Politics
Commentary: Fix the potholes or fight the power? That’s the choice facing California’s next governor
You may have missed it, what with President Trump’s endless pyrotechnics, but California voters will decide in November who succeeds Gavin Newsom, the highest-profile governor since the Terminator returned to Hollywood.
Unfortunately for those attempting to civically engage, the current crop of contenders is, shall we say, less than enthralling.
In alphabetical order (because there is seriously no prohibitive front-runner), the major candidates are Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, John Slavet, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee.
Whew! (Pause to catch breath.)
Armed with that knowledge, you can now go out and win yourself a few bar bets by asking someone to name, say, even two of those running.
Meantime, fear not. Your friendly columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have surveyed the field, weighed the odds, pondered California’s long history and concluded … they have absolutely no clue what will happen in the June 2 primary, much less who’ll take the oath of office come next January.
Here, they discuss the race that has Californians sitting on neither pins nor needles.
Chabria: Mark, I do this for a living and I’m having trouble summoning up any interest in this race — yet, anyway.
Part of my problem is that national events are so all-consuming and fast-moving that it’s hard to worry about potholes. I admit, I appreciate that our White House-contending governor is fighting the big fight. But remind me again, what’s a governor supposed to do?
Barabak: End homelessness. Elevate our public schools to first-class rank. Make housing and college tuition affordable. Eliminate crime. End disease and poverty. Put a chicken in every pot. Make pigs fly and celestial angels sing. And then, in their second year …
Seriously, there’s a pretty large gap between what voters would like to see happen and what a governor — any governor — can plausibly deliver. That said, if our next chief executive can help bring about meaningful improvement in just a few of those areas, pigs and angels excepted, I’d venture to say a goodly number of Californians would be pleased.
Broadly speaking, my sense when talking to voters is they want our next governor to push back on Trump and his most egregious excesses. But not as a means of raising their national profile or positioning themselves for a run at the White House. And not to the exclusion of bettering their lives by paying attention to the nitty and the gritty, like making housing and higher education more readily available and, yes, fixing potholes.
Chabria: All that is fair enough. As the mom of two teens, I’d especially like to see our university system be more affordable and accessible, so we all have our personal priorities. Let’s agree to this starting point: The new governor can’t just chew gum and walk. She or he must be able to eat a full lunch while running.
But so far, candidates haven’t had their policy positions break through to a big audience, state-focused or not — and many of them share broadly similar positions. Let’s look at the bits of daylight that separate them because, Republicans aside, there aren’t canyon-size differences among the many candidates.
San José Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest entry in the race, is attempting to position himself as a “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” centrist. How do you think that will go over with voters?
Barabak: You’re having me tiptoe uncomfortably close to the Make A Prediction Zone, which I assiduously avoid. As I’ve said before, I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know. (Many readers will doubtless question the underlying premise of the former if not the latter part of that statement.)
I think there is at least a potential for Mahan to tap into a desire among voters to lower the hostilities just a bit and ease up on our constant partisan war-footing.
You might not know it if you marinate in social media, or watch the political shout-fest shows where, as in nature, the loudest voices carry. But there are a great many people working two or even three jobs, ferrying their kids to soccer practice, worrying about paying their utility and doctor bills, caring for elderly parents or struggling in other ways to keep their heads above water. And they’re less captivated by the latest snappy clap-back on TikTok than looking for help dealing with the many challenges they face.
I was struck by something Katie Porter said when we recently sat down for a conversation in San Francisco. The former Orange County congresswoman can denigrate Trump with the best of ‘em. But she said, “I am very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”
California’s homelessness and affordability crises were years in the making, she noted, and need to be addressed as such.
I heard Antonio Villaraigosa suggest something similar in last week‘s gubernatorial debate, when the former Los Angeles mayor noted the state has spent billions of dollars in recent years trying to drastically reduce homelessness with, at best, middling results. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror,” he said.
That suggests to me Mahan is not the only candidate who appreciates that simply saying “Trump = Bad” over and over is not what voters want to hear.
Chabria: Certainly potholes and high electricity bills existed before Trump. But if the midterms don’t favor Democrats, the next governor will probably face a generational challenge to protect the civil rights of residents of this diverse state. It’s not about liking or disliking Trump, but ensuring that our governor has a plan if attacks on immigrants, the LBGTQ+ community and citizens in general grow worse.
I do think this will matter to voters — but I agree with you that candidates can’t simply rage against Trump. They have to offer some substance.
Porter, Swalwell and Becerra, who have the most national experience and could be expected to articulate that sort of vision, haven’t done much other than to commit to the fight. Steyer and Thurmond want to abolish ICE, which a governor couldn’t do. Mahan has said focusing on state policy is the best offense.
I don’t think this has to be a charisma-driven vision, which is what Newsom has so effectively offered. But it needs to bring resoluteness in a time of fear, which none of the candidates to my mind have been able to project so far.
But this all depends on election results in November. If Democrats take Congress and are able to exert a check to this terrible imbalance, then bring on the asphalt and fix the roads. I think a lot of what voters want from a governor won’t fully be known until after November.
Barabak: The criticism of this collective field is that it’s terminally boring, as if we’re looking to elect a stand-up comic, a chanteuse or a juggler. I mean, this is the home of Hollywood! Isn’t it the birthright of every California citizen to be endlessly entertained?
At least that’s what the pundits and political know-it-alls, stifling yawns as they constantly refresh their feeds on Bluesky or X, would have you believe.
Voters elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor — that’s two movie stars in the state’s 175-year history — and, from the way the state is often perceived, you’d think celebrity megawattage is one of the main prerequisites for a chief executive.
But if you look back, California has seen a lot more George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis types, which is to say bland-persona governors whom no one would mistake for box-office gold.
It seems to me no coincidence that Schwarzenegger, who arrived as a political novelty, was replaced by Jerry Brown, who was as politically tried-and-true as they come. That political pendulum never stops swinging.
Which suggests voters will be looking for someone less like our gallivanting, movie matinee governor and someone more inclined to keep their head down in Sacramento and focus on the state and its needs.
Who will that be? I wouldn’t wage a nickel trying to guess. Would you care to?
Chabria: I certainly don’t care to predict, but I’ll say this: We may not need or get another Terminator. But one of these candidates needs to put some pepper flakes in the paste if they want to break out of the pack.
Politics
Video: President Trump Makes Contradictory Statements About Strategy for War in Iran
new video loaded: President Trump Makes Contradictory Statements About Strategy for War in Iran
transcript
transcript
President Trump Makes Contradictory Statements About Strategy for War in Iran
Since launching the war in Iran on Feb. 28, President Trump has altered his position on regime change and shifted the timeline of operations.
-
Regime change was not one of the things I had as a goal. I had one goal. They will have no nuclear weapon. And that goal has been attained. They will not have nuclear. And we’re going to try to get people that are going to run it well, and it’s going to be a prosperous, wonderful place. It used to be to the great, proud people of Iran, when we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred. And we have. From the beginning, we projected four to five weeks on Iran. You called it an excursion. You said it would be over soon. Are you thinking this week it will be over. No, but some days I think so. And very soon the war is going to be over in three days. My prediction. It turns out we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.
By McKinnon de Kuyper and Zach Wasser
April 3, 2026
Politics
Nebraska Senate candidate restructures campaign after complaint over payments to family: report
Democrats unveil new 2028 election playbook
After 2024 losses, Democrats unveil a 2028 playbook focused on voter connection, progressive policies and wealth taxes. Bernie Sanders senior advisor Faiz Shakir and Fox News contributor Karl Rove debate the agenda’s viability for future elections.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska Dan Osborn is reportedly restructuring his campaign following complaints he has been improperly steering funds for personal use to his relatives, including his wife, who, a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleges received funds illegally via the Osborn campaign, a web of political action committees and consulting firms.
While paying family members is not illegal under federal election law, there are certain guidelines that must be followed, including that the services rendered are bona fide campaign services, and that they are paid at fair-market value. Fox News Digital reported last month that conservative watchdog Americans for Public Trust filed a complaint with federal election officials alleging the Osborn campaign and two political action committees were engaging in an illegal “scheme” to pay nearly half-a-dozen of his relatives.
Osborn’s wife was among the relatives at the center of the complaint, having been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from her husband’s campaigns and his affiliated PACs, both directly and via two political consulting firms she was working for, or had an ownership stake in, according to the complaint. But, on Thursday, Osborn and his wife informed the Omaha-World Herald that she would be stepping away from her roles with the two consulting firms and would be joining her husband’s campaign as its full-time operations manager.
U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn speaks during his campaign stop at Sly’s Family Bar and Grill in Neligh, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMPLAINT ALLEGES AOC MISUSED CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PSYCHIATRIST SERVICES
“I am not going to let Pete and his cronies dictate who runs my campaign,” Osborn told the Omaha-World Herald. “No one works harder than my wife. Along with running our household and raising our kids, she has been instrumental in running my campaign.”
In a statement to Fox News Digital, campaign spokesperson John Dolan called the concerns about Osborn’s campaign spending “a joke.”
“Why is a billionaire like Pete Ricketts so afraid of a mechanic?” Dolan questioned, referring to incumbent GOP Nebraska Sen. Pete Ricketts, whom Osborn is challenging. “Ricketts and his allies are doing what they always do: throwing mud to distract voters from the fact that they’re getting rich while bankrupting the country.”
Osborn has been steadfast that his wife, reportedly a former bar manager, has been an instrumental part of his campaign and that payments have been in line with fair-market value rates. In some cases, Megan has gotten money directly from her husband’s campaign, and in other cases she has received it from two firms, one called Independent Campaigns LLC, which Megan has a one-third ownership stake in, and Dark Forest LLC, which official candidate disclosures show Megan gets compensation from. The firms were being paid for campaign services as well.
Just two days after Independent Campaigns was set up, Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund (WCHF) made its first $50,000 payment to the firm, according to the Lincoln-Journal Star. Per Americans for Public Trust’s FEC complaint, Independent Campaigns has received nearly $200,000 from Osborn’s principal campaign, WCHF and another PAC called the League of Labor Voters (LLV), which Americans for Public Trust also alleges is controlled by Osborn.
In total, per the Americans for Public Trust complaint letter, Osborn’s wife has been able to rake in close to $300,000 for herself for things like “strategy consulting” and work reimbursements.
OMAR CALLS GOP PROBE INTO HUSBAND’S $30M BUSINESS SURGE A ‘POLITICAL STUNT’ AS RECORDS DEADLINE PASSES
Meanwhile, the complaint against Osborn’s campaign also includes payments made to two of Osborn’s sisters-in-law, his brother-in-law and his daughter.
Placards for U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn are seen as he speaks during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Osborn’s daughter, Georgia, a part-time dancer who Osborn says still needs help paying her bills, was given $4,200 from Osborn’s first failed campaign that was defunct at the time. The payment came between when Osborn’s first 2024 campaign lost and before launching his 2026 bid. The money was for “assistant services” from the then-dormant campaign.
“Perhaps the Osborn family is teeming with previously undiscovered, dynastic political talent, akin to the Kennedys or Roosevelts,” states the Americans for Public Trust complaint to the FEC. “Or perhaps Mr. Osborn has realized his ability to funnel large amounts of unchecked campaign cash to his own family.”
Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn chats with attendees after speaking during his campaign stop at the Handlebend coffee shop in O’Neill, Neb., on Oct. 14, 2024. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
According to the Omaha-World Herald, Osborn’s wife will not only no longer be working for the consulting firms she was with previously, but would also be divesting her stake in Independent Campaigns. The outlet also reported that Osborn and his wife indicated she would be paid a salary of $8,000 per month, which is slightly lower than the $9,000 per month that Osborn said his wife was making from multiple income sources prior to beginning work with her husband’s first failed campaign in 2024.
“Dan Osborn only restructured how he pays his wife after we filed a complaint with the FEC that he was running afoul of campaign finance laws,” Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, told Fox News Digital on Friday. “However, questions still remain regarding his payments to his daughter, his brother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, and his control over two federal PACs. Rest assured, Osborn may have changed tactics, but he isn’t off the hook in his attempt to funnel campaign cash to his entire family.”
Osborn, who is running as an Independent, has also been criticized for his affiliations with Democrats despite committing to not caucusing with either major party if elected. Osborn is looking to unseat incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., after losing his 2024 challenge against Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
Politics
U.S. rescues pilot who ejected after fighter jet was shot down by Iran, officials say
WASHINGTON — A crew member was rescued after an American aircraft went down Friday in Iran, the Associated Press reported, citing U.S. and Israeli officials.
U.S. forces launched a rescue mission in southwestern Iran after at least one American crew member ejected from a fighter jet downed by Iranian defenses, according to a U.S. official and news outlets.
The downing of the jet, an F-15E, was confirmed to The Times by a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. That type of jet reportedly carries a standard crew of two, but it was not clear if more than one crew member ejected.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has maintained for weeks that the U.S. has “complete, uncontested control of Iranian airspace” after destroying the country’s air defenses.
“Iran has no air defenses, Iran has no air force,” he said at a March 13 Pentagon news conference. “Today, as we speak, we fly over the top of Iran and Tehran, fighters and bombers all day, picking targets as they choose, as our intelligence gets better and better and more refined.”
But the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that a new type of Iranian air defense system deployed for the first time in recent days had shot down a warplane on Friday.
The statements stirred a flurry of conflicting instructions from Iranian state-affiliated broadcasters. One local television channel initially encouraged viewers to search for the downed pilot and “shoot them as soon as you see them.”
It then changed the instructions, according to the Associated Press, after local police issued a statement asking the public to capture and turn in American pilots alive to security agencies to “receive a precious prize.”
On social media, Iranian accounts posted videos purporting to show helicopters searching for downed pilots in Iran’s western and southern provinces, according to a report from Fars News.
Fars also reported officials in Iran’s southwest were offering a “valuable reward” to anyone “who captures the American pilot alive.”
Images of a tail section posted on social media had markings indicating it was from the 48th Fighter Wing, which is based at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, according to Peter Layton, a visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute in Australia, in an interview with NBC News.
U.S. and Israel escalate attacks on infrastructure
The development came as U.S. and Israeli forces escalated attacks on civilian sites and key infrastructure across Iran Friday, including strikes on residential buildings, health centers and Iran’s largest bridge, with President Trump warning that the U.S. “hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran.”
On his social media, the president posted dramatic images of the smoldering B1 bridge, a towering cable-suspended viaduct that was severed in U.S.-Israel strikes late Thursday.
“The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again — Much more to follow!” Trump wrote.
Connecting Tehran to the city of Karaj, the $400-million bridge was Iran’s largest, and was often regarded as one of the most prominent, expensive and complex engineering endeavors in the Middle East.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei labeled the attack a “war crime in the style of ISIS terrorism.” Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi called the act a sign of moral collapse by “an enemy in disarray,” stating that such actions will not compel Iranians to surrender.
“Every bridge and building will be built back stronger. What will never recover: damage to America’s standing.”
The attacks come after Trump announced what he described as a two- to three-day “off-ramp” from hostilities, while simultaneously warning he would bring Iran “back to the Stone Ages” if it didn’t cede to U.S. demands.
Reports from Iranian state media and international monitoring groups indicate strikes have also hit homes, religious centers, universities and municipal infrastructure across multiple provinces, raising concerns among humanitarian organizations about the widening scope of targets.
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Friday that the U.S. and Israel have carried out routine attacks on Iranian healthcare facilities since March 1.
“WHO has verified over 20 attacks on health care in Iran, resulting in at least nine deaths, including that of an infectious diseases health worker and a member of the Iranian Red Crescent Society,” Tedros wrote on X.
Iran’s health ministry estimated about 2,076 people have been killed and 26,500 wounded by U.S.-Israeli attacks since fighting broke out Feb. 28. An estimated 1,300 have been killed in Lebanon, according to its health ministry, while more than two dozen people have died in Gulf states and the occupied West Bank.
Thirteen U.S. service members have been killed, and 19 Israeli service members have been reported dead in a five-week-old war that has triggered growing unease stateside.
A recent Pew Research Center survey conducted in late March found that most Americans opposed direct U.S. military involvement in a war with Iran. A separate Gallup poll reported declining approval for the administration’s handling of foreign policy.
Lawmakers in both parties have raised concerns about Israel’s influence in the Trump administration’s decision to enter a lengthy conflict, stoking debates over military aid and executive war powers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that she plans to oppose future military aid to Israel, including for its Iron Dome defense systems. She argued that the Israeli government recently funded a $45-billion defense budget and is “well able” to bankroll its war without U.S. help.
“I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. law,” she said on X.
Iran hit desalination plant and oil refinery
Iran returned fire, again aiming at infrastructure targets operated by its Gulf neighbors. A series of airstrikes set Kuwait’s Mina al-Ahmadi oil refinery on fire, the Associated Press reported, as Kuwaiti firefighters were working to knock down several blazes there.
Kuwait also reported that an Iranian attack significantly damaged a desalination plant, which supplies drinking water to the region.
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Israel all scrambled to intercept incoming Iranian missiles Friday, according to reports, despite the Pentagon’s assurances that Iran’s military facilities and missile capacity have been largely wiped out.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates shut down a gas field after a missile interception reportedly rained debris on it and started a fire, the Associated Press reported.
The war has pushed Iran to tighten its grip over the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring 50%, upending stock markets, and stirring supply chain disruptions that threaten to destabilize global food markets.
Americans felt the oil rally again this week, after Trump’s Wednesday address dashed investors’ hopes of a swift end to the conflict, sending U.S. crude prices up 11% Thursday and another half point on Friday.
-
Culture1 week agoWil Wheaton Discusses ‘Stand By Me’ and Narrating ‘The Body’ Audiobook
-
South-Carolina6 days agoSouth Carolina vs TCU predictions for Elite Eight game in March Madness
-
Culture1 week agoWhat Happens When We Die? This Wallace Stevens Poem Has Thoughts.
-
Miami, FL1 week agoJannik Sinner’s Girlfriend Laila Hasanovic Stuns in Ab-Revealing Post Amid Miami Open
-
Minneapolis, MN1 week agoBoy who shielded classmate during school shooting receives Medal of Honor
-
Education1 week agoVideo: Transgender Athletes Barred From Women’s Olympic Events
-
Vermont6 days ago
Skier dies after fall at Sugarbush Resort
-
Politics6 days agoTrump’s Ballroom Design Has Barely Been Scrutinized