywood heavy-hitter, had entirely consensual sex with him, enjoyed his connections and invitations, then turned on him after news reports about other women’s claims about Weinstein. The 2017 reporting catalyzed the #MeToo movement.

Mann, 40, grew up in a small town in Washington state and trained as a hairstylist, but she yearned to pursue acting and moved to Los Angeles in her 20s. She was sometimes so broke that she lived in her car, but she had done some commercial and film work before she met Weinstein.

Thrilled that the Oscar-winning producer expressed interest in her career, Mann accepted invitations to get together, starting with a shopping trip for books about cinema, she testified. Within a couple months, she has said, Weinstein started making sexual overtures that she didn’t invite but accepted.

She has said she embarked, with jumbled feelings, on a relationship with the then-married mogul. Sometimes she appreciated his encouragement, other times she resented his sexual demands, and she was always cognizant of his career-making power.

In March 2013, Mann and a friend traveled to New York, and she arranged to meet Weinstein for breakfast with her pals. She testified at prior trials that he got her alone in a hotel room, slammed the door shut when she tried to leave and ultimately raped her, though she told him “I don’t want to do this” and “no.”

Afterward, Mann kept seeing and having what she has said were largely consensual sexual encounters with Weinstein. At points over the next roughly four years, she emailed him “miss you,” “there is no one else I would enjoy catching up with that understands me quite like you” and “I love you, always do. But I hate feeling like a booty call.”

Weinstein’s lawyers have argued that the messages show there was nothing but a caring relationship. Mann has said she was trying to manage a complicated dynamic with a volatile man.

The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted, unless they agree to be named, as Mann has done.

The post Rape accuser Jessica Mann testifies against Harvey Weinstein for a third time appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.