Connect with us

Politics

Newsom aims to limit unhealthy food in California, getting ahead of Trump administration and RFK Jr.

Published

on

Newsom aims to limit unhealthy food in California, getting ahead of Trump administration and RFK Jr.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on Friday attempting to limit access to ultra-processed foods, a directive he cast as a continuation of California’s “nation leading” nutrition and health standards.

“The food we eat shouldn’t make us sick with disease or lead to lifelong consequences,” Newsom said in a statement. “California has been a leader for years in creating healthy and delicious school meals, and removing harmful ingredients and chemicals from food. We’re going to work with the industry, consumers and experts to crack down on ultra-processed foods, and create a healthier future for every Californian.”

The order directs state agencies to develop recommendations to limit the health harms of ultra-processed foods and calls for proposals to reduce the purchase of candy, soda and other unhealthy foods made with synthetic dyes or additives by recipients of government food benefits.

The move comes weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn into office for his second term, with iconoclastic former environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy still needs to be confirmed by the Senate, but he has been a vocal critic of ultra-processed foods and promised to radically overhaul the country’s food system. Food dyes, pasteurized milk and seed oils are among the common items he has criticized, sometimes making health claims that are not backed up by science.

Though Newsom didn’t mention Kennedy, the Democratic governor of California is planting a preemptive flag around the issue and signaling his refusal to concede the terrain to the incoming Trump administration. His executive order included a long list of steps the state has taken to improve nutrition.

Advertisement

Processed foods are foods altered from their natural form, like frozen vegetables, whereas ultra — or highly —processed foods are foods that have been significantly altered from their natural state, like packaged chips or soft drinks. Ultra-processed foods make up the vast majority of the U.S. food supply, research shows.

The Golden State has indeed been a national leader in banning food additives, with Newsom signing a 2023 bill that made California the first state in the nation to prohibit four additives found in popular cereal, soda, candy and drinks.

The California Food Safety Act was colloquially referred to as the “Skittles ban” before its passage because an earlier version of the bill also targeted titanium dioxide, which is used to color Skittles and several other popular candies. But the final law was amended to remove reference to the substance, solely banning brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3.

Last year, Newsom signed a separate bill into law that bars snack foods containing a number of synthetic food dyes from California public schools. That law will prevent popular snack foods like Flamin’ Hot Cheetos from being stocked in school vending machines or cafeterias when it goes into effect on Dec. 31, 2027.

Laws to protect students from sugary drinks go back decades: In 2009 California banned all K-12 schools from offering soda.

Advertisement

The governor’s order cites the link between “ultra-processed foods” and cancer, obesity, diabetes and other health problems. The order says the U.S. allows more than 10,000 chemicals in food, color additives, or ingredients, compared to 300 that are allowed in the European Union.

Newsom is requiring the California Department of Public Health to provide recommendations by April 1 to limit the harms associated with ultra-processed foods and food ingredients that pose a health risk, which may include warning labels. He tasked the Californa Department of Social Services to issue recommendations to reduce the purchase by California food-stamp users of soda, candy, other ultra-processed foods, or foods made with synthetic food dye or additives on the same timeline.

Among several health directives, his order also requires state agencies to identify areas to increase standards for healthy school meals and to investigate the negative health consequences of food dyes.

Ultra-processed foods will likely be at the forefront of the national discourse in the coming weeks as Kennedy prepares for his Senate confirmation hearing.

Kennedy, a prominent anti-vaccine activist, has promoted a number of false health claims and fringe conspiracy theories. But his positions against food additives have also brought support from unlikely bedfellows who have criticized other parts of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Advertisement

“Yes, there are some things that he supports that we would agree with, but they feel more like the stopped clock that’s right twice a day,” Dr. Peter Lurie, president and executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said in an earlier interview with The Times — citing food additives as one example.

Lurie characterized Kennedy’s potential appointment more broadly as a dangerous choice because of his inability “to discern the difference between good and bad science.”

The Food and Drug Administration — the agency perhaps most publicly in Kennedy’s crosshairs — could be significantly impacted by his leadership if he is confirmed by the Senate.

The agency, which falls under the the Department of Health and Human Services, has a massive purview, regulating about 77% of the U.S. food supply and overseeing the safety of nearly $4 trillion worth of food, tobacco and medical products, according to federal data.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending