Only two California congressional seats are viewed as truly competitive between the parties. In the San Diego area, Republican Jim Desmond, a county supervisor, will face Democratic City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert. In the southern San Joaquin Valley, Republican Rep. David Valadao, who has repeatedly survived difficult elections, will defend his seat against progressive Democrat Randy Villegas.

Some of the most dramatic fall matchups, however, are unfolding within the same party.

In Sacramento, longtime Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui is facing her most serious challenge in two decades in Congress. Matsui, 81, will face Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, a progressive candidate nearly half her age. Vang finished ahead of Matsui in the primary vote count, though Republican voters in the district could play a role in shifting the outcome in November.

A similar generational contest may be developing in the North Bay, where Democratic investor Eric Jones is still trying to secure a general election spot against longtime Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson. Jones has criticized Thompson as ineffective and out of touch, but he trails Republican Ray Riehle in a race that remains too close to call.

Proposition 50 also forced some candidates to make unusual political calculations. Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose district was significantly redrawn, changed both district and party affiliation in an attempt to remain in Congress. Running as an independent in the Sacramento-area 6th District, Kiley advanced and will face physician and former Democratic state Sen. Richard Pan, who finished ahead of a Republican candidate in the primary.

Closer to the Inland Empire, voters in portions of Orange and Riverside counties are headed for an unusual general election between two Republican incumbents. Rep. Ken Calvert and Rep. Young Kim will face each other in the newly drawn 40th Congressional District after Proposition 50 reshaped district boundaries.

California’s vote count remains ongoing in some contests. Although voters finished casting ballots June 2, close races can take days or even weeks to resolve as counties process and count remaining ballots.

In other statewide developments, California college students enrolled in short-term job training programs may soon become eligible for expanded federal aid, but the state is not expected to have the system ready by the federal government’s July 1 target date.

The U.S. Department of Education is giving states until July 1 to launch a new financial aid program that would allow students in short-term training programs to receive federal Pell Grants. Until now, students pursuing training in fields such as automotive mechanics and information technology generally have not qualified for federal aid. Under the expansion, eligible students could receive as much as $3,000 for tuition and living costs.

California, however, is not yet prepared to administer the program. Daisy Gonzales, executive director of the California Student Aid Commission, told lawmakers in May that financial aid systems are “extremely complex.” The commission has said funds may not be available to students until weeks or months after the federal deadline. Gonzales also warned that outreach and planning will be needed so students understand how to apply, saying, “You can’t just introduce a new tool, and then say, ‘Students apply.’”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s influence over California politics is also drawing renewed attention as he weighs a likely presidential campaign. Newsom has filled more major elected posts than any California governor in recent memory, including vacancies on county boards of supervisors, three seats on the California Supreme Court and three appointments to the U.S. Senate.

Newsom first appointed Alex Padilla to the U.S. Senate after Kamala Harris resigned her seat to become vice president in 2021. After Sen. Dianne Feinstein died in 2023, he appointed Laphonza Butler to fill the vacancy. When Butler chose not to seek a full term, Newsom appointed Adam Schiff to serve the brief period before Schiff’s elected term began.

The vacancies also allowed Newsom to appoint Rob Bonta as attorney general and Shirley Weber as secretary of state. Those appointments could carry political value if Newsom seeks the Democratic presidential nomination, particularly if he faces another California contender such as Harris.

Meanwhile, State Farm is under scrutiny from California regulators over its handling of Los Angeles County fire claims. After finding widespread problems, regulators are seeking penalties and a possible license suspension for the insurer. The review follows claims tied to major Southern California fires, including the Eaton Fire in Altadena.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Generational Divide Shapes Drama in Upcoming Congressional Races appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Across Southern California and the Inland Empire, voters are also weighing in on congressional primaries that could help shape control of the U.S. House of Representatives during the final two years of President Trump’s term.

In addition to the governor’s race, the statewide ballot includes contests for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, controller, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, insurance commissioner and seats on the Board of Equalization. Voters are also choosing candidates for the California Assembly and state Senate.

Recent polling in the race for governor has shown Democrats Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer in a close contest with Republican Steve Hilton. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the November general election.

Final outcomes in competitive races may not be known tonight. California elections officials will continue counting ballots in the days ahead, and ballots postmarked by Election Day can still be counted if they arrive by June 9. The secretary of state has until July 10 to certify the results.

As vote totals are updated, results will be reported for key statewide offices, U.S. House races, California Senate contests and Assembly races.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Live Updates: California Election Results appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party. That format is especially important this year as Democrats seek to regain control of Congress and as Republicans have benefited nationally from a series of redistricting-related court decisions.

Democrats are entering the primary with optimism in California after voters approved Proposition 50, which redrew congressional boundaries and sharply reduced the number of competitive districts statewide. If Democrats win the House, they would gain the power to block President Donald Trump’s legislative priorities, scrutinize cabinet officials and pursue investigations into his administration.

Despite the broader national stakes, only two California districts are considered truly competitive: one in the San Joaquin Valley and one in San Diego County. Several other closely watched contests involve Democrats challenging fellow Democrats, often with generational and ideological divides at the center of the campaigns.

The highest-profile race is in the 22nd Congressional District, anchored by Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley. Republican Rep. David Valadao, considered one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents in the country, is seeking reelection. His lone defeat came in 2018 during Trump’s first term. As the only Republican in the race, Valadao is widely expected to secure a spot in the November runoff.

The more uncertain question is which Democrat will face him. Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a physician with extensive experience in hospitals and clinics that depend on Medi-Cal funding, is running as a pragmatic Democrat willing to break with her party. She is competing against Randy Villegas, a college professor and school board trustee who is campaigning as a progressive and has support from the Working Families Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The contest reflects a broader Democratic debate over how to win back voters who drifted away in 2024. Bains has backing from national Democrats and several current members of Congress, while Villegas is appealing to voters with a more progressive, economically populist message.

In San Diego County’s 48th Congressional District, Democrats are competing for the chance to run against Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor who has been endorsed by retiring Rep. Darrell Issa.

Two Democrats have separated themselves from the field: San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert and Ammar Campa-Najjar, a former Labor Department aide in the Obama administration who previously lost two races to Issa. Brandon Riker, a Palm Springs businessman who shifted districts after Proposition 50, is also running.

The Democratic primary has grown increasingly sharp. Von Wilpert accused Campa-Najjar of being anti-LGBTQ after he questioned whether she could appeal to voters beyond gay-friendly Palm Springs. Campa-Najjar, in turn, accused von Wilpert of racism for raising questions about his name changes and residency.

Elsewhere in California, several races are testing the staying power of longtime Democratic incumbents as younger candidates argue the party needs new leadership.

In San Francisco’s 11th Congressional District, the race to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has developed into a competition for second place. State Sen. Scott Wiener leads by double digits in public polling and is expected to advance to November. San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who received Pelosi’s endorsement two weeks before election day, and billionaire tech entrepreneur Saikat Chakrabarti are battling for the other runoff spot.

In Sacramento’s 7th Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui is facing the most serious challenge of her 20-year congressional career. Her opponent, Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, is a progressive candidate nearly half Matsui’s age and is campaigning on a message of generational change.

The reshaped 6th Congressional District in the Sacramento suburbs has also drawn attention. Democratic Rep. Ami Bera left that district to run in the newly configured 3rd District. Rep. Kevin Kiley, the incumbent in the 3rd, later left the Republican Party and entered the 6th District race as an independent.

A Democratic-sponsored poll showed Kiley leading the field, with former state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan ahead of the other Democratic candidates. Other Democrats running include Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho, Planned Parenthood public affairs executive Lauren Babb-Tomlinson and West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero.

In Wine Country’s 4th Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, 75, is seeking a 15th term while facing a challenge from 36-year-old Eric Jones, a former venture capitalist. Jones is focusing his campaign on affordability, including a proposed $10,000 middle-class tax credit and expanded access to zero-down mortgages.

Thompson is emphasizing his seniority, his work opposing the Trump administration and his record of securing federal funding for local projects. He serves as a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy. Two Republican candidates, John MacKenzie and Ray Rihele, have been heavily outspent and are not expected to advance.

In Los Angeles County’s 32nd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, 71, is seeking another term after nearly three decades representing some of the region’s affluent northwestern suburbs. His leading challenger, 42-year-old Jake Levine, argues Sherman has grown disconnected from the district.

Levine, a former climate adviser to Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, is running on a progressive platform that includes universal child care, a federal renters’ tax credit and tuition-free college.

Both Sherman and Levine are expected to move on to the November election.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California House Primaries Could Help Decide Control of Congress appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    Trump-backed candidate Ed Gallrein defeated Massie on Tuesday by a 55% to 45% margin after one of the most expensive Republican primaries in Kentucky history. More than $32 million was reportedly spent between both sides in a race that exposed growing divisions within the GOP.

    Earlier this year, Trump sharply criticized Massie on Truth Social, calling him “the WORST Republican Congressman in the long and fabled history of the United States Congress.” The president had targeted Massie for repeatedly breaking with Republican leadership on several high-profile votes.

    Despite the bitter campaign, Massie remained popular among many libertarian-minded conservatives and supporters of the “America First” movement that helped fuel Trump’s rise in 2016 and again in 2024.

    During his concession speech, Massie defended his record and suggested the conflict centered around a handful of major disagreements rather than broader Republican priorities.

    “It’s only the 10% of the time they’re mad about,” Massie said. “When I won’t vote for a war, when I won’t vote for warrantless spying and when I won’t vote to bankrupt the country.”

    Those positions once aligned closely with Trump’s own campaign rhetoric, particularly his promises to reduce foreign intervention and rein in government spending. Critics now argue Massie stayed consistent while Trump’s priorities shifted after returning to office.

    One issue that reportedly intensified tensions between the two men involved the Epstein files. Trump had previously pledged to release additional documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, but later backed away from doing so. Massie then supported legislation aimed at forcing the release of the files, a move that angered many within Trump’s circle.

    Farmer and conservative commentator Joel Salatin defended Massie in a recent blog post, comparing him to former Congressman Ron Paul and praising him for resisting pressure from political insiders.

    “Massie, like Congressman Ron Paul before him, could not be bought,” Salatin wrote. “And Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, cannot abide partners who refuse to be bought.”

    Polling data also highlighted a noticeable generational divide among Republican voters in Kentucky. A Big Data Poll conducted May 15 found younger Republicans overwhelmingly backed Massie, while older voters strongly favored Gallrein.

    According to the survey, Massie received support from 81.5% of Generation Z voters and 68.6% of Millennials. Support declined among older groups, with only 38% of Baby Boomers supporting Massie. Gallrein won the Boomer vote decisively.

    Some Republican strategists worry the split could create long-term problems for the party if younger conservatives continue drifting away from establishment-backed candidates.

    At the same time, recent national polling numbers suggest broader concerns for Republicans beyond Kentucky.

    A Fox News poll released May 20 found Trump’s overall approval rating sitting at 39%. The survey showed weaker numbers on key issues, including foreign policy, the economy and inflation.

    Another national survey conducted by VoteHub showed Democrats leading Republicans by 7.5 percentage points on the generic congressional ballot, a potential warning sign ahead of the midterm elections.

    Economic concerns remain a major issue for voters across the country. Rising fuel prices, inflation and higher consumer costs continue weighing heavily on households, and political analysts note that voters often blame the party currently in power when economic conditions worsen.

    The U.S. Labor Department reported this week that producer prices climbed 6% in April compared to a year earlier, fueling concerns that additional inflation could soon hit consumers more directly.

    Trump also faced criticism after dismissing concerns over rising gas prices during a May 19 interview, calling the increases “peanuts.” Democrats are expected to use the comment heavily in campaign advertising this fall as they attempt to paint Republicans as disconnected from everyday financial struggles.

    Although Massie represented a safely Republican district that is expected to remain in GOP hands, some conservatives believe the primary battle reflected deeper frustrations inside the Republican Party over loyalty, ideology and the direction of the movement after Trump’s return to the White House.

    For now, Republicans may have secured a victory in Kentucky. But whether the costly fight strengthens or weakens the party nationally remains an open question heading into November.

The post Trump-Backed Defeat of Thomas Massie Sparks Debate Inside GOP appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Democrats voiced concern that the United States is becoming further entrenched in another lengthy conflict in the Middle East. They promised to keep raising the issue through more war powers votes in the coming weeks.

The 213-214 vote came one day after a similar effort failed in the Senate. The U.S. and Israel struck Iran on Feb. 28, and a fragile ceasefire is now in its second week.

Democrats overwhelmingly supported the attempt to rein in Trump’s use of military force.

“We’re standing at the edge of a cliff and Congress must act before the president pushes off,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.”

Republicans tried to cast the effort as hypocritical.

Florida Rep. Brian Mast, the committee chairman, said Congress never voted on a war powers resolution when the U.S. attacked Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen in 2024 while Democrat Joe Biden was president.

“When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was OK. No war power needed. It went on for about a year,” Mast said. “President Trump responds — war power, war power, war power. … That’s the hypocrisy.”

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days — a deadline in the Iran war that will arrive at the end of April. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the Republican administration to soon lay out a plan for the war’s end.

While the House vote failed, it gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight some of the most negative effects of the war: the billions of dollars spent, the death of at least 13 service members, the soaring gas prices and fissures with long-standing allies who do not support Trump’s actions.

“Gas prices at home are up to $7 in my home state, and families are hurting,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “Another 10,000 U.S. troops are being sent in to join 50,000 already stationed in the Middle East with absolutely no strategy, no plan and no exit.”

Republicans defended Trump as taking decisive action against an Iranian government that has long terrorized the Middle East and its own people.

“President Donald Trump has sent a message that those who threaten the United States and our partners will be ultimately held accountable,” said Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

In Thursday’s vote, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for removing U.S. forces from the war. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The first House vote to curb Trump’s miliary action with Iran failed in early March, 212-219.

The post House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The legislative blueprint outlines a half-dozen guiding principles for lawmakers, focusing on protecting children, preventing electricity costs from surging, respecting intellectual property rights, preventing censorship and educating Americans on using the technology.

House Republican leaders swiftly endorsed the framework and said they’re ready to work “across the aisle” to pass legislation, but doing so would be a heavy lift, requiring agreement with Democrats in the Senate as public divisions over AI run deep.

The announcement comes as state governments have forged ahead on their own regulations for AI while civil liberties and consumer rights groups lobby for more regulations on the powerful technology. The industry and the White House have pushed back, arguing that a patchwork of rules would hurt growth. Trump signed an executive order in December to block states from crafting their own regulations.

“This was in response to a growing patchwork of 50 different state regulatory regimes that threaten to stifle innovation and jeopardize America’s lead in the AI race,” said White House AI czar David Sacks in a social media post Friday.

Sacks said the next step is to work with Congress to turn the administration’s principles into federal legislation.

AI legislation could need bipartisan support to pass

While passing sweeping AI legislation will be difficult, especially in a midterm election year, the framework appeared designed to appeal to some AI-wary Republicans and Democrats with a focus on widespread and bipartisan concerns, such as the harms that AI chatbot companionship can pose to children and the electricity costs of AI infrastructure.

“It covers basically all the key sticking points I think that might stop an AI bill from moving through Congress,” said Neil Chilson, a Republican former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission who now leads AI policy at the Abundance Institute. “It reads to me as an attempt to build a larger tent, even if it doesn’t give everybody everything that they want.”

But it has already been panned by some Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who said in a statement it “fails to address key issues, including strong accountability for AI companies, under the guise of protecting children, communities, and creators. Americans need protection — but this means nothing if we allow the AI industry to be the Wild West.”

Whether AI legislation can pass both chambers of Congress could also rely heavily on the support of Republicans like U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who has introduced her own AI bill, and last year was instrumental in thwarting Trump’s earlier attempt to deter state governments from regulating AI. Blackburn on Friday called Trump’s framework a roadmap and welcomed the administration to the “important discussion” of getting a bill passed.

States already regulating AI don’t want to be preempted

Several states — including California, Colorado, Texas and Utah — have already passed laws that set some rules for AI across the private sector.

With bipartisan support in the Texas legislature, a new AI law that took effect this year in the Republican-led state requires government agencies and health care providers to disclose when they are using AI to interact with consumers or answer questions. The law also prohibits the development of AI that encourages a person to commit suicide, harm themselves, harm another person or engage in criminal activity.

A federal law following Trump’s framework “could knock out parts of Texas’s AI code while leaving some parts standing,” said Saurabh Vishnubhakat, a professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law. “The fact that it’s a Republican governor I don’t think is going to save Texas’ law from preemption.”

Also vulnerable is Colorado’s law, which is aimed at preventing AI from discriminating against people when making consequential decisions about things like hiring and medical care. It was passed in 2024 but isn’t set to take effect until later this year. Lawmakers hope to rework the regulations before then.

Colorado State Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Democrat, said voters don’t want to stifle innovation or fall behind China “but our constituents are interested in not becoming China.”

California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed some AI bills while signing into law others. His office criticized Trump’s framework Friday.

“Yet again, Donald Trump is trying to gut laws in California that keep our residents safe and protect consumers — a core state responsibility,” Newsom’s spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said in a statement.

The Trump administration says it doesn’t think Congress should preempt all state regulatory powers over AI, including enforcement of general laws against AI developers, “to protect children, prevent fraud, and protect consumers.” It also says Congress shouldn’t interfere with local authorities in deciding where to place data centers and other AI infrastructure, or how states procure their own AI tools for law enforcement or education.

However, it says states “should not be permitted to regulate AI development,” shouldn’t penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct using their product, and “should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI.”

Trump’s AI proposal appeals to concerns about data centers, copyright

As backlash against data centers has increased along with rising power prices, the White House had previously stepped up pressure on AI companies and the power sector to do more to address the issue — including having AI companies sign voluntary pledges earlier this month to build their own power generation plants.

Some AI safety advocates are pushing for Blackburn and other influential Republicans to insist on more protections against AI’s most catastrophic risks to national security or the economy, such as out-of-control AI agents or the widespread replacement of human workers.

“We have companies that explicitly are hoping to replace human labor,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a former Republican strategist who now leads The Alliance for Secure AI and believes Trump’s framework doesn’t do enough to address risks. “Tinkering at the edges with upskilling and job training is just not going to make an impact on that. I just don’t think we as a country are taking this seriously enough.”

The framework aims for a more balanced approach to another controversial topic: AI and copyright.

It recommends against wading into the legal fights between artists and creators and the technology companies that have ingested huge amounts of copyrighted works to build AI systems that can generate new text, images and sound.

The Trump administration “believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws,” according to the document, but acknowledges “arguments to the contrary exist and therefore supports allowing the Courts to resolve this issue.”

That language was welcomed by trade group AI Progress — a coalition that includes Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Midjourney and OpenAI.

Tech companies have been fighting dozens of copyright infringement lawsuits from writers and publishers, visual artists, music record labels and others. Judges have largely sided with AI developers in allowing for the “fair use” of copyrighted works to create something new, but some have questioned how the materials were obtained. A federal judge in September approved a $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and authors who allege nearly half a million books had been illegally pirated to train its chatbot.

The post White House urges Congress to take a light touch on AI regulations in new legislative blueprint appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, was advancing criminal contempt of Congress charges against both Clintons Monday evening for defying a congressional subpoena when attorneys for the Clintons emailed staff for the Oversight panel, saying the pair would accept Comer’s demands and “will appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates.”

The attorneys requested that Comer agree not to move forward with the contempt proceedings. Comer, however, said he was not immediately dropping the charges, which would carry the threat of a substantial fine and even incarceration if passed by the House and successfully prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

“We don’t have anything in writing,” Comer told reporters, adding that he was open to accepting the Clintons’ offer but “it depends on what they say.”

The last-minute negotiating came as Republican leaders were advancing the contempt resolution through the House Rules Committee — a final hurdle before it headed to the House floor for a vote. It was potentially a grave moment for Congress, the first time it could hold a former president in contempt and advance the threat of prison time.

Comer earlier Monday rejected an offer from attorneys for the Clintons to have Bill Clinton conduct a transcribed interview and Hillary Clinton submit a sworn declaration.

Comer was insisting that both Clintons sit for sworn depositions before the committee in order to fulfill the panel’s subpoenas. A letter from the committee to attorneys for the Clintons indicates that they had offered for Bill Clinton to conduct a 4-hour transcribed interview on “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein” and for Hillary Clinton to submit a sworn declaration.

“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said.

The former president and secretary of state had resisted the subpoenas for months after the Oversight panel issued subpoenas for their testimony in August as it opened an investigation into Epstein and his associates. Their attorney had tried to argue against the validity of the subpoena.

However, as Comer threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings, the Clintons started negotiating towards a compromise. The Republican-controlled Oversight committee advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month. Nine of the committee’s 21 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the charges against Bill Clinton as they argued for full transparency in the Epstein investigation. Three Democrats also supported advancing the charges against Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein has reemerged as a focal point for Republicans amid the push for a reckoning over Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 in a New York jail cell as he faced sex trafficking charges.

Clinton, like a bevy of other high-powered men, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He has not been accused of wrongdoing in his interactions with the late financier.

The Clintons remained highly critical of Comer’s decision, saying he was bringing politics into the investigation while failing to hold the Trump administration accountable for delays in producing the Department of Justice’s case files on Epstein.

“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” a spokesperson for the Clintons, Angel Ureña, said in response to Comer’s threats on Monday. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care.”

Still, the prospect of a vote raised the potential for Congress to use one of its most severe punishments against a former president for the first time. Historically, Congress has given deference to former presidents. None has ever been forced to testify before lawmakers, although a few have voluntarily done so.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said earlier Monday that his caucus would have a discussion on the contempt resolutions later in the week but remained noncommittal on whipping votes against them.

Jeffries said he was a “hard no” on contempt and accused Comer of focusing on political retribution rather than investigating the delayed release of case files. Democrats also say the Justice Department has not yet released all the material it has on the late financier.

“They don’t want a serious interview, they want a charade,” Jeffries said.

The post Clintons agree to testify in House Epstein investigation before contempt of Congress vote appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a speech in which he angrily pushed back on criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war that has cleaved the Democratic Party and disrupted American college campuses, Mr. Netanyahu linked Israel’s security directly to that of the United States, insisting: “We’re not only protecting ourselves; we’re protecting you.”

“Our enemies are your enemies; our fight is your fight; and our victory will be your victory,” Mr. Netanyahu said, emphasizing the strategic role of Israel in countering Iran.

The fact of Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was almost as notable as anything he said. In the face of increasing international censure and dissent both in Israel and in the United States, Mr. Netanyahu was seeking to use Congress to lift his sagging political fortunes — and leaders in both parties obliged with a bipartisan invitation to receive him.

But in the House chamber as he spoke, there was clear evidence of how the longstanding bipartisan consensus to back Israel has eroded in Congress since the Hamas attack of Oct. 7 and the offensive in Gaza that followed. Dozens of Democratic members, including two top senators and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker, boycotted the speech. Vice President Kamala Harris declined to preside, as is traditional for the vice president, citing a scheduling conflict.

And Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan and the first Palestinian American member of Congress, held up a sign as Mr. Netanyahu spoke that read “war criminal” on one side and “guilty of genocide” on the other.

Outside, more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators massed on streets near the Capitol, some wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs, chanting for the United States to stop arming Israel. As they hoisted signs calling Mr. Netanyahu a “war criminal” and the “prime minister of genocide,” some clashed with police who used pepper spray to disperse the crowd and a few burned an effigy of him.

Inside the House chamber, the standing ovations Mr. Netanyahu received were mostly partisan, as Republicans applauded loudly and Democrats hung back, some clapping and others sitting silently and stone-faced. The speech appeared to be aimed at an Israeli audience to demonstrate that his leadership is critical for the state’s well-being and its future.

The bipartisan split in support for him is deeply concerning for Israel’s future, experts said.

“The one adhesive that has maintained the resilience of the relationship is bipartisanship,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator and adviser in Republican and Democratic administrations. “That is under extreme stress.”

He added: “If you have a Republican view and two or three Democratic views about what it means to be pro-Israel, the nature of the relationship is going to change.”

Mr. Netanyahu appeared aware of those politics in trying to strike a bipartisan tone.

He emphasized that Israel is a strategic asset and deserves America’s support, in a speech in which he praised both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump. He did not mention Ms. Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, whom he is set to meet later this week.

“He came to Israel to be with us in our darkest hour,” Mr. Netanyahu said of Mr. Biden, thanking him for being a self-proclaimed “proud Irish American Zionist.”

In a roughly hourlong address, Mr. Netanyahu graphically described what happened on Oct. 7, when 3,000 Hamas terrorists stormed into Israel. “They burned babies alive,” he said.

And he placed the war in context with the struggles of Jews throughout history, including the Holocaust. “After Oct. 7, ‘Never Again’ is now,” he said, emphasizing the historical right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.

In a nod to the deep political divisions the war has sown in the United States, Mr. Netanyahu condemned Americans who have protested his tactics — including large swaths of the Democratic Party — equating criticism of his conduct of the war with sympathy for terrorists.

“Many choose to stand with evil, they stand with Hamas, they stand with rapists and murderers,” Mr. Netanyahu said of pro-Palestinian protesters. “They should be ashamed of themselves.”

He received raucous cheers for calling the protesters outside “Tehran’s useful idiots.”

“For all we know, Iran is funding the anti-Israel protests that are going on right now, outside this building,” he added.

Above all, Mr. Netanyahu sought to claim the moral high ground as he spoke to lawmakers, thanking them for their support against Hamas.

“Give us the tools faster and we’ll finish the job faster,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

He wore a yellow ribbon in honor of the hostages, even though experts in the region said he was more responsible than anyone else in the country for blocking a deal that would bring them home, because of his own political calculations. He singled out Israeli soldiers seated in the chamber for their heroism, including one who immigrated from Ethiopia and one from Israel’s Bedouin community.

“These are the soldiers of Israel — undaunted, unbowed, unafraid,” he said.

Mr. Netanyahu’s visit was fraught for Democrats, some of whom wanted to show support for the state of Israel while at the same time criticizing its current leader. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, did not shake hands with Mr. Netanyahu when he entered the chamber.

“Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2,100 years ago,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said in a statement ahead of the speech. Still, he sat in the chamber, and rose to applaud Mr. Netanyahu throughout his speech.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel advocacy group, immediately criticized the speech for what it failed to do. “The speech was devoid of an actual plan for ending the war and bringing real security and peace to the region,” he said in a statement. “His empty calls for ‘total victory’ are simply an illusion as there is no military solution to the underlying conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.”

A few Republicans also did not attend.

Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Mr. Trump’s running mate, was on the campaign trail. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, said that he would not attend the speech, denouncing the event as “political theater.” In a social media post, Mr. Massie said “the purpose of having Netanyahu address Congress is to bolster his political standing in Israel.”

The post Netanyahu Delivers a Forceful Defense of Israel to Applause in Congress appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government’s gross national debt has surpassed $34 trillion, a record high that foreshadows the coming political and economic challenges to improve America’s balance sheet in the coming years.

The U.S. Treasury Department issued a report Tuesday logging U.S. finances, which have become a source of tension in a politically divided Washington that could possibly see parts of the government shutdown without an annual budget in place.

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed last June to temporarily lift the nation’s debt limit, staving off the risk of what would be a historic default. That agreement lasts until January 2025. Here are some answers to questions about the new record national debt.

HOW DID THE NATIONAL DEBT HIT $34 TRILLION?

The national debt eclipsed $34 trillion several years sooner than pre-pandemic projections. The Congressional Budget Office’s January 2020 projections had gross federal debt eclipsing $34 trillion in fiscal year 2029.

But the debt grew faster than expected because of a multi-year pandemic starting in 2020 that shut down much of the U.S. economy. The government borrowed heavily under then President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden to stabilize the economy and support a recovery. But the rebound came with a surge of inflation that pushed up interest rates and made it more expensive for the government to service its debts.

“So far, Washington has been spending money as if we had unlimited resources,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at Loyola Marymount University. “But the bottom line is there is no free lunch,” he said, “and I think the outlook is pretty grim.”

The gross debt includes money that the government owes itself, so most policymakers rely on the total debt held by the public in assessing the government’s finances. This lower figure — $26.9 trillion — is roughly equal in size to the U.S. gross domestic product.

Last June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in its 30-year outlook that publicly held debt will be equal to a record 181% of American economic activity by 2053.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT TO THE ECONOMY?

The national debt does not appear to be a weight on the U.S. economy right now, as investors are willing to lend the federal government money. This lending allows the government to keep spending on programs without having to raise taxes.

But the debt’s path in the decades to come might put at risk national security and major programs, including Social Security and Medicare, which have become the most prominent drivers of forecasted government spending over the next few decades. Government dysfunction, such as another debt limit showdown, could also be a financial risk if investors worry about lawmakers’ willingness to repay the U.S. debt.

Foreign buyers of U.S. debt — like China, Japan, South Korea and European nations — have already cut down on their holdings of Treasury notes.

A Peterson Foundation analysis states that foreign holdings of U.S. debt peaked at 49 percent in 2011, but dropped to 30 percent by the end of 2022.

“Looking ahead, debt will continue to skyrocket as the Treasury expects to borrow nearly $1 trillion more by the end of March,” said Peterson Foundation CEO Michael Peterson. “Adding trillion after trillion in debt, year after year, should be a flashing red warning sign to any policymaker who cares about the future of our country.

HOW COULD IT AFFECT ME?

The debt equates to about $100,000 per person in the U.S. That sounds like a lot, but the sum so far has not appeared to threaten U.S. economic growth.

Instead, the risk is long term if the debt keeps rising to uncharted levels. Sohn said a higher debt load could put upward pressure on inflation and cause interest rates to remain elevated, which could also increase the cost of repaying the national debt.

And as the debt challenge evolves over time, choices may become more severe as the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid increasingly outstrip tax revenues.

When it could turn into a more dire situation, is anyone’s guess, says Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, “but if and when that happens, it could mean very significant consequences that occur very quickly.”

“It could mean spikes in interest rates, it could mean a recession that leads to lots more unemployment. It could lead to another bout of inflation or weird going on with consumer prices —several of which are things that we’ve experienced just in the past few years,” he said.

HOW DO REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DIFFER?

Both Democrats and Republicans have called for debt reduction, but they disagree on the appropriate means of doing so.

The Biden administration has been pushing for tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations to reduce budget deficits, in addition to funding its domestic agenda. Biden also increased the budget for the IRS, so that it can collect unpaid taxes and possibly reduce the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years.

Republican lawmakers have called for large cuts to non-defense government programs and the repeal of clean energy tax credits and spending passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. But Republicans also want to trim Biden’s IRS funding and cut taxes further, both of which could cause the debt to worsen.

A Treasury Department representative did not respond to a request for comment.

Akabas said, “There is growing concern among investors and rating agencies that the trajectory we’re on is unsustainable — when that turns into a more dire situation is anyone’s guess.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post US national debt hits record $34 trillion as Congress gears up for funding fight appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — For many Americans, the Republican dysfunction that has ground business in the U.S. House to a halt as two wars rage abroad and a budget crisis looms at home is feeding into a longer-term pessimism about the country’s core institutions.

The lack of faith extends beyond Congress, with recent polling conducted both before and after the leadership meltdown finding a mistrust in everything from the courts to organized religion. The GOP internal bickering that for nearly three weeks has left open the speaker’s position — second in line to the presidency — is widely seen as the latest indication of deep problems with the nation’s bedrock institutions.

“They’re holding up the people’s business because they’re so dysfunctional,” said Christopher Lauff, 57, of Fargo, North Dakota.

Part of that business, he said, is approving money for Ukraine to continue its fight against Russia’s invasion, something he says ultimately helps the U.S. — a point President Joe Biden stressed Thursday during an Oval Office address.

“We’re usually the knight in shining armor, but we can’t be that now,” said Lauff, a Democrat.

The disdain for Congress is just one area where Americans say they are losing faith. Various polls say the negative feelings include a loss of confidence or interest in institutions such as organized religion, policing, the Supreme Court, even banking.

“Trust in institutions has deteriorated substantially,” said Kay Schlozman, professor of political science at Boston College. Schlozman said she believes in government and the things it provides, such as national defense and access to health care, but “I also can very much understand why the American people can be cynical about government.”

The turmoil in the House and the federal case against Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who is facing charges for bribery, show that both major parties are contributing to the dour outlook.

The House has been without a permanent leader since early October after a small cadre of right-wing Republicans pushed out a member of their own party, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Subsequent attempts to replace him have failed.

“That is an example of exactly the kind of thing that I would say can’t foster trust of government among the American people — the multiple votes, the fractiousness within parties, of people being personally ambitious and not being willing to compromise” Schlozman said.

About half of adults (53%) say they have “hardly any confidence at all” in the people running Congress, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that was conducted in October. That’s in line with 49% who said that in March. Just 3% have a great deal of confidence in Congress, virtually unchanged from March.

About 4 in 10 adults (39%) have hardly any confidence in the executive branch of the federal government, compared with 44% in March. Most Republicans (56%) have low levels of confidence in the executive branch — which is overseen by a member of the opposing party, Democrat Joe Biden — compared with just 20% of Democrats.

About a third of adults (36%) say they have hardly any confidence in the conservative-majority Supreme Court, a figure that has remained steady in recent months. The polling reinforces that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their confidence in the Supreme Court is low. Black Americans are more likely than Americans overall, as well as more likely than white or Hispanic adults, to have hardly any confidence in the nation’s highest court.

One-third of U.S. adults (33%) continue to have low levels of confidence in the Justice Department, with Republicans having less confidence than Democrats. This comes as former President Donald Trump rails against the department after being charged with mishandling classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Rick Cartelli, 63, a health care worker in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, who identifies as an independent, said he is happy with his local and state government but the current environment, especially the chaos on Capitol Hill, has wiped out what little confidence he had in that institution.

“What is happening now is not good for the country at all,” he said.

Cartelli also said he has little confidence in the executive branch, citing what he says are “mental lapses” by Biden that “are only probably going to become more and more pronounced.”

Multiple AP-NORC polls from earlier this year find that the dearth of confidence is pervasive, spreading to organized religion, the government’s intelligence gathering and diplomatic agencies, as well as financial institutions. Slightly fewer than half (45%) in a study from AP-NORC and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights said they have little or no confidence that the news media is reporting news fully, accurately and fairly.

Views on the military were best, with just 17% saying they have hardly any confidence in it.

Kathleen Kersey, a 32-year-old health care worker in Brunswick, Georgia, who is a Republican, said she has little confidence in any of the federal entities, including Congress, but has more for the institutions closer to home. She also is a fan of Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, who she said is a moral man.

“There’s only so much one person can do, and just with all the evil, it’s hard to have confidence in anything really, even the churches because everything works together as one,” she said.

Confidence in the country’s foundational institutions has ebbed and flowed historically, though there’s been a long-term downward trend since at least the 1970s. Trust in government waned in the era of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers before making a slight recovery during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s — despite Reagan’s famous declaration that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

David Bateman, an associate professor of government at Cornell University, said the tea party movement during former President Barack Obama’s term was the beginning of a steadier decline in confidence, as noted in polling from Gallup. But Bateman believes the most acute problem in recent years has been Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, despite dozens of courts rejecting his claims and multiple audits and reviews in the swing states where he disputed his loss.

“The biggest threat to trust in institutions was the Trump campaign’s refusal to concede the election and insistence that they had won,” along with a large segment of the Republicans in Congress going along with the claim in the certification process, Bateman said.

“That validated the idea that the whole institutional system is rigged, which it isn’t,” he said.

He said an example of the fallout is the Republican attack on the Justice Department, including the FBI. The “weaponization” of the FBI has been a battle cry for Republicans who maintain it has targeted conservatives and who are incensed at the various investigations of Trump. Candidates vying against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination have said they would fire FBI Director Chris Wray.

Distrust of the FBI had long been the purview of Democrats, especially those aware of civil rights-era monitoring.

“If you told me in 2000 that Republicans are going to be saying you can’t trust the FBI, I would have been shocked,” Bateman said. “Going after the FBI has been a real ratcheting up of distrust.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Americans’ faith in institutions has been sliding for years. The chaos in Congress isn’t helping appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.