Connect with us

Politics

Column: Katie Porter is nearly done with Congress. But she's not finished yet

Published

on

Column: Katie Porter is nearly done with Congress. But she's not finished yet

Katie Porter is seated at Starbucks, nursing an iced coffee and discussing might-have-beens as a stream of customers in seasonal uniform — shorts, flip-flops — flows steadily past.

This is not how she hoped to spend her summer.

The Orange County congresswoman had gone from unknown to political celebrity virtually overnight, wielding a whiteboard and marking pen to skewer lobbyists, torment chief executives and harry various corporate heavies — to the utter rapture of the online, cable-TV-consuming wing of the Democratic Party.

She transformed herself from UC law professor into a fundraising dynamo, a progressive heroine and oft-discussed prospect for higher office. Then it all came crashing down as Porter lost, badly, in a fractious Senate primary to fellow Rep. Adam B. Schiff. Now he’s the one cruising to election and potential lifetime tenure in Washington, as Porter confronts the end of her congressional career a few short months from now.

Advertisement

She has, Porter says, no regrets.

Not for how she waged her Senate campaign. Not for yielding the national political platform she built. Not for walking away from a House seat — which Republicans are eagerly eyeing — after three terms and six years in Washington, a point when many in her line of work are just getting started.

“What in the universe do I wish was different?” Porter asked, before answering herself. “A lot. A lot.”

The war in Gaza, for instance, which activated a peace movement in the Democratic Party and bolstered the candidacy of Rep. Barbara Lee, Porter’s main competition for liberal support against the more centrist Schiff.

“Do I think I underestimated some factors and overestimated some others? Sure. Do I think that there were calculations and calculuses that I made? Yes,” Porter went on. “But when I look at that campaign, I don’t think there was … a particular moment or a particular decision that shaped it either way.”

Advertisement

The morning rush had petered out. An egg-and-spinach wrap sat before Porter, untouched.

She’s still smarting over the millions of dollars in negative advertising the crypto industry and tech bros dumped on her head to help Schiff. But, she says, her endorsement of her erstwhile rival is wholehearted and sincere.

“Adam and Barbara and I remained very cordial throughout the race,” Porter said. “We saw each other every day at work. People forget that. We’re sitting in delegation meetings together; we’re on the airplane together. One of the first people I saw after I lost was Barbara Lee’s son, who was like, ‘You ran a great race.’ We understand that when you run, someone wins and someone loses.”

Her one hope for Schiff is that he uses the fall campaign (such as it is against his handpicked opponent, the hapless Republican Steve Garvey) to talk about some of the many issues facing California.

“We need a real policy debate in California,” Porter said. “We have a narrative about California being [Gov. Gavin Newsom’s] golden California dreaming, but also people who are like, ‘This is a failed state; people are leaving’ — that whole narrative. … This race was a chance to have a real policy debate about our state, and I don’t think that happened.”

Advertisement

Blame the short attention span of voters. Blame a diminished political press corps. Blame a contest that managed to captivate very few Californians. Blame hairsplitting among generally like-minded Democrats and the lack of any real GOP competition to spur a deep and meaningful discussion.

Even as Schiff coasts to election, Porter said: “I hope Adam will go back to some of the policies that were really important in the Senate race — whether that was housing, whether that was the environment, energy, whether that was taxes — and try to have some of those conversations and arrive in the Senate really willing to think about ‘What does California need from Washington?’”

A customer approached Porter, wide-eyed, to offer good wishes. The 47th Congressional District, which runs along the Orange County coast, is home to one of the most competitive House races in the country, a fight pitting Democrat Dave Min against Republican Scott Baugh to replace Porter on Capitol Hill.

She has few illusions about the institution she’s leaving behind.

Congress is a lumbering beast of a place, deeply polarized and highly antagonistic, and Porter said there’s little desire by leaders of either major party to fix that.

Advertisement

“My colleagues want to talk — and you will hear them talk this fall, whether it’s Congressman Schiff running for the Senate, or a House candidate or Vice President Harris — they want to talk endlessly about the crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Porter said. “What about the crisis of confidence in us, in Congress, and who we work for and how effective we are? That’s a conversation worth having, too.”

(There’s a reason Porter was no favorite of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who threw her considerable clout behind Schiff in the Senate primary.)

For now, Porter is looking forward to returning to the classroom in January — her face lit up at the mention of standing in front of students again — taking up her old position at UC Irvine. She’ll teach a first-year law class and courses on commercial law and legislation.

She has a new Burmese kitten, Dino, and a basset hound puppy, Poppy. As a single mom of three children, she’ll gladly forsake the arduous cross-country commute to Washington, and also looks forward to being around when her kids get home from school.

A sip of coffee. Another passerby — a woman in a neon-green safety vest — bids Porter well.

Advertisement

She hasn’t ruled out a future run for statewide office — Porter could be a formidable candidate for attorney general or governor — but feels no haste to decide. (By contrast, she was the first to jump in to the Senate race, even before the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein had stated her intention to step aside.)

Porter reprimanded the nearly half dozen gubernatorial hopefuls who’ve already launched their campaigns.

“Between now and election day, in my opinion, nobody should be campaigning for governor,” Porter said. Democrats, quite rightly, insist that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy and that the party must do all it can to stop him.

“If you believe that” — here Porter brandished a fist — “then that’s what we should all be working on right now.” Not jockeying in an election still more than two years off.

At 50, still in the blush of youth by today’s silvered political standards, Porter has plenty of highway ahead of her.

Advertisement

She remains committed, she said, to public service of some sort.

“I’m not tired at all of being a candidate. I’m not tired of campaigning,” she said, finally turning attention to her neglected spinach wrap. “But I just don’t know what that looks like, and I’m not gonna be rushed.

“I’m going to look for the thing that feels right, whether that’s elective office — I don’t know at what level — whether that’s administration, whether that’s some kind of civil service board position in California,” or possibly a role in a Kamala Harris administration.

Her brief, ascendant House career may be nearly over. But, Porter suggested, she’s not through yet.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

on

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

Advertisement

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Advertisement

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Advertisement

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Advertisement

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

Advertisement

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

Advertisement

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

Advertisement

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending