SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
california
Trump ICE Surge in California Condemned as ‘Clear Attempt to Intimidate’ Latino Voters
"California will not be intimidated by Trump's fear campaign. He's afraid because he knows he's losing," said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Oct 09, 2026
Politicians and activists are denouncing the Trump administration for initiating a surge in federal immigration enforcement operations less than a month before the 2026 midterm elections.
According to a Wednesday report in the Washington Examiner, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched an operation expected to last for six weeks that is targeting undocumented immigrants regardless of whether they have a past criminal record.
The Examiner's sources said that ICE officers have been "told to go after anybody," with one source saying that the agency's management wants "numbers."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, on Thursday condemned the ICE surge in a social media post, accusing President Donald Trump of "using fear and panic as a weapon."
"No president is above the Constitution," Newsom wrote. "No one in this country is without rights. California will stand up for our communities and hold federal agents accountable. Know your rights and exercise them safely."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, called for ICE to be abolished because of the agency's continued "assault on immigrants and US citizens with no criminal history."
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) called the current ICE surge "alarming," but warned the agency that its days of consequence-free lawlessness are coming to an end.
"House Democrats will continue to demand oversight over this out of control agency," Aguilar wrote, with the November midterm elections just weeks away. "Accountability is coming."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) released a statement accusing the Trump administration of conducting an "arrest first, questions later" policy that is sweeping up documented immigrants and even US citizens.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass drew a straight line between the California ICE operation and Trump's declining political standing, as polling averages show his approval numbers hitting record lows.
"California will not be intimidated by Trump's fear campaign," Bass wrote. "He's afraid because he knows he's losing. My office has your back. Stay safe, know your rights, protect your neighbors, and vote if you're eligible."
Joel Payne, chief communications officer for MoveOn, similarly linked the ICE campaign with midterm elections.
"No one is safer because ICE is terrorizing and violently hunting down our neighbors," said Payne. "The surge of ICE activity in California is a clear attempt to intimidate Latino communities and force them to stay home in the midterm elections. It won’t work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California Overrules School Districts to Censor Palestine
The systematic pattern that has developed within California school districts is alarming: File complaints citing antisemitism whenever schools, educators, or students show support for Palestine, then appeal at the state level to overrule the districts.
Oct 08, 2026
The views, analysis, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author. They do not represent the official stance, policy, or position of Berkeley Independent Study, the Berkeley Federation of Teachers, the Berkeley Unified School District, or any affiliated organization.
Colorful, progressive posters fill the walls in Room 202 of Berkeley High School's Independent Study Program. A Rainbow Coalition poster features Fred Hampton with the phrase, "In Unity, there is survival." The Black Panther Party, IWW Local 8, Somos El 99%, Louise Olivereau, Marie Equi, environmental justice, and other progressive causes are represented.
Palestine posters fit in with the milieu of the room. "Berkeley Educators for Palestine," "Stop the Bombing, Free Free Palestine," and "Stop the Israeli-US Genocide in Palestine" are included.
What is uncommon is to bypass teachers and administrators and go straight to a civil rights complaint, unless the complaint is about Palestine, and the people making the complaint are connected to the Brandeis Center.
These posters, along with one titled "Standing with Muslims Against Islamophobia and Racism," resulted in an official complaint filed through the District Civil Rights and Compliance Office of the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD). No teachers or staff were aware of any concerns surrounding the posters until they were contacted by a district-hired attorney.
Jonas LaMattery-Brownell, Berkeley Federation of Teachers (BFT) co-site representative at Berkeley Independent Study (BIS), told me in an interview, "Some colleagues of mine who were most targeted by the investigation were Jewish, and were horrified that support for Palestine was getting weaponized against them and the school."
Public schools are accustomed to resolving issues in-house. It's not uncommon for students to feel discomfort, and for parents to voice their concerns with teachers and administrators. These concerns often result in meaningful discussions and a better educational environment for everyone.
What is uncommon is to bypass teachers and administrators and go straight to a civil rights complaint, unless the complaint is about Palestine, and the people making the complaint are connected to the Brandeis Center.
Antisemitism Charges
Kenneth Marcus, former Trump official and founder of the Brandeis Center, wrote openly about filing “high-profile cases alleging unlawful antisemitic harassment” in "Standing up for Jewish Students" (Jerusalem Post, 2013). Marcus writes, “These cases—even when rejected—expose administrators to bad publicity... The only way to win these cases is to file them, even when we see some or most rejected.”
The Brandeis Center filed a 41-page complaint in 2024 with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against BUSD, alleging that “BUSD teachers are using BUSD resources to teach anti-Israel propaganda and promote walkouts demeaning Israelis and calling for the elimination of Jews."
BUSD Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel testified before Congress that "antisemitism is not pervasive in [the] Berkeley Unified School District" after conducting 12 investigations of complaints filed through the District Civil Rights and Compliance Office. In Berkeleyside, the Berkeley Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation called the Brandeis Center claims "tired, fully investigated, and determined to be baseless."
Liz Jackson, director of K-12 Legal Defense and former senior attorney at Palestine Legal, interviewed multiple witnesses to determine the veracity of the Brandeis Center complaints. Addressing the claim that students during the walkout were screaming "Kill the Jews," Jackson told me in an interview, "I've talked to a lot of students and teachers who were supervising or participating in the walkout and no one can verify that. There was definitely not a chant that was loud that students were chanting in unison. I think it's probably fabricated based on what else they fabricate."
Jackson is aware of about 20 complaints filed over the last two years, all of which involve Palestine. The allegations typically fall into the following categories:
- True, but not antisemitic;
- Fabricated; and
- A grain of truth, but grossly exaggerated.
Jackson states: "They paint a picture by blurring a mix of 1, 2, and 3 to create a picture of rampant, systematic antisemitism. They are manufacturing a curriculum causation theory, which is that teaching about Palestine causes antisemitic bullying."
According to Jackson, the small group of "parents who are pushing this stuff are largely from abundantly resourced, owning class families, while the children who are targeted are largely working class refugees." In 2024, the Brandeis Center tax forms reported $18 million in grants following the Hamas attacks when many official complaints were launched.
The norm is that complaints are filed, usually by parents or external organizations, citing Palestine and claiming antisemitism, then BUSD hires its own attorneys to investigate.
The Palestine posters at BIS were found by BUSD to be one-sided, but not discriminatory, citing insufficient evidence that any student expressed discomfort. The complainants appealed to the California Department of Education (CDE), which overruled the district and found the posters discriminatory, mandating antisemitism training for all BIS staff.
CDE Intervention—Assembly Bill 715
The game-changer is Assembly Bill 715, which passed in October 2025 despite "overwhelming opposition from educators, students, and civil rights advocates," including the American Civil Liberties Union, California Teachers Association, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Jewish Voice For Peace. AB 715 states:
This bill would establish that discriminatory bias in instruction and school-sponsored activities does not require a showing of direct harm to members of a protected group and would not require members of a protected group to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias. If the governing board or body of the local educational agency finds that instruction or school-sponsored activities are discriminatory, as provided, the bill would require corrective action to be taken, as provided.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism brought together hundreds of scholars from Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to provide the following definition of antisemitism: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility,or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)." Additional guidelines include that antisemitism is not "supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil, and human rights, as encapsulated in international law."
According to Mr. LaMattery-Brownell: "It's basic humanity to say that we stand for Palestinian self-determination. Free Palestine is talking about freedom for a people. That's not discrimination. Unless you think that freedom for some people is unfair to everyone else."
CDE Case 2026-0259 found the BIS Palestine posters discriminatory for two reasons
- Conveying a "pro-Palestinian/Muslim message with no corresponding expression of support for Israel/Jews," ignoring the Holocaust posters mentioned elsewhere in the letter; and
- Conveying "an anti-Israel/Jewish message referencing 'genocide' in Palestine without any corresponding negative reference to the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023."
The Hamas attack on October 7 took the lives of approximately 1,200 Israelis. Since then, according to the United Nations, the Israeli military has taken the lives of approximately 72,000 Palestinians. There is a 60-fold discrepancy here. The imbalance lies in the facts.
The term "genocide" is explicitly referenced by the CDE as "an anti-Israeli/Jewish message." This assumption is unsubstantiated. Many Jewish students, parents, and staff have spoken out in Berkeley in support of Palestine and against the US and Israeli-led genocide, and over 1,400 Israeli academics signed a petition calling for an end to the war in Gaza in 2024. Critiquing genocide and wars is an act of civic responsibility for all citizens, Israelis and Jewish Americans included.
Following October 7, the Brandeis Center claimed that "Jewish and Israeli students have since been subjected to nonstop antisemitic bullying and harassment by their teachers and peers, in hallways, in classrooms, and in school yards." BUSD investigations have found otherwise. And BUSD teachers have experienced the opposite.
Teacher Harassment
Candiss Youngblood, an art teacher at Berkeley High School (BHS) interviewed for this article, was the subject of five different civil rights complaints. Her offense? She wears a patch, approved by administrators, with a heart and rose that states, "Free Palestine."
Students organized a Grief Circle that Ms. Youngblood participated in following the casualties after October 7. The students made a template poster that read, "My hope for Israel and Palestine," followed by open space to communicate their wishes. The posters were hung up for display at BHS, but "late that night, after hours," Ms. Youngblood reported, "admin went and took them all down." Ms. Youngblood was told that the Grief Circle was a "misuse of district funds."
Investigations and disciplinary action followed. Ms. Youngblood was written up for purchasing art supplies from a dollar store that were never used. Harassment followed as parents accused her of antisemitism in mass emails and students hid behind bushes outside her windows to photograph her classroom. "It was scary to be here," said Ms. Youngblood. "Admin wasn't saying we couldn't wear stuff, but they also weren't preventing any harassment from the community."
Weaponizing support for Palestine as antisemitic is coming not just from extremists trying to control public education, but from the State of California.
Ms. Youngblood was a witness to a complaint issued against the Berkeley High Safety Committee, of which she was a member, because they added a norm to combat white supremacy. According to Ms. Youngblood, ActNowK12.org charged that "we were using that norm as a way to silence their participation in the meetings." ActNowK12.org is a collaboration of California Jewish Grassroots Groups and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that offers its website as a means to report antisemitism.
Dan Brownson, a BUSD clerical worker and former Berkeley Council of Classified Employees (BCCE) union rep was asked to defend a BUSD staff member investigated for wearing a keffiyeh. Brownson told me in an interview that the complaint was filed by ActNowK12.org, and the investigation revealed that no specific student or parent actually complained. Brownson said: "They asked how it might make an Israeli or Jewish student feel to see the keffiyeh. I said, are we going to go on feelings now?"
Brownson was asked to represent the staff member on account of his own experience fighting spurious claims of antisemitism and dealing with an administrator who yelled at him for refusing to take down a pro-Palestine poster in his cubicle unless the administrator could show him where he was breaking the law, which she could not. Brownson was fired at the end of the year before obtaining a new position.
Mandated Trainings Across California
The ambiguity of the law surrounding an educator's freedom of political speech gives Assembly Bill 715 unprecedented power. Weaponizing support for Palestine as antisemitic is coming not just from extremists trying to control public education, but from the State of California. Appeals of complaints are underway across the state and corrective actions are being widely dispersed.
The entire staff and student body of King Middle School in BUSD were mandated a training on antisemitism by the CDE following a SSWANA (South Asian, Southwest Asian, North African) assembly due to students wearing Palestinian flags; chanting,"Free Palestine"; and excluding Israel from some maps.
District-wide trainings on antisemitism were mandated in the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) after the CDE overturned multiple cases involving a Palestine teach-in, Palestine posters, a Palestine flag without a corresponding Israeli flag, and Arab American Heritage Month materials omitting Israel from some regional maps.
Conflating support for Palestine with antisemitism sets a dangerous precedent that threatens human rights everywhere.
The Sequoia Union High School District settled a federal lawsuit for $325,000 alleging widespread antisemitism including pro-Hamas propaganda from teachers and discriminatory grading; the settlement included mandatory antisemitism training for all staff. Exhibit A of the settlement mentions "the denial of the Jewish people's right to self-defense" under its expanded definition of antisemitism.
Additional lawsuits in BUSD and the Santa Ana Unified School District over ethnic studies curricula that included Palestine cited antisemitism as did accusations against the Mountain View-Los Altos District who terminated a contract with Acosta Educational Partnerships. All high school teachers and administrators in the Manhattan Beach Unified School District (LA County) were mandated antisemitism training after an AP US History teacher posted slides describing the genocide in Gaza.
Trainings on antisemitism have commenced in BUSD and OUSD with more to come. Authentic teachings on antisemitism are welcome in public education, as are factually relevant discussions on Israel-Palestine. But the systematic pattern that has developed within California school districts is alarming: File complaints citing antisemitism whenever schools, educators, or students show support for Palestine, then appeal at the state level to overrule school districts where the CDE intervenes.
Labeling the BIS Palestine posters discriminatory sends a chilling message of censorship against Palestine throughout BUSD. Conflating support for Palestine with antisemitism sets a dangerous precedent that threatens human rights everywhere. Responding to the CDE decisions, Jackson stated, "They're anti-Arab, they're anti-Palestinian, and they violate our free speech rights and rights to learn."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deranged and Dangerous' Trump Decried for Inviting Iran to 'Take Out' California Cities
"The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives," said the mayor of Los Angeles.
Oct 06, 2026
"Keep our city out of your reckless war talk," said San Diego's mayor, Todd Gloria, Monday night after President Donald Trump's rambling speech at a rally in Nebraska included a particularly violent mention of the California city.
Gloria was among several Democratic political leaders who were incensed after Trump—moments after predicted the Republican Party would see a "tremendous victory" in the November 3 midterm elections—suggested that he would not object to an Iranian military or nuclear attack on San Diego and Los Angeles.
The president said that soaring prices for gas, groceries, and other essentials are a "small price to pay for keeping the world safe—keeping our country safe."
Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay https://t.co/Fc4BcjVDKj
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) October 6, 2026
He warned that Iran could "take out a city," before adding that he would "let them" attack the two deep-blue cities—home to a collective 5.2 million people, with more than 20 million residents in the surrounding areas
“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego," Trump said at the rally in Grand Island. "This is a very small price to pay... It’s gonna be over very soon."
The crowd responded to Trump's comments with laughter and cheers. The president has frequently made Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, Chicago, and his own hometown of New York City the targets of rhetorical attacks. He has also targeted those cities with the deployment of armed federal agents as part of his mass deportation agenda.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, condemned Trump's remarks as "deranged and dangerous."
"After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego," said Newsom, who later criticized Trump's vice president and secretary of state for not speaking out against the comments.
"The SILENCE from JD Vance and Marco Rubio today is deafening," said the governor.
Gloria added that San Diego, which is home to major military installations, "is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay.'"
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused Trump of compromising the safety of the nation's second-largest city.
"The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives," said Bass. "In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city."
Jim Desmond, a Republican running for Congress in California's 48th District, which lies in San Diego, was also quick to distance himself from the president's comments.
Some observers claimed the president had simply been speaking in an "especially confusing style," as journalist Daniel Dale suggested, and did not intend to suggest that the two cities could be acceptable collateral damage.
"Of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out," he added.
Trump's comments came days after it was reported that the Pentagon is prepared to send thousands more troops and a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, as talks between the US and Iran remain stalled. Gas prices remain elevated, at $4.36 per gallon on average, and nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press poll in June said they disapproved of how Trump had handled the war, which he joined Israel in starting in February without congressional approval.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) had a succinct response to Trump's remarks, referring to the constitutional amendment that allows members of a president's Cabinet to remove him from office on the ground that they cannot fulfill the duties of the president.
"Twenty-fifth amendment NOW," said Padilla.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mentally Ill Trump Thinks It's Funny to Joke About Iran Bombing US Cities Into Oblivion
Ironically, San Diego is a major port for the US Navy, the sailors of which Trump is abusing by keeping them near the Strait of Hormuz for months at a time without a secure base for resupply or rest and recreation.
Oct 06, 2026
In a stemwinder of a speech in Nebraska, our mentally ill president joked around that if Iran took out Los Angeles and San Diego, it would be a small price to pay for keeping the rest of the country safe. Or at least that is what he appeared to say. What his slurred free association means is often anyone’s guess. The corporate media report on his speeches as if they are in any way coherent to stay on his good side, since he threatens people who disagree with him.
Angelenos and San Diegans reacted with outrage at their president’s blithe willingness to throw them under the bus. Ironically, San Diego is a major port for the US Navy, the sailors of which Trump is abusing by keeping them near the Strait of Hormuz for months at a time without a secure base for resupply or rest and recreation.
Trump is campaigning on how great an idea his abrupt war of aggression on Iran was. Although the president kept saying in summer 2025 that he had destroyed Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, he has made the now-crippled program his pretext for his war, which was instead transparently an effort to seize control of Iran’s gas and petroleum, as he had that of Venezuela.
US intelligence agencies have repeatedly assessed over the past 25 years that Iran does not have a military nuclear weapons program. The country was enriching uranium for civilian purposes and for deterrence. Tehran hoped that having a stockpile of highly enriched uranium would give enemies pause about assaulting it. It was a miscalculation, since Netanyahu-Trump attacked anyway.
Iran does not have an intercontinental ballistic missile and cannot strike at Los Angeles and San Diego.
As I reported, a poll in July found that 75% of Americans say that the Iran War is not worth it, and 61% blamed Trump’s policies for the high cost of gasoline and diesel. Americans finally have Trump’s number, and know what he has done to them. His old tricks of blaming the Democrats for everything and gaslighting his MAGA base about what is going on are failing before the sticker shock when people fill up at the pump.
Trump also says he is winning the war on Iran and that it will be over quite soon. Reality, as is usually the case with the addled DJT, says something else.
TradeWinds reports that Iran has struck 11 ships in the Strait of Hormuz in the past week, potentially a sign of increased belligerence. Or it could just be there are more targets, since Kpler has seen a rise in the number of ships transiting the Strait in the past week or two.
The rise in strikes coincides with more fiery rhetoric from Tehran and with further US withdrawals. Having left the naval base in Manama, Bahrain, the former HQ of the Fifth Fleet, and having completely withdrawn from Iraq and Syria, the US has now even withdrawn bombers from a UK base after rumors of an Iranian terrorist plot against them. “Debasing” and forcing the US out of the region has become a key strategic goal for Tehran after the February 28, 2026, joint Netanyahu-Trump war of aggression on Iran.
The chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Ali Abdollahi, warned recently that further attacks on Iran are in the offing, and the consequent conflagration will touch everyone in the Middle East.
Gee, I think Maj.-Gen. Abdollahi should challenge Whiskey Pete Hegseth to a bombast competition. Whoever loses has to withdraw from the war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Know Where I Want to Live': Ex-Venture Capitalist Explains Why He'd Be Happy to Pay California Billionaire Tax
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride. Our tax system favors wealthy people, and the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
Oct 01, 2026
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders Going Back to California to Rally for Billionaire Tax Ballot Measure
The democratic socialist senator said he's returning to the Golden State "to demand that billionaires finally pay their fair share and help elect strong progressives to Congress."
Sep 28, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to rally in California this weekend with Reps. Ro Khanna and Aisha Wahab in support of Proposition 40, a November ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of the state's billionaires to fund healthcare and education amid historic cuts to social spending by President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Sanders (I-Vt.) announced the upcoming appearances Monday on social media as the Prop 40 campaign enters its final weeks, with billionaire opponents pouring millions of dollars into efforts to defeat it.
In San Francisco on Saturday and Los Angeles next Monday, Sanders will headline “Ballots Over Billionaires” rallies hosted by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, which led the introduction of the voter initiative.
Sanders will be joined in San Francisco and Los Angeles by Khanna (D-Calif.) and Jane Kim, a progressive candidate for California insurance commissioner and former San Francisco supervisor who was the state and regional political director for Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. Sanders won California's Democratic primary that year.
“Sen. Bernie Sanders is a champion for working people, and I’m honored to have his support in the final stretch of our campaign as we rally for affordability and insurance for all,” Kim told Inside California Politics.
On Sunday, Sanders is also scheduled to speak at a canvass launch with Wahab (D-Calif.) in Livermore before heading south to Bakersfield, where he is hosting a Fighting Oligarchy rally with special guest Randy Villegas, the Democratic nominee for California's 22nd Congressional District.
"On November 3rd, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the people of California will decide whether to pass a 5% wealth tax on more than 200 billionaires in California who are worth $2.2 trillion," Sanders said in a recent social media post. "Proposition 40 would raise enough revenue to prevent 3 million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have as a result of Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill."
"Last year, these billionaires became $500 billion richer," he continued. "As a result of a rigged tax code, they pay a lower effective tax rate than a plumber or a nurse. The greed of these billionaires is really extraordinary."
"Instead of paying their fair share of taxes, billionaires are now spending $229 million—0.01% of their wealth—to oppose a 5% tax on their wealth," Sanders added.
Prop 40 may be the most hotly contested measure on California's midterm ballot. The initiative enjoys strong support from California progressives but is opposed not only by billionaires and their interests but also by outgoing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom—who is widely believed to be preparing to run for president—and both candidates running to succeed him as governor, Democratic former US secretary of health and human services Xavier Becerra and Republican commentator Steve Hilton.
Billionaire-backed opposition has intensified as November's midterms approach. Building a Better California, funded by Silicon Valley billionaires including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, has put millions of dollars into the fight against Prop 40.
Recent polling from the Public Policy Institute of California showed Prop 40 narrowly leading 52%-46%.
"Let's be clear: These billionaires have more money than they could spend in over 100 lifetimes," Sanders said last week. "How many mansions do they need? How many yachts do they need? How many private jets do they need?"
"I say to the billionaire class: Control your greed," the senator added. "Show a bit of compassion to working families and their kids in California."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Massive Betrayal’: Fury at Newsom and Bonta Over Merger Deal With Paramount
"Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
Sep 21, 2026
A coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta reportedly reached a deal on Monday to let Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery proceed, an outcome that press freedom advocates and antitrust campaigners condemned as a disaster for journalism, entertainment industry workers, and American democracy.
The deal, which is set to be formally announced later Monday, will pave the way for the creation of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, helmed by the son of a billionaire megadonor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
If the merger is finalized, the resulting media behemoth would control nearly 30% of both wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing in the US. The combination would also put CNN under Ellison's control, heightening press freedom concerns that have intensified since Paramount's takeover of CBS.
"The AGs’ capitulation marks a new low."
“Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top,” Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. “As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation’s most critical news outlets. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund will co-own those outlets, too.”
Bedoya criticized Bonta and California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who privately pushed the state attorney general's office to settle the lawsuit out of court. Xavier Becerra, the frontrunner to succeed Newsom, also called for a settlement, citing Paramount's threat to leave California if its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. was blocked.
“People want champions who are not afraid of rich bullies. Newsom, Becerra, and Bonta did not meet that mark," said Bedoya. "The people who work in the film and TV industry and the small businesses who support it will suffer as a result. And so will everyone who values dissent in our democracy.”
Jessica González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, also denounced Bonta for reneging on "his promise to enforce the law and protect consumers and workers."
"Hundreds of thousands of people called on our state AGs to stand up to the Ellisons, who have engaged in a campaign of corruption and extortion to pave the way for this unlawful merger. We can no longer rely on the federal government to enforce the law and protect regular people. That much is clear. But the AGs’ capitulation marks a new low. It’s a sad day for all of us who have been opposing this merger because it will cut jobs and raise prices, all as it consolidates the media even more to enable authoritarians."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, an outspoken opponent of the merger who was subjected to what critics called a corporate "smear campaign" because of his stance, trained his ire on California's governor in response to news of the settlement.
"Gavin Newsom hands huge win to Trump and his billionaire cronies," Ruffalo wrote on social media.
The trial was scheduled to begin in March of next year. In its original lawsuit against the proposed merger—filed shortly after the Trump Justice Department dropped its investigation of the proposed purchase—the coalition of 12 attorneys general warned the deal would "combine two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the five major basic cable channel owners, extinguishing competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflicting substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors and, ultimately, audiences nationwide."
The settlement deal reached Monday also reportedly includes the lawsuit filed by the Writers Guild of America, which represents TV screenwriters and others in the entertainment industry.
Bloomberg reported that the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, and other states that had pushed back during settlement talks were able to secure "independent editorial boards for CBS and CNN as part of the deal"—though it's unclear how such boards would function.
"The terms are said to include a financial penalty if the company fails to make good on a promise to distribute 30 films per year in theaters," Bloomberg added.
This news is deeply disappointing and a massive betrayal of everyday workers and small businesses.
David Ellison is willing to make big promises, like 30 films a year, because he knows he doesn't actually have to stand by it.
We've seen it before with past mergers: Promises… https://t.co/yAYXusKiRM
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) September 21, 2026
The Los Angeles Times noted that Paramount's purchase of Warner Bros. "will be heavily leveraged."
"The company’s bankers have lined up nearly $80 billion in debt to finance the merger. [Paramount CEO David] Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, late last year agreed to backstop the $47-billion in equity needed to complete the acquisition. Royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to chip in $24 billion for an equity stake by assuming some of Ellison’s financial commitments."
González of Free Press warned Monday that "consolidating the media in the hands of friendly oligarchs is right out of the authoritarian playbook."
“What’s exceedingly clear is that our laws and our political system are not strong enough to resist the pressure and manipulation of corrupt billionaires," said González. "We need to strengthen democratic systems of government, including getting money out of politics, and pass laws that break up big media conglomerates. We need to ensure that a few billionaires can’t drown out the masses to dictate bad policy.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Don't You Dare': Alarm as State AGs Weigh Deal to Advance Paramount Megamerger
Lina Khan, former head of the Federal Trade Commission, called ongoing settlement talks "troubling."
Sep 21, 2026
Paramount and a coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta are reportedly in advanced talks to settle a high-stakes lawsuit and allow the media conglomerate's proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to proceed.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that Bonta and Paramount executives have "discussed a series of potential concessions" as part of the ongoing settlement negotiations, "including a $1.5 billion investment by the company in production in California." The talks have also explored a potential promise by Paramount to stay in California and a requirement that the company sell off some cable channels and establish "a board to ensure that CNN retains editorial independence," according to the Journal. (Warner Bros. is CNN's parent company.)
Lina Khan, the former head of the Federal Trade Commission, was among those raising concerns about details trickling out of settlement talks between state attorneys general and Paramount, which is led by David Ellison—the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison. In a social media post, Khan wrote that the proposed megamerger "seems facially illegal, and the state AG lawsuit challenging it is very strong."
"It’s troubling to hear that the states may now settle for behavioral remedies, allowing the deal to go through subject to various promises from the firms," Khan wrote. "Behavioral remedies routinely fail, and the stakes here are particularly high given that a strong democracy requires open markets for sound journalism and creative expression."
"The states were right to step up," she added, "and I hope they keep fighting to protect this market, its workers, and the millions of Americans who value a free press and a vibrant film industry."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, was more blunt, calling the settlement talks "fucking pathetic."
"Bonta's reputation will never recover," Stoller wrote.
The coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the proposed merger in July after the Trump Justice Department shut down its antitrust investigation into the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger and backed the deal. The Writers Guild of America has also sued over the proposed merger, arguing it "violates federal antitrust law and would cause specific harm to writers."
The state AGs' lawsuit warned that the merger would "extinguish competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflict substantial harm on movie theatres, basic cable distributors, and, ultimately, audiences nationwide," as well as "tens of thousands of workers across the production ecosystem."
Some attorneys general in the coalition are reportedly pushing back against some of the terms sought by Bonta and others. New York Attorney General Letitia James "has been resisting the deal terms and seeking additional protections for workers," according to CNN.
"Connecticut and at least two other states also have reservations about the settlement and are not currently on board," CNN added. "The holdouts are seeking additional remedies from Paramount."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, one of the most prominent opponents of the megamerger, implored the state attorneys general to reject a settlement deal and take the lawsuit to trial.
"Don't you dare," Ruffalo wrote in a message directed at Bonta. "Do not cave."
"You work for the people," he added, "the very people who will be hurt if you let this lousy deal filled with empty promises go forward."
Keep ReadingShow Less
If You Want to Tax the Rich, Support California's Proposed Wealth Tax
The state needs money to provide essential services. Why not take it from the people who have money coming out of their ears?
Sep 18, 2026
This fall, California residents will be voting on a measure that would impose a tax of 5% on people with wealth in excess of $1 billion. This is a serious tax on a small group of very wealthy people.
While some focus on the amount of tax that these super-rich people will pay, it’s worth keeping in mind how much they will still have after paying their tax bill. A billionaire with $5 billion in assets will pay $250 million in taxes, but they will still be left with $4,750,000,000. We probably still don’t have to worry about these folks collecting food stamps.
The proponents of the tax calculate that it will raise $100 billion. While it is a one-time tax, it can be paid over five years. This sum will roughly match the cuts in Medicaid funding over this period that the Trump administration has put in place.
It is important to recognize that capitalism is an infinitely malleable system. We have allowed the rich to structure it to give themselves all the money. That is a huge problem.
To me, this sounds like a great plan. The state needs money to provide essential services. Why not take it from the people who have money coming out of their ears?
Okay, but we know the real world is never this simple. The rich love their money and aren’t happy about turning over any portion of it to the state of California, no matter how little it affects their living standards. We have to ask how much money the tax will actually collect after the rich use all the tools available, both legal and illegal, to avoid paying.
The podcast Today Explained had an interesting discussion of this issue last week. It included comments from two economists who have done research on this issue: Joshua Rauh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and Cristobal Young, a sociology professor at Cornell University. Rauh is a conservative, while Young is a liberal. Both have done serious work on taxing the rich.
Not surprisingly, Rauh opposed the wealth tax. He argued that the tax would end up as a net revenue loser. The tax would apply to billionaires who were in the state as of January 1 of this year, which means if they haven’t left the state already, they will still be liable for the tax even if they choose to leave later. But Rauh argues that the combination of lost future income tax revenue from the billionaires who have already left, combined with reduced collections from the billionaires who stay or don’t come to the state, will more than offset whatever revenue the state collects from the tax.
I take seriously the issues Rauh raises. Some billionaires have left the state. They also are very clever in finding ways to avoid taxes. Rauh did a paper a couple of years back that found that the rich managed to escape paying 60% of the anticipated tax revenue from a 3-percentage-point increase in the top tax rate paid by high-income people.
There clearly is some point where higher tax rates can actually result in less revenue, mostly due to increased evasion and avoidance, but there also is some negative incentive effect (definitely the smaller part of the story). Rauh’s work suggested California might not be far from that point. (Its top marginal tax rate is 13%.)
While Rauh’s view of the wealth tax was predictable, I was surprised to hear that Young also opposed it. Young has done considerable work that finds that rich people do not often move to escape higher state tax rates. It might have been expected that Young would think that the state does not have much to fear from billionaires leaving to escape the wealth tax.
However, Young opposed the tax on different grounds. He argued that the one-time infusion of revenue from the tax, collected over five years, would still leave a funding gap five years out, after the revenue stopped coming in.
This is hard for me to understand. Five years in Trump’s America in an eternity. It is reasonable to think that in five years we may again have a more normal government at the national level that is prepared to actually provide people with healthcare. In that case, the shortfall will not be an issue. Alternatively, if Trump and his followers still hold power, we are likely looking at a disaster story for which there is no real way to prepare.
There are a number of billionaires who very publicly left California before the start of the year and may thereby avoid the tax. This will reduce the revenue collected from the tax and will mean a loss of income tax revenue for the state in future years, but that is water under the bridge at this point.
We can all envision better ways to tax the rich in an ideal world. California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the state wealth tax because he says we should have a federal wealth tax. Perhaps we should, but a state wealth tax is what’s on the table, and proponents of taxing the rich would be foolish not to wholeheartedly support it.
If the wealth tax goes down, California is not about to institute Young or anyone else’s ideal tax on the rich. If it goes down, it’s a pretty sure bet that it will be some time before another tax on the super rich in California comes this close to becoming law.
I will add that I have long argued that we need to structure the economy differently so that we don’t give the rich all the money. Having shorter and weaker government-granted patent and copyright monopolies would be a good start. Also, changing bankruptcy laws so that private equity partners can’t walk away from companies they bankrupted with their pockets full. And applying a modest sales tax on financial transactions would downsize the sector and eliminate many of the great fortunes on Wall Street.
This is the topic of my book, Rigged (it’s free). It is important to recognize that capitalism is an infinitely malleable system. We have allowed the rich to structure it to give themselves all the money. That is a huge problem. Taxing some of it back is a great thing to do, but it would be even better not to give them the money in the first place. That’s not a reason to oppose the tax, but it would be good if progressives paid some attention to fundamental issues of how we structure the market.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hundreds of Groups and Lawmakers Demand Trump Not Give Private Developer Part of Yosemite
"The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected," said one campaigner.
Sep 15, 2026
Hundreds of advocacy groups and members of Congress on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump's administration to reject a proposal to hand over part of Yosemite National Park in California to a private developer.
The Washington Sun—formerly known as NOTUS—revealed late last month that federal staffers were under political pressure to keep working on a possible land swap for a quarter-mile strip of the famed park with "a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
California's Democratic US senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, partnered with two other Democrats from the state, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Congressman Jim Costa, to spearhead a Tuesday letter to Trump's interior secretary, Doug Burgum, about the future of the park.
Yosemite "is a cornerstone of the National Park System and is one of California's crown jewels," wrote the bipartisan group of over 150 lawmakers. "We are extremely concerned that the Department of the Interior is considering selling off portions of the park to private development, and we strongly oppose the proposed land transfer."
According to the Sun, the developer owns 83 acres west of the park and wants "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests."
The lawmakers noted similar previous efforts that were blocked in court and argued that "at its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans."
"This transaction does not seek to expand public access to Yosemite, improve visitor services, or address transportation deficiencies in park access," they emphasized. "Rather, this land exchange seeks to merely cut down on driving time for a select few on private property. Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party."
"We were alarmed that the Department submitted to Congress a proposal to use money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate this exchange. That fund exists to acquire and protect public lands for the benefit of the American public—not sell them off to corporate developers," the lawmakers wrote, noting that a Senate subcommittee has not agreed to move forward.
The lawmakers also pointed out that "in response to inquiries from Congress, the department indicated that it has not identified any land to be exchanged for the parcel of Yosemite National Park that the department is seeking to sell to the private developer. This gives further credence to the notion that this exchange is not being done in the public interest, but rather solely to benefit a private developer."
"Public lands belong in public hands. Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life," they concluded. "We oppose any effort to privatize, sell off, give away, or otherwise undermine the continued existence of public lands, in Yosemite or across the country. We ask that you honor congressional objections and abandon this effort to sell off a piece of Yosemite National Park."
Separately on Tuesday, a coalition of over 150 advocacy organizations—led by the Center of Biological Diversity—sent a similar letter to Burgum.
"Trump wants to carve off a chunk of Yosemite so a private equity firm can turn it into a playground for billionaires," said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the center. "The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected. If Yosemite can be chopped apart, no national park in America is safe."
The center was joined by groups including the American River Conservancy, California Environmental Justice Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen, Public Lands Conservancy, Save Our Parks, Sierra Club, and Yosemite Rivers Alliance.
The coalition described Yosemite as "sacrosanct—the cradle of American conservation, and the first land the federal government protected purely for its scenic value," and warnd that "ceding national park land to a developer sets a dangerous precedent: America's parks are for sale to whomever has the money and power to take them."
Highlighting that "Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump's campaign... and the firm is represented by politically connected lawyer Lanny Davis," the groups stressed that "deals like this undercut the public's faith in government."
"In your confirmation hearing," the coalition reminded Burgum, "you said 'we need to support and protect every single inch' of our national parks. Yosemite is invaluable, and no portion of it should end up on Kingsbarn's ledger. We expect you to keep your promise and to abide by your statements to Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy