Latest news with #Republican-leaning
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Ethical Rating Nosedives With Republican Pollster
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's ethics have taken a notable hit since the start of his second term, according to a new poll from a Republican-leaning firm. According to the Napolitan News survey, just 44 percent of voters now believe Trump is at least as ethical as most politicians—a drop from 51 percent in early 2025, shortly before he returned to the White House. The poll was conducted between July 21-22 among 1,000 registered voters. Why It Matters It comes as Trump is facing backlash from Democrats and his own supporters, who believe the state is covering up convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's links to rich and powerful individuals. This distrust threatens to weaken the president's credibility. Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, was found dead at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide. Various court documents have named people with ties to Epstein, though not accused of wrongdoing. The documents include victims of sex abuse, his employees and others with only a distant connection to the scandal. A list of Epstein's purported clients has not been released. President Donald Trump visits the Federal Reserve, Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump visits the Federal Reserve, Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Washington. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP What To Know President Trump has been under pressure since July 6, when the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI released a joint statement insisting that Epstein had "no incriminating 'client list'" and reiterated that he died by suicide in his jail cell in August 2019. The memo contradicted comments made by Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this year in which she claimed an Epstein "client list" was on her desk. But she later walked back the claim, clarifying that she was referring to the broader Epstein case file—not a specific list of clients. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal published a report alleging that Bondi informed President Donald Trump back in May that his name appears multiple times in the Epstein files. Trump denied this, claiming Bondi had not shared such information with him. The White House also disputed the report. "The fact is that the President kicked him out of his [Mar-a-Lago] club for being a creep," White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said in a statement. "This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about," Cheung continued. That same week, The Wall Street Journal uncovered a 2003 birthday card Trump allegedly sent to Epstein. The card included a drawing of a naked woman and the message: "We have certain things in common... may every day be another wonderful secret." A New York Times report from this week also claimed Trump wrote Epstein a note in a signed copy of Trump's book in October 1997, calling him "the greatest." The newly surfaced documents have revived longstanding allegations about Trump's ties to Epstein, despite his repeated claims that the two were never close. Trump has acknowledged knowing Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s, but maintains that he cut ties with him well before Epstein's 2006 arrest. He has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the ongoing investigations into Epstein's associates. Still, public skepticism remains high. According to a Wall Street Journal/Fabrizio, Lee & Associates poll, only 7 percent of voters say they have "complete confidence" in the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein case—highlighting the broader credibility crisis now facing the administration. Another 21 percent say they have little confidence, while fewer than one in four expressed any real trust in the probe. And 76 percent of voters believe the Justice Department is hiding important information about its Epstein investigation. And Trump is not the only member of his administration who is facing heat as a result of the backlash over the Epstein files. Vice President J.D. Vance is seeing a similar slide in public perception. The Napolitan News poll found that only 41 percent of voters consider Vance at least as ethical as most politicians, marking a dip since he assumed office alongside Trump in January. Vance has dismissed reporting by the Wall Street Journal, calling the report alleging that President Trump once sent a "bawdy" birthday card to Epstein "bogus." He also alleged the Wall Street Journal was coordinating an attack to damage Trump's character, calling the report "fake news." In contrast, Democrats no longer in office are experiencing a rebound in public trust. Sixty-seven percent of voters say Barack Obama is at least as ethical as most politicians, and 56 percent say the same of former Vice President Kamala Harris. Many Democrats, including members of Congress and activists, have urged the Department of Justice to release all grand jury materials and related documents to ensure the public can see the full scope of Epstein's network and any potential cover-ups. At the same time, Trump has seen his approval ratings drop to an all-time low across several polls, including Newsweek's tracker, which shows his net approval rating at -10 points. What Happens Next Lawmakers continue pressing for the release of investigative files related to Epstein's associates, though federal grand jury material remains sealed. On Wednesday, July 24, a U.S. District Judge rejected the Justice Department's bid to unseal grand jury materials related to the Epstein case, citing legal precedent and concerns over grand jury secrecy.
Los Angeles Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Another right-wing White House aide from liberal Santa Monica?
When people analyze Stephen Miller's rise as a hard-right advisor to President Trump, they marvel that he could emerge from left-leaning Santa Monica. They see a political mutation. I see a throwback. That's because Miller is not the first polarizing advisor to a Republican president to emerge from the town at the western terminus of the 10 Freeway. It's the town that was once the political base of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden and birthplace of one of California's most liberal rent control laws. But long before Miller (and that lefty tilt) came another Santa Monica High School graduate — John Ehrlichman, President Nixon's chief domestic policy advisor. Ehrlichman graduated with the Santa Monica High class of 1942, 61 years before Miller left the campus at 4th Street and Pico Boulevard. He, too, would come to be depicted as one of the villainous advisors to a controversial Republican president. But back in his day, Ehrlichman was less of an outlier. Republican-leaning homeowners and the town's right-of-center Evening Outlook newspaper dominated Santa Monica politics in the 1940s and '50s. The onetime Eagle Scout went from 'Samohi' (also my alma mater) to UCLA and Stanford Law School. During his time at UCLA, Ehrlichman befriended H.R. 'Bob' Haldeman, and the duo soon hitched their futures to another Southern Californian, Nixon. The former congressman and vice president lost in the 1960 presidential campaign and the 1962 California governor's race. When he finally took the White House in 1968, Haldeman and Ehrlichman followed, the former as chief of staff and the latter as another key member of Nixon's inner circle. Ehrlichman also helped Nixon cover up Watergate, the scandal that began to unravel when police caught burglars bugging Democratic Party campaign offices at the Watergate hotel, office and apartment complex in Washington. Ehrlichman's role in the scandal got him bounced out of the Samohi Hall of Fame, though sentiment about giving him the boot was not universal. Most students and residents said Ehrlichman had disgraced the school and deserved to go, according to a New York Times story in 1973. But some others said he should not lose his spot of honor in the Hall of Fame until he had been put on trial. A jury soon convicted Ehrlichman of obstruction of justice, conspiracy and perjury. He went to federal prison for 18 months. 'Although he went on to write novels, work with Native Americans and become involved in environmental issues, his role in Watergate continued to define and haunt him,' said his L.A. Times obituary in 1999, when he died at 73. And he never got back in the Santa Monica High School Hall of Fame, an honor bestowed on dozens of others, including Dodgers star Rick Monday, writer and comedian Sandra Tsing Loh and Olympic shot put gold medalist Parry O'Brien. Miller was also nominated for the Hall of Fame, during Trump's first term in office. But the board of the school's alumni association decided it was premature to judge the Republican, said alumni association President Phil Brock. 'We accept nominations from any Samohi graduate for another Samohi graduate for the Hall of Fame,' said Brock, who is also a past mayor of Santa Monica. 'I think it was premature to consider [Miller] at the time and I would still say that. Let's see how his lifetime accomplishments play out.' The Times' Deborah Vankin explores the luxury world of dog wellness in her latest story. Now we want to know how you pamper your furry best friends. Email us at essentialcalifornia@ and your response might appear in the newsletter this week. Today's great photo is from Times photographer Genaro Molina at the Los Angeles Zoo during a visit from some L.A. Unified migrant summer school students. The Trump administration wants to slash federal funding for programs supporting migrant children — including programs that allow some of California's most vulnerable children to visit the L.A. Zoo twice a week. Jim Rainey, staff writerDiamy Wang, homepage internIzzy Nunes, audience internKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@ Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on
Newsweek
21-07-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Jersey Shore GOP Strongholds Lose Federal Beach Aid After Decades
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Some of the New Jersey's most reliably Republican shore towns, which helped deliver strong support to the GOP in 2024, are now confronting an abrupt loss of federal beach replenishment funding — the first time in nearly three decades they've been left off the list. For the first time since 1996, the federal government has allocated no money for beach replenishment projects, canceling work slated for Avalon, Stone Harbor, Ocean City and other coastal communities in New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Why It Matters Each year, Congress allocates $100–200 million to combat beach erosion. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers then dredges and deposits sand on eroded beaches in states like New Jersey, with state and local governments covering a small share of the cost. The federal government pays most of it — nearly $29 million funded the last replenishment of Avalon and Stone Harbor, New Jersey, in 2023. That project added nearly 700,000 cubic yards of sand to the beaches. This year, however, the Army Corps said its Philadelphia District, which oversees southern New Jersey, will get no funding for 2025, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Monday. What To Know The cuts land hardest on some of the same Republican-leaning towns that handed Donald Trump a decisive win in 2024. In Cape May County — home to Avalon, Stone Harbor and Ocean City — Trump won 58.7 percent of the vote against Democrat Kamala Harris's 39.5 percent, flipping the county from Democrat in 2020. Steve Rochette, a spokesman for the Army Corps, said the Philadelphia District had two projects eligible for funding in 2025 — Avalon-Stone Harbor and the north end of Ocean City — but neither will proceed. Projects in Maryland's Ocean City and Delaware's Bethany, Rehoboth and Dewey beaches also received zero funding. "This is the first time in 29 years this has happened," said Scott Wahl, Avalon's business administrator. "That means Avalon will not get a hydraulic fill. You're looking at tens of millions of dollars." Waves crash towards the beach after a blizzard hit the region on January 24, 2016 in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. A major snowstorm hit the East Coast over weekend breaking records of snow fall while... Waves crash towards the beach after a blizzard hit the region on January 24, 2016 in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. A major snowstorm hit the East Coast over weekend breaking records of snow fall while causing flooding and ice in other areas along the Mid-Atlantic region. More Getty Images Avalon and Stone Harbor have historically relied on federal help for sand replenishment. In 2023, the federal government paid nearly $29 million for a project that placed hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sand along their beaches. Without that aid this year, Avalon resorted to scraping 39,000 cubic yards from other areas of its own beach at its own expense — a small fraction of what is typically needed. Wahl said the shore communities are willing to contribute but cannot cover the full costs alone. "Other towns don't even have enough sand to move around," he told the Inquirer. Advocates warn that delaying projects only compounds problems. Dan Ginolfi of the American Coastal Coalition said the limited number of dredging contractors and tight environmental windows mean projects need to be precisely timed. "If we can't get those projects done in a certain amount of time," Ginolfi said, "it increases the demand on the dredgers. The cost of dredging is already sky-high, and that just snowballs." Howard Marlowe, the coalition's founder, added: "New Jersey could afford to do one or two projects, but it can't afford to do all the ones that need to be done." What People Are Saying Scott Wahl, business administrator of Avalon, to the Inquirer: "We look at the beach not as an expense, but rather as an investment that pays rich dividends for resiliency, recreation, and fuels the economic engine on both the state and federal levels." Dan Ginolfi, executive director of the American Coastal Coalition, to the Inquirer: "If we can't get those projects done in a certain amount of time, it increases the demand on the dredgers. The cost of dredging is already sky-high, and that just snowballs." What Happens Next The Army Corps and New Jersey officials say they are continuing to monitor conditions and expect more communities — including Cape May, Ocean City, Sea Isle City and Strathmere — to be eligible for funding when the next budget cycle begins October 1. Until then, these coastal towns, many of which strongly supported Republican candidates last fall, remain without the federal dollars they've depended on for decades.
San Francisco Chronicle
20-07-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
As Newsom ponders redistricting, California projected to lose as many as 4 congressional seats
California could lose as many as four congressional seats in the 2030 apportionment, researchers say. A recent report from the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) echoes earlier forecasts of the state's declining political clout, including from the non-partisan American Redistricting Project and from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. All three reports found the state could lose at least three seats; the Brennan Center projected four. California isn't alone. Other Democratic-leaning states like New York, Illinois and Minnesota are also expected to lose one or two seats due to population declines. Meanwhile, Republican-leaning Florida and Texas could each gain as many as four new seats. Since districts in many of these states tend to be heavily gerrymandered, and because the Electoral College is winner-take-all, these changes would help Republicans in both presidential and congressional races if current partisan preferences hold. The zero-sum math behind apportionment has always been the same: Each state receives seats in proportion to its population at each Census. For decades, that math worked in California's favor. Between 1950 and 1990, the state added an average of 6 new seats every apportionment cycle as its population ballooned. But lately, the state's growth has stalled out. Sky-high housing prices have driven hundreds of thousands out of the Golden State — often to the same red states that are gaining seats at California's expense. That process accelerated during the pandemic, as many Californians left the state and worked remotely from places with lower living costs, said Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. A large number of Baby Boomers also moved out of the state after retirement, he said. What's more, the immigrants who have lately powered the state's growth are staying away. Their numbers declined during the pandemic and under subsequent Trump-era restrictions. The projected decline of California's clout matters as Gov. Gavin Newsom is considering a countermove to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's redistricting plan favoring Republicans. Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the state's congressional maps, a move that breaks from the custom of a once-a-decade redistricting cycle. Typically, new maps wouldn't be drawn again until after the 2030 census, unless ordered by a court. But Trump allies are pressuring Texas to make changes early to give Republicans an edge before the midterms. 'They are clearly very, very scared that they're going to lose the House of Representatives in this coming midterm cycle, and they're tipping their hand that they're going to need to cheat,' said John Bisognano, the president of NDRC, which fights for redistricting favorable to Democrats. For his part, Newsom could have a hard time using redistricting as a tool of partisan power. Even if the governor wanted to redraw congressional maps to favor Democrats, which state law already makes difficult, the math might only work out until the next Census. Data shows that not only is California's population stagnant, it's shrinking fastest in Democratic parts of the state. On average, between 2020 and 2023, Republican-leaning congressional districts in California grew, while Democratic ones shrank. California has limited tools to hold onto its political clout. For one thing, the state could invest more in boosting census participation, said Howard Fienberg, co-director at The Census Project. 'People may not be willing to report their information especially if they have illegal identity statuses or they are not proficient in English,' said Fienberg. 'It's also hard to count people accurately in rural or clustered urban areas.' Of course, California could also combat its declining influence by doing what it used to: attracting lots of new residents. Some signs are positive. As more companies require in-person work, people are moving back to the state and the trend could shift in the near future, said Li. 'We are still only halfway through the decade,' said Li. 'The future could look very different.'
USA Today
18-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump says daylight saving time is 'popular,' but enough to be permanent?
Nearly a month after the 2025 summer solstice – the so-called longest day of the year – the amount of afternoon daylight in the U.S. has been slowly diminishing and eventually will give way to the early nights of late fall and winter. But what if an extra hour of evening daylight could be squeezed out of every day? That's what almost 20 states have advocated for by passing measures in recent years in favor of year-round daylight saving time. President Donald Trump expressed support for such a notion as recently as three months ago, calling it 'very popular,'' though he has also referred to the move as a '50-50 issue.'' The practice of changing clocks twice a year has few supporters, what with the confusion and sleep disruption it creates. The dispute lies on whether to stick with standard time, which in this country runs from the first Sunday in November until the second Sunday in March, or embrace year-long daylight saving time. Here's what we know about the long-running debate: Is Congress any closer to making a change? It appeared that way in January when both chambers introduced legislation for a permanent DST, which in the Senate was known as the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025. Both bills were promoted by Republicans from Florida, at a time when the GOP grabbed control of the House and Senate. But even though the measures have continued to gain sponsors, more than 40 altogether, no action has taken place, and lawmakers from some states have expressed reservations. In 2022, the Senate unanimously approved a bill championed by then-Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for permanent DST, with exceptions for Hawaii and Arizona, but the measure died in the House. What are the pros and cons of both sides? Supporters of full-time DST promote opportunities for more after-school and after-work recreational activities in the daylight and amid warmer temperatures, which could improve the health of children and adults. Advocates also say later daytime hours would lead to reduced energy use, thereby cutting down on the carbon footprint amid growing concerns about climate change. Opponents point out the safety risks of children having to go to school and possibly wait for buses in the dark. They also say later daytime hours disrupt sleep and make it more difficult to wake up when it's dark in the morning. Which states want yearlong DST? Of the 18 states that have enacted legislation for year-round DST since 2018, seven are in the Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Those are all Republican-leaning states, but the issue is not red and blue. Washington, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware and Maine typically favor Democrats and they voted for the switch, and in deep-blue California voters authorized the legislature to ditch the clock-changing system, albeit requiring a two-thirds majority, if Congress allows it. The other states that prefer a permanent DST are Idaho (for the Pacific time zone only), Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Only Hawaii and Arizona (most of it) observe standard time for the whole year, as do the U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico. How did we get here? DST was implemented as an energy-saving effort during both World War I and WWII. They were temporary measures, as was the adoption of year-round DST in 1974 during a severe energy crisis. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Uniform Time Act to standardize timekeeping across a nation that had allowed states to observe DST inconsistently. The law established specific periods for standard time and DST, and though it gave states the option to remain on standard time for the year, it did not allow them to go to permanent DST without congressional approval. Until 2005, DST ended the final Sunday of October and began the first Sunday in April. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the stretch to its current format of nearly eight months. Now the question is whether legislators will 'lock the clock'' and make the later daylight hours permanent.
