Connect with us

Politics

After losing reelection, San Francisco mayor says she leaves office 'a winner'

Published

on

After losing reelection, San Francisco mayor says she leaves office 'a winner'

Mayor London Breed may have lost reelection, but after more than six years at the helm of one of America’s most iconic cities, she says she will leave office next month as a champion.

“No matter what the results said, I’m still a winner,” Breed said in an interview this week. “The fact that I have come out of the most problematic circumstances of San Francisco to be mayor, and I’m here, and I have been able to serve, it is an absolute privilege.”

Indeed, it has been a meteoric rise to the top for Breed, 50.

Raised in poverty by her grandmother in the Western Addition, at the time one of San Francisco’s toughest neighborhoods, Breed was elected to the powerful Board of Supervisors in 2012 after serving as executive director of the African American Art and Culture Complex. She made history in June 2018 when she won a special election as the first Black female mayor of San Francisco after the unexpected death of Mayor Ed Lee.

The years that followed would be defined by crises: a deadly pandemic; the explosive availability of fentanyl and corresponding surge in overdose deaths; the twin plagues of rampant homelessness and untreated mental illness; the racial justice protests of 2020; and in the wake of COVID-era closures, a crushing rise in retail theft and collapse of the downtown economy.

Advertisement

“I had to deal with crisis after crisis after crisis,” Breed said.

Her track record in the face of these challenges became a decisive factor in the mayor’s race, a hard-fought competition among Breed and four other top Democrats. Breed lost to Daniel Lurie, 47, a nonprofit executive and heir to the Levi Strauss family fortune who has never held elected office.

Lurie seized on voter disillusionment with brazen retail thefts, homeless encampments and open-air drug use that made San Francisco a favorite punching bag of right-wing pundits and President-elect Donald Trump. Lurie pitched himself as a political outsider whom voters could rely on to usher in a new era of accountability and good governance.

Though Breed has never been a bleeding-heart progressive, she tacked right in recent years, championing policies to more aggressively move homeless people off the streets and give police more authority and resources to tackle crime. She said she feels she is leaving office just as “everything is starting to come together.”

Violent crime rates have fallen over the last year, with homicides down 34%, robberies down 22%, burglaries down 12% and motor vehicle theft down 21%, according to the San Francisco Police Department.

Advertisement

In summer, Breed launched a campaign to clear homeless encampments, an effort she said is paying off with 60% fewer tents across the city. Fatal overdoses have fallen for six consecutive months after hitting a high of 810 deaths last year.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Democratic donor and staunch supporter of Breed’s, said the mayor deserves credit for effectively leading San Francisco through an unusually difficult period. “I think she handled some serious problems very well, and I think there were new problems, problems we had never experienced before,” Buell said.

Buell applauded Breed’s decisiveness during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when she was one of the first big-city mayors to declare a state of emergency — a decision credited with saving thousands of lives.

“Nobody knew what to do, and everyone was scared and trying to do the right thing, and be bold and careful at the same time,” Buell said. “I know she gave it her all.”

But those early pandemic decisions were a distant memory for many voters when it came time to cast ballots this year. There was a grim sense that San Francisco had lost control of its street life — and some of its charm.

Advertisement

Lurie’s reputation as a “non-politician” almost certainly helped him win election. Though considered a political outsider, Lurie comes from one of San Francisco’s most influential families. He was born the son of a rabbi. His parents divorced when he was young, and his mother went on to marry Peter Haas, an heir to the founder of the Levi’s brand. Haas has since died, and Lurie and his mother are among the primary heirs.

Lurie spent nearly $9 million on his campaign, and his mother, Miriam Haas, contributed an additional $1 million to an independent expenditure committee backing his mayoral bid. The committee received millions more from tech titans and wealthy investors who saw in Lurie an opportunity to set the city on a new course after what they perceived as years of misdirection.

Breed said that heavy spending disadvantaged her campaign.

“It just was definitely very challenging to run the city, which is the priority, and then try to run a campaign against the kind of financial resources that were coming at me from a lot of different places,” she said.

The rise in tech sector influence has become a defining theme the last two years in an array of San Francisco elections. Breed is still weighing whether that shift will ultimately improve local politics. “There’s a lot of money that I wish could be poured into the things that are important in San Francisco,” she said. “It can’t just be about investing in a particular person. … It has to be about investing in a city regardless of who’s in charge.”

Advertisement

Breed’s critics say her loss was about more than campaign money.

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, who ran against her for mayor as an old-school progressive, said she could be uncompromising and brusque in policy deliberations.

“It was kind of her way or the highway. And politics is the business of negotiating a compromise, which she did splendidly during COVID,” Peskin said. “But that was not everybody’s experience before COVID or after COVID, and that came back and bit her.”

In addition, he said, Breed’s shift away from the more liberal policies she championed when she served on the Board of Supervisors and in her early days as mayor cost her support from the progressive voters who helped elect her.

“She had alienated herself from liberal San Francisco along the way,” Peskin said. “And they abandoned her.”

Advertisement

James Taylor, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco and author of “Black Nationalism in the United States: From Malcolm X to Barack Obama,” agreed that Breed leaves office with a “mixed legacy.”

Breed governed the city during a challenging tenure, Taylor said, but some problems were of her own making. Her time in office was marred by a string of scandals that rocked city departments and nonprofits, undermining trust in government oversight.

Most recently, an investigation by the San Francisco Standard found that the head of the city’s Human Rights Commission funneled contracts worth more than $1 million to a nonprofit led by a man with whom she shared a home address and car — a close personal relationship she had not disclosed. The episode raised larger questions about how city funds have been managed for one of Breed’s signature programs, the Dream Keeper Initiative, which she established with the stated aim of directing more money into economic and cultural development in Black communities.

In the wake of the scandal, Taylor said, many Black San Franciscans felt the city lost the momentum for change they thought would come with her leadership.

“In other words, London Breed’s demise was self-inflicted,” he said. “The way this plane crashed, everything around it was destroyed.”

Advertisement

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and one of Breed’s allies, disputed that conclusion, contending Breed has been remarkably successful despite historic challenges.

“The city has been through a lot in the last five years,” he said. “The voters ultimately decided they wanted to go in another direction. But she’s done a lot of good things.”

Among her accomplishments, Wiener said: Breed was a forceful advocate for legislation to make it easier to build homes, and a reliable ally for the LGBTQ+ community.

“She really deeply understands our community,” Wiener said.

Breed acknowledged Lurie will inherit a list of tribulations. Among the more pressing issues is a projected $876-million city budget deficit. The office vacancy rate remains stubbornly high nearly five years after the pandemic. The city schools system is on the brink of state takeover.

Advertisement

Her advice to Lurie? “It’s important not to be afraid of what constituency you’re going to piss off when you have to make life-and-death situation decisions here in the city that may be unpopular.”

That grit is critical as California prepares for Trump to resume office, Breed said.

“San Francisco has been a consistent target and will be used as an example,” she said. “San Francisco is going to be impacted whether we want it to be or not.”

Her election loss coincided with Trump’s victory over her friend and mentor, Vice President Kamala Harris. Breed said their defeats should prompt reflection inside the Democratic Party.

“I hope the Democratic Party tries to figure out a way to help more people, especially even people like me, be more successful,” she said.

Advertisement

Breed said she has been focused on a smooth mayoral transition and hasn’t had much time to think about life after the mayor’s office. She has spent nearly her whole life working, she said, starting with babysitting gigs and grocery runs for neighbors as a preteen. She’s eager — and a bit anxious — to figure out her next job.

“I don’t have no rich mama with money,” she said, laughing. “I gotta go make my own money.”

Politics

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

Published

on

Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.

It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.

Advertisement

Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )

The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.

Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.

IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP

Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)

Advertisement

Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.

Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.

Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.

Advertisement

The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report. 

Related Article

Iraq War flashbacks? Experts say Trump’s Iran buildup signals pressure campaign, not regime change
Continue Reading

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

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

Trending