In the governor’s race, speculation had circulated about the possibility of two Republicans, or perhaps two Democrats, advancing to the general election. Instead, voters may be looking at a more conventional contest between Xavier Becerra, the Democratic front-runner, and Republican Steve Hilton, the former Fox News host.

That kind of matchup is common under California’s top-two system, even though the rules allow the two highest vote-getters to advance regardless of party. In a state where Democrats have not lost a statewide race to a Republican since 2006 and where Democratic registration is nearly double that of Republicans, the result of many November contests can be easy to anticipate.

The question for critics and election analysts is why California does not more often produce two-Democrat general elections in statewide races.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College who has studied the top-two system, said California is strongly Democratic — but not quite Democratic enough to routinely block Republicans from November ballots.

Democratic candidates often receive around 60% of the statewide vote, Sinclair said. That is enough to make many general election results predictable, but not always enough to allow two Democrats to finish first and second in a crowded primary field.

Once the Democratic share reaches roughly 60% to 65%, same-party Democratic contests become more likely, Sinclair said. California, he said, often sits in a political middle ground where Democrats dominate statewide elections but Republicans still have enough voters to secure one of the two November spots.

California adopted the top-two primary after voters approved the system in 2010. Under the rules, all candidates appear on the same primary ballot, and the top two finishers advance to the general election. Party affiliation does not determine who moves forward.

Supporters argued the system would force candidates to reach beyond their partisan bases. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the measure, said at the time that it would help reduce gridlock and partisan fighting in Sacramento. Both major political parties opposed the change.

The reform was also intended to make elections more competitive in districts dominated by one party. Instead of a lopsided Democrat-versus-Republican race, voters in a heavily Democratic district might choose between two Democrats with different policy views. The same could happen in Republican areas.

That has occurred in some races. But if the current vote counts hold, with many ballots still to be counted, several marquee statewide contests this fall are not expected to be especially competitive.

In races for lieutenant governor, attorney general, controller and treasurer, prominent and well-funded Democrats appear likely to face Republicans with steep odds in November. In congressional districts in West Los Angeles and Napa Valley, progressive challengers to moderate Democratic incumbents appear to have fallen short, leaving veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Mike Thompson on track to face Republican opponents.

There are exceptions. In the race for insurance commissioner, Democrats Jane Kim and Ben Allen currently hold the top two spots. The 2018 lieutenant governor’s race also featured two Democrats in November, and same-party matchups have occurred in some U.S. Senate races. Still, the more common result remains a traditional partisan contest.

Part of the reason is turnout. June primaries generally draw fewer voters, and those who participate are more likely to be strong partisans. Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said voters often behave as though the top-two primary is still a party primary. Democrats tend to rally around the candidate they see as the strongest Democrat, while Republicans do the same.

There may be some independent or swing voters willing to cross party lines, but McGhee said they are not numerous enough in most June elections to reshape the results.

The governor’s race offered one example. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat, campaigned on concerns about extremism in both parties, focused on economic issues and pledged to rein in state spending by his own party. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, a critic of the top-two system who voted for Mahan, said the mayor seemed like the sort of candidate the system was built to elevate.

Mahan received about 4% of the vote.

“At the end of the day,” Maviglio said, “voters are partisan.”

Same-party contests are more common at the legislative and congressional district level, where one party may dominate a particular region far more than it does statewide. In parts of the Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and other liberal areas, two Democrats are on track to face each other in November.

Christian Grose, a political science professor at USC, said that over the past decade about one-third of legislative general elections in California have featured two candidates from the same party.

That can allow voters to weigh differences in policy, temperament or effectiveness rather than simply voting by party, Grose said. But it can also lead voters to make decisions based on factors less connected to governing, including race or gender.

In a 2020 paper, Grose found that candidates in top-two states have an incentive to move toward the political center, suggesting the system may have moderating effects even when it does not produce a same-party runoff.

The system may also make it easier for independents to compete. In a newly drawn swing district northeast of Sacramento, Rep. Kevin Kiley, described as a former Republican turned independent, appears to have finished first in his race. Running without major party backing can be more viable in a nonpartisan primary than in a traditional party primary.

Still, the top-two system has drawn criticism for creating opportunities for strategic maneuvering and unusual results.

Tom Charron, co-founder of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition, said the system can encourage candidates or outside groups to boost opponents they believe will be easier to defeat in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom used that strategy in 2018, signaling support to Republican voters for John Cox, whom he viewed as a more favorable general election opponent than Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2024, a super PAC supporting Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff spent millions to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, hurting Democrat Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

The system can also produce “shutouts,” where a party with substantial support fails to place any candidate in the general election because too many candidates split the vote.

That happened in 2012, when four Democrats ran in a San Bernardino congressional race and divided the left-leaning vote. Two Republicans advanced, even though Democrats had a modest registration advantage. A decade later, in a heavily conservative state Senate district east of Fresno, too many Republican candidates split the GOP vote and allowed two Democrats to move forward.

This year, some Democrats worried a similar dynamic could unfold in the governor’s race, where a crowded Democratic field raised the possibility that Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, could claim the top two spots.

That outcome did not materialize. Becerra and Democrat Tom Steyer were well ahead of Bianco in the vote count, which Sinclair said showed how unlikely a Democratic shutout was despite the crowded field.

Sinclair said several factors could have made such a result possible: a weak or divided Democratic field, the abrupt exit of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and the lack of an endorsement from the state party or major California Democratic figures. But the concern itself may have prompted some Democratic voters to act strategically and consolidate behind candidates they believed could avoid a shutout.

The renewed debate has already prompted efforts to change the system.

Maviglio has filed a proposed ballot measure to repeal the top-two primary and return California to partisan primaries. He argues same-party general elections leave voters without a true party choice in November.

Supporters of top-two say same-party races can still provide meaningful distinctions, such as a contest between a business-aligned moderate and a progressive. But McGhee said many voters struggle to identify those ideological differences.

Others want California to move in a different direction: ranked-choice voting.

Charron’s group supports a system similar to Alaska’s, where the top four or five primary candidates advance to a ranked-choice general election. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to their next choice.

Several California cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, already use ranked-choice voting in mayoral elections.

Charron said ranked-choice voting could encourage a broader candidate field and reduce concerns about spoiler candidates dividing a party’s vote.

In May, the nonpartisan nonprofit Independent Voter Project launched an effort to bring ranked-choice voting to California through a constitutional amendment that could appear before voters in 2028.

For now, California’s primary system remains in place. But after another election cycle in which the top-two system produced more familiar partisan matchups than political surprises, the debate over whether it has fulfilled its promise is far from settled.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Did California’s Top-Two Primary Deliver on Its Promise to Reshape Politics? 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.

Federal prosecutors announced Monday that Eileen Wang, 58, of Arcadia, Calif., has been charged with one count of acting in the U.S. as an illegal agent of a foreign government and is “expected to plead guilty in the coming weeks.” The charge is punishable with up to 10 years in prison. 

“Mayor Wang admitted to acting as a foreign agent from at least 2020 through 2022 – promoting PRC propaganda in the U.S. and acting at PRC’s direction to promote their interests,” FBI Director Kash Patel posted on X. “FBI and our federal partners continue to move aggressively to root out this kind of influence in American institutions all over the country.”

Wang was elected in November 2022 to the five-member Arcadia City Council, where the mayor is selected on a rotating basis. City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto said in a statement Monday that Wang, who became mayor in February, has resigned from the council.

“The allegations at the center of this case, that a foreign government sought to exert influence over a local elected official, are deeply troubling,” Lazzaretto said, though he clarified that the charge against Wang is for actions that ended after her swearing-in, and that, after an internal review, the council can confirm that no Arcadia City finances, staff, or decision-making processes were involved. 

In a statement to the Courthouse News Service, Wang’s attorney Brian Sun said that the California politician “apologizes and is sorry for the mistakes she has made in her personal life,” adding: “Her love and devotion for the Arcadia community have not changed and did not waver.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a track record of attempting to influence other countries’ affairs to advance its interests. It has meddled in elections, targeted overseas Chinese dissidents, and conducted information and propaganda campaigns, according to government and journalistic reports.

“Individuals in our country who covertly do the bidding of foreign governments undermine our democracy,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli in the Monday announcement, adding that the plea agreement Wang has entered into is “the latest success in our determination to defend the homeland against China’s efforts to corrupt our institutions.” 

Here’s what to know.

Who is Eileen Wang?

Eileen Wang is a Chinese immigrant. According to a 2024 report in the Los Angeles Times, Wang said she moved to Southern California from China three decades ago. Wang told the paper that her mother was a Chinese medicine and acupuncture doctor, while her father was a physician in Sichuan province before working at the University of Southern California.

The LA Times report added that Wang, a mother of two, had been based in Arcadia for about two decades, and was mainly known for running an after-school program in the city called Little Stanford Academy before entering politics. About 59% of Arcadia’s 54,000 population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is Asian, while over 42% is ethnically Chinese.

Wang is the former fiancée of Yaoning “Mike” Sun, who was sentenced to four years in federal prison earlier this year for similarly acting as a covert agent for China, including, according to the U.S. Justice Department at the time, while he was serving as a campaign adviser for an unnamed candidate “who was elected to the city council of a Southern California city.” Sun was Wang’s former campaign adviser.

Wang’s case

The charge against Wang was filed on April 1, but court filings, including the plea agreement Wang entered into, were unsealed on Monday. 

According to the unsealed plea agreement, from late 2020 through at least 2022, Wang “coordinated with U.S.-based individuals” for the purpose of “promoting pro-PRC propaganda in the United States.” 

Wang is alleged to have worked with Sun, her then-fiancé, to run a website called U.S. News Center that purported to be a news source for Chinese-Americans. According to the agreement, the two “received and executed directives” from Chinese government officials to post and circulate pro-PRC content on the site. 

The document cites examples. In June 2021, after a Chinese government official contacted Wang and other individuals via messaging platform WeChat about a pre-written essay on Xinjiang, she posted it on her site and received a “thank you” from the official. In August, Wang addressed a Chinese official’s request for edits to the article; then she sent the official a screenshot of the number of views that article had amassed. After the official replied, “Great!” Wang allegedly responded: “Thank you leader.”

In November 2021, Wang communicated with John Chen, who was sentenced in November 2024 to 20 months in federal prison for acting as an illegal agent of the Chinese government in the U.S. and bribing a tax authority agent. Chen, according to court documents, previously attended high-level CCP functions, and had personally met Chinese President Xi Jinping. The plea agreement said that Wang asked Chen to share an article from her website, saying, “This is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to send.”

Wang admitted in the plea agreement that she did not notify the Attorney General that she was acting in the U.S. as an agent of China, as is required by law, and that she did not disclose that content posted on her website were based on orders from Chinese authorities.

Chinese espionage

The FBI’s website says that China employs “tactics that seek to influence lawmakers and public opinion to achieve policies that are more favorable” to them and called counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts from the Chinese government and the CCP a “grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States.”

In 2025, the House Committee on Homeland Security issued a report that found more than 60 cases of Chinese espionage or repression in the U.S. since 2021, including sending sensitive U.S. military information to the Chinese government, stealing trade secrets, and carrying out transnational repression schemes including setting up undercover Chinese police stations–which it has reportedly done worldwide.

In April, the White House also accused China of stealing on an “industrial scale” the intellectual property of U.S. artificial ​intelligence labs, as both countries race to become global leaders of AI. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) said in a statement last month that China steals between $400 billion and $600 billion of IP yearly, or about $5,000 per taxpayer.

China has routinely refuted interference, espionage, and theft accusations. It also denied that it had overseas police stations that collect information on and harass Chinese dissidents living in the U.S. and elsewhere, claiming instead that it had service centers for citizens abroad.

The post California Mayor Resigns, Admitting to Being an Agent for China appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“There are California taxpayers and American taxpayers who are being defrauded because California isn’t taking its program seriously. But also, you have people who’ve been prescribed medications that they don’t even need,” Vance said. “Sometimes they’ve had drugs put into their bodies that they don’t need because fraudsters have actually encouraged false prescriptions and false administration and medications.”

Vance, standing alongside Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the administration is also sending letters to all 50 states informing them that if they do not “effectively and aggressively prosecute Medicaid fraud in their states,” they will see federal funding cut off as well.

“We want California to get serious about this fraud,” said Vance, who President Trump named his “fraud czar” last month.

Oz called out what he said was widespread fraud in hospice services and similar in-home care programs nationally — and particularly in the Los Angeles region — and announced a six-month moratorium on new Medicare enrollment for hospices and home health agencies.

“A third of all these programs in the entire country are in Los Angeles. Ask yourself, how is that possible? It’s not,” Oz said. “They’re not that many people dying in Los Angeles. We’re not talking about California, just Los Angeles.”

He said he and others in the administration determined that “at least half of the hospices, in the entire area around Los Angeles, are fraudulent,” and had shut down 800 of them that last year had “charged the federal taxpayer $1.4 billion,” which “will no longer be paid.” That is a major increase from the 450 providers the administration said it had suspended as of last month.

The announcement was the latest attempt by the Trump administration to highlight and rein in fraud in federal healthcare benefits programs, particularly in blue states. The actions were met with immediate push back from California officials.

“We hate fraud. But that’s NOT what this is,” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office posted on the social media site X. “Vance and Oz are attacking programs that keep seniors and people with disabilities OUT of nursing homes. Pretty sick.”

Newsom’s office said that the growth of In-Home Supportive Services placements in California was “simple,” and due to California “keeping more people OUT of far more expensive nursing homes!”

Such services cover assistants who help people with daily tasks such as bathing, laundry or cooking; provide needed care such as injections under the direction of a medical professional; and accompany them to and from doctor’s appointments. A 2020 report by the California state auditor found that nearly three-quarters of IHSS caregivers assist a family member.

Newsom’s office wrote IHSS care costs $30,000 a year, while nursing home care costs $137,000 a year. “SAVING TAXPAYERS: $107K per person,” it wrote.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta also criticized the administration’s moves.

“Once again, California appears to be targeted solely for political reasons,” Bonta said. “The Trump administration is planning to defer over $1 billion in Medicaid funding for vital programs that helps seniors and people with disabilities remain safely in their homes.

“My team is carefully reviewing all available information. We have not hesitated to challenge unlawful actions by the Trump administration, and we will continue to act whenever Californians’ rights or access to critical services are threatened,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla also lashed out at the Trump administration.

“The Trump Administration is attacking California over claims that they can’t back up,” Padilla wrote on social media. “Let’s be real, this isn’t about fraud — it’s about punishing a state that didn’t vote for him. Political retribution plain and simple.”

Fraud in California’s hospice industry has been a problem for years.

Authorities in the state promised to crack down on the issue after a Times investigation in late 2020 revealed that unscrupulous providers were billing Medicare for hospice services and equipment for patients who were not actually dying — with the hospice industry in the state exploding in size.

California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, is expected to cost about $222 billion for the budget year starting July 1, including both state and federal funding. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal.

Vance, a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, has taken up his work as “fraud czar” with vigor, traveling around the country to drive home the idea that the Trump administration is working diligently to bring down healthcare costs by addressing waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant across the system.

He has said that waste and abuse is particularly prevalent in Democratic-led states such as California, New York and Minnesota.

“We have red states and blue states that go after fraud aggressively, but we also, unfortunately, have some states, mostly blue states, unfortunately, that do not take Medicaid fraud very seriously,” he said Wednesday.

Vance specifically threatened to cut off what he said is billions in federal funding for state-run fraud control units that are meant to prosecute people who abuse the system, but which he said aren’t doing the work. “This is a tool that we want the states to use, but unfortunately, a lot of states aren’t using these tools at all,” he said.

The focus on fraud comes against a backdrop of criticisms that other policy measures pushed by the administration have driven healthcare costs up or made it harder for people to access healthcare — including cuts to Obamacare subsidies and new work requirements in Medicaid, which are expected to strain hospitals around the country and led to millions of people losing healthcare coverage.

Democrats and Republicans have argued over who is to blame for rising healthcare costs, and Vance and Oz have clashed with California leaders before.

In January, Newsom filed a civil rights complaint against Oz after he posted a video accusing Armenian crime groups of carrying out widespread healthcare fraud in Los Angeles. In the video, Oz was shown driving around Van Nuys, saying about $3.5 billion worth of Medicare fraud had been perpetrated by hospice and home care businesses — and “run, quite a bit of it, by the Russian Armenian mafia.”

Newsom called Oz’s claims “baseless and racist.”

The administration previously launched investigations into potential healthcare fraud in at least five states — California, Florida, Maine, Minnesota and New York — and halted some $243 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota over fraud concerns.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has also acknowledged using errant figures to justify a fraud probe in New York, deepening concerns in the administration’s methods for identifying problematic activity.

Vance said the deferral of funds to California and the letters warning other states to get serious is not about political retribution, but a wake up call. He said the Trump administration wants to help states root out fraud and abuse, including with new technologies — but can’t do so if they are not “willing to help themselves” first.

“We don’t want to turn off any money. What we want to do is ensure that people are taking fraud seriously. We want to protect Medicaid, we want to protect Medicare,” Vance said. “But we can’t do that if the states that are administering those programs are allowing those programs to be fleeced by fraudsters.”

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

The post Vance says $1.3 billion in Medicaid payments to California will be deferred over fraud concerns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Democrat Malia Cohen has served as controller (AKA California’s chief accountant) since 2023, and has raised more than $1.2 million for the race to keep her seat. She oversees spending for a state with a budget of nearly $350 billion and one of the world’s largest economies. It’s her job to make sure the state spends wisely and efficiently. 

As the governor and the Legislature hash out a budget deal for this year, Cohen has urged caution, saying higher-than-expected spending “reinforces the need for restraint.”

Cohen also has improved the state’s ability to deliver a key financial report that was chronically late for years. Cohen made up the backlog by releasing four reports in two years, and she told CalMatters that the upcoming report (called the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report) will almost be on time — late a mere two months, compared to the years others were delayed.

While running for office in 2022, Cohen told CalMatters she planned to scrutinize the state’s homelessness spending and take a critical look at the Employment Development Department and the Department of Motor Vehicles. A 2024 report by the state auditor found that California fails to adequately track its homelessness spending.

Cohen did not meet those campaign promises. She said that’s because the state auditor had already looked at those agencies. Instead of duplicating that work, she decided to focus on improving some internal functions of the state’s financial arm. She’s in the midst of ongoing efforts  to modernize FI$Cal — the IT system that manages the state’s finances — and the system that pays state employees.

“The bottom line is that I do believe that Californians deserve to know where their money is going,” she said. “So that’s what I’m working to do.”

Cohen’s main challenger, Republican Herb Morgan, has promised to pick up the slack he says his opponent has dropped. Like Cohen promised in 2022, Morgan said if elected, he will carefully scrutinize the state’s spending on homelessness. He wants to create a system where every time a state-funded nonprofit pays for anything, that transaction goes into a state database. Then, he said, he’ll use AI to monitor those purchases and flag anything suspicious. 

As an example of how state spending can be transparently tracked, a public dashboard on his website logs his campaign donations in real time. He’s raised $367,000 as of the end of April. 

Morgan acknowledged he’s an outlier as a Republican running in a state historically dominated by Democrats. But he believes voters will look at both candidates’ qualifications instead of voting along party lines. 

“I don’t care where you are on the social spectrum, 99% of us are fiscally responsible,” he said. “It doesn’t mean cutting spending. It doesn’t mean defunding. It just means being responsible with our money. And that, I think, appeals to all political ideologies.” 

Also running is Meghann Adams, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate. A school bus driver who lives in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood, she is president of her union and manages its finances. If elected, Adams promised to expose corporate landlords that drive up rent prices, analyze the cost of imposing a single-payer Medi-Cal system and divest state investments from companies that support Israel’s war against Gaza. 

She’s raised $16,000 as of the end of April.

The post A look at the top candidates vying to be California’s controller appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The boards at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System are facing campaigns from groups that want them to pull money out of companies associated with the Trump administration, scale back investments in fossil fuels and break with private equity firms over their labor records.

The list includes electric car maker Tesla, surveillance company Palantir, private companies that operate immigrant detention centers, ExxonMobil, Chevron and private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

To some extent, divestment campaigns are routine business at CalPERS and CalSTRS, which hold assets worth a combined $1 trillion and are headquartered in the capital of a deep blue state. 

But the combination of Trump-era politics and a concerted push by labor in the Legislature to force the pension funds to open the books on private equity holdings is attracting the focus of a more diverse mix of advocates.

“It’s politics,” said Richard Costigan, a Republican who served on the CalPERS board from 2011 to 2019 as an appointee of Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. “When you look at Palantir and Tesla, it’s driven by politics. Seriously, why would you not invest in Palantir?”

The rebuttal: Despite their earnings and stock value today, the companies affiliated with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement program are taking on serious reputational risk that could backfire on the funds. Separately, they say putting money into fossil fuel companies poses hazards both for the environment and for pension systems banking on long-term investments.

The pension funds “should be aligning their investments with the values of their state, the values of their members, and the long-term interests of their members,” said Richard Brooks, the climate finance program director at the advocacy organization Stand.Earth.

He recently released a study tallying CalPERS and CalSTRS investments in companies that participate in the Trump administration immigration sweeps, such as Palantir and private prison companies CoreCivic and GeoGroup. 

“I see a disconnect right now,” he said.  

Staff at CalPERS and CalSTRS oppose divestment and they consistently fight legislation that would tie their hands. Both systems are underfunded and owe tens of billions more than their assets, a crisis that in 2012 led the Legislature and then-Gov. Jerry Brown to pass a law mandating less generous pension benefits for employees hired after that year. 

But CalPERS and CalSTRS have pulled money out of industries in the past. CalPERS divested from firearms in 2013 and from tobacco in 2016. They’re also barred by state law from investing in coal as well as in businesses connected to Iran.

They’re governed by boards of directors that are made up of public employee union leaders, appointees of state Democratic leaders and the state controller and state treasurer, both of whom are Democrats. 

In short, they’re people who are aligned politically with the mostly liberal groups that are pressing them to change policies. 

That doesn’t mean it’s an easy call for them to withdraw investments from any industry.

“It’s so tricky. How do you divest from all of that is anti-union? The quick answer is you can’t,” said Kenny Waggoner of Ducenta Squared Asset Management, who advises union benefit plans.

He gave an example of a real estate investment trust with stakes in large warehouses — the kind operated by Amazon. Members might question an investment in a company with a reputation for fighting unionization, but the rent from the warehouse might be the best return available to support their pensions.

Here’s a look at the main friction points before CalPERS and CalSTRS.

Tesla volatility

A long–running campaign to persuade CalPERS to break with electric car maker Tesla peaked in September when the pension board commissioned a risk assessment on whether it should own stock in the electric car maker.

Tesla delivered returns for CalPERS over time. It’s considered one of the “magnificent seven” tech stocks that drive markets today.  

The company’s critics characterize it as a volatile risk under Trump ally Elon Musk, pointing to Tesla’s drop in sales last year along with regulatory challenges it’s facing with its self-driving cars. CalPERS as a Tesla shareholder has consistently voted against Musk’s pay packages.

“Tesla’s past gains don’t erase the present picture,” CalPERS board Mulissa Willette said at the meeting where she requested the risk analysis. 

In March, the board held a closed-door discussion on “owning Tesla”. Afterward, a board member said in open session that CalPERS would not sell off its holdings in the company. 

“While we are unable to provide specifics regarding the discussion, we can note that the company has been one of the top 10 drivers of performance in our global equity portfolio and is a key holding for our climate transition portfolio,” CalPERS board member Kevin Palkki said. “After our closed session discussion, we collectively agreed to make no changes at this time.” 

Immigration and surveillance

Palantir, a California company that supported the U.S. military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a focus of public pension divestment campaigns during Israel’s assault on Gaza because of its work with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The Berkeley Unified School District, for example, in September passed a resolution calling on CalSTRS to divest from the company. 

Now Palantir is facing more scrutiny because of its work with the Department of Homeland Security, which is carrying out the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The climate advocacy organization Stand.Earth called attention to CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ holdings in Palantir and six other companies working with Homeland Security in a study it published last month highlighting public pension investments in companies that Stand.Earth described as enabling “repression and violence”.

Fossil fuels

California lawmakers were close to forcing CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest from fossil fuels three years ago when a bill to do that passed the state Senate. But it didn’t become law.

Both of the big pension funds opposed the bill, although one of their board members, state Treasurer Fiona Ma, supported it.

Advocates and public employees who don’t want their pensions to support industries that drive climate change have pressed the funds to divest from oil and gas for a decade. 

California’s third largest public pension fund, the University of California Retirement Plan, divested from fossil fuels in 2020. At the time, its leaders cited financial reasons, finding that fossil fuels have a poor long-term outlook.

The UC Retirement Plan is in better shape than CalPERS and CalSTRS. The UC plan’s assets are worth 92% of what it owes over time to its beneficiaries, while CalPERS’ and CalSTRS’ portfolios are worth about 80% of what they owe.

Labor’s attention on private equity

Two bills in the Legislature this spring pit unions against unions in questions over how CalPERS and CalSTRS should do business. 

One would compel the funds to release more information about their private equity holdings, a change that CalPERS staff contends would so severely undermine its ability to invest with those firms that it would have to increase its charges to employers by more than $6.1 billion a year. 

The measure by Democratic Sen. Dave Cortese of San Jose has support from unions that represent grocery store workers and hotel employees, none of whom have pensions in CalPERS or CalSTRS. Public sectors have not yet taken a stand on the proposal  

The second one, carried by Democratic Assemblymember Robert Garcia, would direct the funds to commission a study on their labor standards for construction and development projects. The State Building and Construction Trades Council has urged CalPERS and CalSTRS to heighten their existing labor standards and is supporting the bill.

The California School Employees Association, whose members have CalPERS pensions, is on the record opposing the trades’ bill. 

“CSEA’s position is that investment and divestment decisions regarding CalPERS funds should be made by the CalPERS Board and its investment professionals, not by the Legislature,” Aaron Latham, the union’s spokesperson, said in a written statement. 

The post How California’s 2 biggest pension funds became a battleground for Trump politics and more appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Recall the president’s first term was closely shadowed by high-profile breakups from loyalists who disagreed with him on matters of substance. For example, the split with his first Defense secretary, James Mattis, began in 2017 when Mattis, a man who spent more than four decades in uniform, defended the importance of NATO. His successor, Mark Esper, found himself at odds with the president for refusing to use the military on citizens. On his way out the door, Esper told the country that if his replacement was “a real ‘yes man’ … then God help us.”

Some of the highlights from Trump’s second term include squabbles with his biggest donor, Elon Musk, who was upset the president wasn’t lowering the national debt enough; with former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene because millions of Americans faced losing health insurance; and with Rep. Thomas Massie for having the audacity to seek justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex-trafficking operation.

Now it appears it’s Carlson’s turn. He, like Pope Leo XIV and many of our allies and nearly 70% of Americans, disapproves of the president’s handling of the war in Iran. On a recent episode of the Carlson podcast, the former Fox News host invited his brother Buckley, himself a former Trump speechwriter, on the show to discuss their buyer’s remorse.

Everyone has that line they won’t cross for the president.

Omarosa Manigault Newman left reality TV to advise Trump. She followed him to the White House, found out there was a lot of racism over in MAGA land, and ended up back on reality TV. For Mattis, it was abandoning our allies. For Esper, it was shooting protesters.

For Carlson, it’s Iran. Candidate Trump campaigned on ending endless wars. This week, Trump said there’s no timeline for when the war he started with Iran will end.

“I do think it’s like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences,” Carlson told his brother. “We’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people.”

Now before Tucker’s apology, Buckley defended his initial support of Trump’s candidacy in 2015 — despite “all of his obvious foibles and his disgusting elements of his personality” — in part because “he built things.” Buckley also said that after the election of President Obama, white Americans in Washington were subjugated by a version of Jim Crow in education and society, and that progressives “would look blank or angry” whenever he asked what Obama was doing to strengthen the nation.

In other words, being red in the face over Trump did not turn the Tucker boys blue. In fact, the episode ended with the two calling the left a bunch of “lunatics,” even after listing the ways the Trump administration was holding back release of the Epstein files and hurting the country.

“Demonic influences concentrate on those who have power. Beware of power,” Tucker warned listeners halfway through the show before his brother chimed in: “And those who seek power.”

Of course, Trump’s ascension to the White House wasn’t solely based on the contributions of media folks. The president entered 2015 having been a public figure for more than 30 years. He’s had the luxury of criticizing elected officials and legislation on camera without the burden of governing for much of that time. When he entered the political arena, he didn’t have a record to defend. He likes being quotable, not being held accountable. That’s why it’s doubtful he would have been elected a second time if not for the support from unscrupulous podcasters masquerading as political journalists such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Andrew Schulz, who less than a year ago said everything Trump “campaigned on, I believed he wanted to do. And now he’s doing the exact opposite thing.… I voted for none of this.”

As if “this” had not been clearly spelled out in the pages of Project 2025 for all to see before deciding whether to vote for Trump and that agenda.

Schulz, the comedian and podcaster, might not have read that outline, but Tucker Carlson probably did. That’s why his apology to listeners — like the mea culpas from the discarded loyalists of the past — ultimately won’t mean anything to mainstream Republicans or MAGA. Those who identify with the latter listen only to Trump. As for the former — they have always known that people like Carlson don’t regret supporting Trump. They regret falling out of favor.

The post Tucker Carlson’s reversal on Trump is a familiar script appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The party faithful, many of whom sported ‘Trump 2028’ ball caps and paid more than $1,000 in hotel and flights to gather in sunny San Diego, split their votes relatively evenly between Steve Hilton, a businessman and former Fox News host who received the president’s endorsement, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. 

The final tally was 49% for Bianco and 44% for Hilton, both shy of the necessary 60% threshold to earn the party’s endorsement.

Hilton, a British-American who is leading all candidates in polling, entered the weekend as a relative party outsider. He called blocking Bianco’s endorsement “a major success” and said he remained “very confident” that he would secure one of the top two spots in California’s June 2 primary.

“Chad Bianco came into this convention assuming he’d got the whole thing in the bag,” Hilton said. “I think we made great progress this weekend to make it roughly even.”

The sheriff, who for months courted delegates and party insiders for the endorsement, was adamant that the final tally didn’t accurately reflect how much party support he has.

Hilton, one of the race’s top fundraisers, has raised more than $6.6 million so far, exceeding Bianco’s haul by more than $2 million.

“This changes nothing about our campaign,” Bianco said after the vote Sunday. Despite failing to garner even a majority of the votes, he also insisted, “I have the supermajority of the support from this room, way more than what that total indicated.”

“Endorsements are silly,” he added, before also acknowledging that an endorsement from the party “would have been nice.” 

Bianco made headlines last month for seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots cast in the special election for Proposition 50, the Democrats’ plan to redraw congressional districts, which voters approved. CalMatters was one of several news organizations that went to court to unseal the warrants that granted his seizure of ballots.

Uncertainty about GOP future

There was no denying that Republicans nationally could face brutal losses in the upcoming midterm elections, although the ocean breeze, harbor views and sunny mid-60s weather might have taken the edge off. Even some of the party’s conservative stalwarts acknowledged the uphill battle.

Speaking on a congressional panel moderated by former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Rep. Darrell Issa acknowledged that Republicans “may not hold the House in the midterms.” 

Issa, who chose to retire rather than seek reelection after Democrats significantly redrew his 48th District as part of their Proposition 50 redistricting plan, agreed Republicans need to focus on local issues — not just national talking points — as a way to combat what he called “Trump derangement syndrome.”

“Is our base fired up?” Spicer asked Rep. Tom McClintock, who also spoke on the panel. 

“I think maybe by summer,” McClintock said, “once we’re past all of the turbulence from Iran.”

Bashing Democrats provided some comedic relief and unity despite the bleak outlook — the president’s party almost always suffers losses in a midterm election. California Republicans reveled in the downfall of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault and until this weekend was the Democratic frontrunner in the race for governor. His potential toppling added fuel to the Republican argument that Democrats, whose gubernatorial vote is split among eight candidates, are incapable of coherent leadership.

“It’s been a couple of hours, so I think we’re due for another Eric Swalwell ‘intern’-ruption,’” Hilton joked at the start of his remarks during a candidate forum on Saturday. “Good thing the Democrats have a great backup plan.”

Trump ‘should’ve stayed out of it.’

Political strategists theorized that Trump’s endorsement of Hilton would guarantee a Democrat’s victory in November, since it would consolidate the GOP vote and eliminate the possibility that Republicans could lock the Democrats out of the top-two primary in June.

But the party faithful in San Diego remain convinced that both Hilton and Bianco will continue to outperform a dysfunctional field of Democrats. Corrin Rankin, the California GOP chair, pointed to numerous polls that show Hilton and Bianco finishing in the top two. 

“I don’t see why that wouldn’t still be the case,” Rankin told reporters on Friday. “Californians see that these two Republicans are better than any of the candidates the Democrats are offering.”

Rankin also said she was surprised that Trump weighed in on anything California-related. “This is not something that he typically does,” she said.

Bianco said he was unbothered by Trump’s decision to endorse his opponent. Throughout the weekend he received the celebrity treatment, strutting around the resort complex with an entourage of supporters in tow. Fans stopped him for selfies and videos for their social media channels. Many of them waved flags and signs bearing his name and phrases like, “Only the sheriff can save us now!”

“This has never been about an endorsement for me,” Bianco said after Saturday’s forum, where candidates for statewide offices made their final pleas to delegates. “This momentum, that excitement, was amazing. It certainly fires me up. It proves to me that I’m doing the right thing, and we’re gonna save our state.”

The sheriff’s supporters were similarly undeterred by Trump’s endorsement of his opponent. 

“I’m not changing my vote. I don’t care who he supports. I’m voting for the best candidate for the state of California, and that’s not who he endorsed, in my opinion,” said April Huckabey, a delegate from Santa Barbara County. “He should’ve stayed out of it,” she added. “Let us run our state.”

Huckabey and her friend Leigh Collier, also from Santa Barbara, agreed the president’s endorsement would not sway Bianco supporters. But it might make some people who were on the fence consider Hilton more strongly. 

Some of Hilton’s supporters were cautiously optimistic about the president’s endorsement, but they were also clear-eyed about how his association with Trump could backfire with people who don’t like the president.

“There’s so many people that just hate our president that you wonder, ‘Could it have a negative effect?’” said Pat Frizzeli, a delegate and the treasurer of the Calaveras County Central Committee. “You just worry.”

Vicky Reinke, chair of the Calaveras County Central Committee, said she was impressed by Hilton’s background in business as a startup founder, as well as his experience working for British Prime Minister David Cameron. She also liked his can-do attitude and willingness to follow through. 

Their county’s annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner fundraiser, where Hilton was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, came on the same day as the funeral for right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Reinke was impressed that Hilton came to their event after attending the funeral in Glendale, Arizona.

“He could have canceled,” she said. “But he made sure he was still at our event as well as going to Charlie Kirk’s. We were very impressed by that.”

“Promises made, promises kept,” echoed Frizzeli.

Hilton argued that the Trump endorsement could only help him by firing up the party base, since Democrats would try to tie a Republican candidate like him to the president regardless. And despite party leaders’ hopes, he was also confident that there wouldn’t be a top-two GOP sweep in June.

“It’s very clear that I’m going to be in the top two. I don’t know who the Democrat will be, but it’s certainly going to be a Democrat,” Hilton said.

The post Trump wanted California Republicans to back Steve Hilton. They didn’t listen appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

With an overwhelming new mandate, Magyar pledged to cooperate with other European countries, ending Orbán-era obstruction of Europe-wide policies, while also representing Hungarians’ wishes.

At a news conference Monday in Budapest, he promised to restore rule of law and overhaul government structures to make them more independent and able to fight corruption, and to create new ministries to address acute problems in areas like public health, environmental protection and education.

He said he opposes fast-track EU membership for Ukraine while the country is still in a war. But he suggested he wouldn’t veto a 90-billion-euro EU loan for Ukraine, as Orbán did, and instead wants Hungary to ″opt out″ of participating in the loan because of its own financial struggles.

He didn’t immediately address his eventual relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, who supported Orbán’s campaign.

Magyar said his Tisza party received “a never-before-seen mandate,’’ a super-majority that would allow it to embark on ambitious program and reforms.

“The Hungarian people didn’t vote for a simple change of government, but for a complete change in regime,” he said.

In his campaign, Magyar also pledged to end Hungary’s drift toward Russia. On Monday, Magyar thanked Moscow and Beijing for offering their congratulations and willingness to work with Hungary’s new government.

“Hungarians said yesterday they will write their history, not in Moscow, not in Beijing, not in Washington,” he added.

During his long time in office, Orbán ruled with the power of a two-thirds parliamentary majority, allowing him to pass a new constitution, rewrite the electoral system and reshape the judiciary.

Magyar’s party secured exactly such a mandate Sunday when it won 138 of parliament’s 199 seats, giving it broad authority to undo much of the legislation that allowed Orbán to stack the courts, manipulate the electoral system, crack down on press freedom and discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community.

Still, there are potential pitfalls that could stand in the way of the radical changes many Hungarians had hoped for.

Historic win

Magyar’s victory was met with jubilation on the streets of Budapest late Sunday with tens of thousands, many of them young people, celebrating what they view as a ray of hope that Orbán’s loss will make Hungary freer, happier and firmly rooted within the fold of European democracies.

On streets and avenues across the capital, drivers blared car horns and cranked up anti-government songs while people marching in the streets chanted and screamed.

During the celebrations, Adrien Rixer said he’d come back to Hungary from his home in London “because I really wanted to make my vote count, and I’m over the moon.”

“Finally I can say that I’m a proud Hungarian, finally after 16 years,” he said.

Many Hungarians, and others across Europe who were closely watching the election, had feared that a simple majority for Tisza would have been inadequate to truly transform Orbán’s system.

Yet others remain uncertain about what the authority of a two-thirds majority will bring, with some uneasy about taking such a mandate from Orbán and delivering it to his opponent.

“Its hard to see that with two-thirds that it’s going to be a fair government, but we will see,” said reveller Dániel Kovács. “Lets hope that it’s going to be a promising four years.”

The election win for Magyar and Tisza was without precedent in Hungary’s post-Communist history: They received more votes and more parliamentary seats than any party ever had before.

Bulcsú Hunyadi, an analyst with the Budapest-based think tank Political Capital, said that while Tisza’s constitutional majority gives it broad powers to roll back many of Orbán’s policies, Hungary’s key institutions are “led by people who are cemented in their position for many years.”

As part of his broader effort to consolidate control over Hungary’s democratic system, Orbán installed loyal allies at the helm of key institutions, from the media authority to the public prosecutor’s office and the Constitutional Court.

In several cases, mandates were extended or new appointments pushed through before existing terms had expired — moves that effectively kept loyal leadership locked in place for years, well beyond any potential change in government.

Magyar called for such officials — including Hungary’s president — to step down of their own accord. Beyond that, Hunyadi said, “they don’t really have any other tools to remove these people.”

Pressure from the EU

Magyar accuses Orbán and his government of mismanaging Hungary’s economy and social services, and overseeing unchecked corruption he says has led to the accumulation of extreme wealth within a small circle of well-connected insiders while leaving ordinary Hungarians behind.

He’s vowed to hold such abuses to account, and plans to create an Office for the Recovery and Protection of National Assets to reclaim what he says are Orbán’s allies’ ill-gotten gains.

Magyar campaigned heavily on a promise to bring home billions of euros in European Union funding that has been frozen over corruption and rule-of-law concerns under Orbán. He’s also pledged to introduce the euro to Hungary by 2030 — something Orbán’s government long resisted.

Hunyadi, the analyst, said Magyar’s government will be under “tight pressure” by the EU to quickly carry out reforms in order to get access to those frozen funds that are badly needed by Hungary’s faltering economy.

“There are deadlines in terms of unfreezing the funds. They will have to deliver certain laws and reforms by August this year, which is only a few months away,” he said.

Tisza’s win raised hopes across the EU that a new government in Budapest would reverse Orbán’s antagonistic approach to Ukraine and his obstruction of efforts to assist the war-ravaged country as it defends against Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Orbán has used his veto power in the EU to stymie sanctions on Russia and block crucial funding to Kyiv. He’s also vowed never to allow talks on Ukraine joining the EU to resume.

In a statement on Monday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Orbán’s election campaign, “which unfortunately was marked by manipulative rhetoric about Ukraine, is now behind us.”

“We expect that … the election results will also contribute to a normalization of political relations,” Sybiha said.

The post Magyar wants to take over as Hungary’s prime minister as early as May 5 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, which Trump later said was meant to portray him as a ‌doctor, came amid his escalating feud with Pope Leo, who has criticized the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran as inhumane. Shortly before publishing the image, the president posted a lengthy screed against Pope Leo, calling him “WEAK on crime and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

Leo, the first U.S.-born pope, said in response to Trump’s attacks that he had “no fear” of the Trump administration and would continue to speak out. In a forceful speech on Monday in Algiers, he denounced “neocolonial” world powers who ​are violating international law, without specifically referring to the United States.

Sunday’s post, depicting Trump in a white robe with an apparently healing hand on a prone man’s head, could create a ​rift between Trump and the religious right, whose support was critical to his victory in the 2024 election.

In the painting-like image, Trump holds a glowing ⁠orb in one hand and uses his other hand to touch a seemingly sick man on the forehead. The Statue of Liberty, fireworks, a fighter jet and eagles could be seen in the background.

Trump ​denied on Monday that the image was intended to show him as a Jesus-like figure, calling that “fake news.”

“It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better, and I do make people better,” ​he told reporters at the White House, soon after the post was deleted.

Brilyn Hollyhand, who served as the co-chair of the Republican National Committee Youth Advisory Council, wrote on X: “This is gross blasphemy. Faith is not a prop. You don’t need to portray yourself as a savior when your record should speak for itself.”

Riley Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer and outspoken critic of transgender athletes in women’s sports who has appeared with Trump at rallies, wrote on X ​she could not understand why Trump posted the image.

“Does he actually think this?” she wrote. “Either way, two things are true. 1) a little humility would serve him well 2) God shall not be mocked.”

Christian ​voters, including Catholics, have formed a critical part of Trump’s political base. Trump, who does not attend church regularly, won large majorities of Christian voters in the 2024 election, including Catholics, who had previously been closer to ‌a split.

After Trump ⁠narrowly survived an assassination attempt in July 2024, some evangelical supporters said it was evidence he had been blessed by God.

‘WATERSHED MOMENT’

David Gibson, the director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, a Catholic school, said it was difficult to understand Trump’s motive in attacking Leo and for posting the image, but that it was also hard to say if American Catholics would turn against him.

“Will this move cross a red line for them? Will they finally punish Trump and the GOP and at the ballot box?” he said. “This is a watershed moment – will Catholics in America choose the pope or the ​president?”

Bishop Robert Barron, who serves on a Trump-created ​religious liberty commission, said on X that ⁠the president owed Leo an apology for his “inappropriate” statements on social media. But he also praised Trump in the same post for his outreach to Catholics.

Trump told reporters on Monday he had “nothing to apologize for” to the pope.

In recent weeks, Leo has become one of the most prominent critics of the war in ​Iran, even making an unusual direct appeal to Trump and urging him to find an “off-ramp.”

Leo has also said that Jesus cannot be used to ​justify war and that God ⁠rejects the prayers of those who start conflicts. Those remarks were widely seen as a rebuke to Trump officials like U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who has cited scripture to justify the use of “overwhelming violence” against enemies and likened the rescue of a U.S. airman inside Iran to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Trump also feuded at times with Leo’s predecessor, Francis, who publicly opposed Trump’s deportation campaign as un-Christian. Last year, after Francis’ ⁠death, Trump posted ​an image showing himself as pope, prompting outrage from many Catholics.

But Trump’s attacks on Leo have gone well beyond his swipes ​at Francis.

“American presidents and American Catholics have disagreed with popes in the past,” Gibson said. “But this is disrespect. Disrespect is way different than disagreement, and that’s the danger for Trump here.”

At least eight members of Trump’s cabinet are Catholic, including Vice President ​JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The post Trump’s AI image of himself as Jesus-like figure follows feud with Pope Leo appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.