Politics
Levi's heir Daniel Lurie leads in early returns in heated San Francisco mayor's race
SAN FRANCISCO — Philanthropist and Levi’s heir Daniel Lurie took the lead in early returns Tuesday, holding an edge against incumbent Mayor London Breed and three other Democrats vying in the heated race for San Francisco mayor.
But with thousands of votes still uncounted, the final results were far from clear. San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting system, which allows voters to select multiple candidates by order of preference, complicates the process of quickly identifying a winner.
The city uses a multiround process to count the ranked-choice ballots, and it could take several rounds of tallying before a winner receives more than 50% of the vote. After each round, the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and those votes are redistributed to the remaining contenders.
Breed, a moderate Democrat and the first Black woman to hold the city’s mayoral post, had 25% of first-choice votes in early results, compared with 29% for Lurie, a fellow centrist Democrat.
The early returns showed Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, the only candidate in the race running as an old-school progressive, with 21% of first-choice votes; venture capitalist Mark Farrell, a moderate, with 18% of first-choice votes; and Supervisor Ahsha Safaí trailing with 3% of first-choice votes.
Speaking to supporters Tuesday night at the bar Victory Hall in the South of Market district, Breed struck an upbeat tone and urged patience with early results. “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over,” Breed told the crowd. “I have been behind before. I have been counted out before.”
San Francisco Mayor London Breed faced a tough reelection bid against four challengers who said she had not done enough to address property crime and homelessness in the city.
(Josh Edelson / For The Times)
In a marked shift for San Francisco, the city’s wealthy tech sector played an influential role in this year’s mayoral race. Tech titans who have put down roots in the city — and who continue to see San Francisco as an international hub for high tech — poured millions of dollars into campaign contributions, pressing for an outcome that would infuse this famously liberal city with more centrist politics.
That money overwhelmingly benefited Lurie, Farrell and Breed.
Breed, a San Francisco native, was first elected in 2018, winning a special election after the unexpected death of then-Mayor Ed Lee. She has led the city through a challenging period that includes the unsettling early spread of COVID-19 and the subsequent exodus of scores of downtown tech workers who, amid pandemic-related shutdowns, found themselves able to work remotely — and more cheaply — from other cities.
Detractors painted the election as a referendum on Breed’s efforts to address sprawling homeless encampments, rampant property crime and a flagging post-pandemic economy that cut at voters’ sense of a safe, well-functioning city.
“People in San Francisco are frustrated. On crime, on homelessness, on conditions of the streets,” said Jim Ross, a veteran Bay Area Democratic strategist. “The other issue is, this is Year 6 for London Breed. Any politician, their sixth year in office is really a difficult year because people are really looking at you as ‘What have you done?’”
Breed has highlighted recent data showing improvements on some of those issues, notably a reduction in property crime and violent crime over the last year. She has touted her policies to bolster police staffing, increase drug-related arrests and clear homeless encampments. And she has promoted new initiatives to repopulate empty storefronts and enliven the night life with markets and music festivals.
Many of her supporters touted her quick action to shut down San Francisco in the early days of the COVID emergency, a decision credited with saving thousands of lives. And she earned influential endorsements from housing advocacy organizations based on her work to ease San Francisco’s affordable housing shortage.
“I am the change,” she often said on the campaign trail.
Her leading opponents dismissed that progress as too little, too late.
Both Lurie and Farrell promised a more concerted crackdown on crime and homelessness and to reinvigorate the downtown economy. They emerged as appealing alternatives among voters who appreciated Breed’s messaging but had lost confidence in her ability to guide San Francisco out of crisis.
Lurie distinguished himself as the political “outsider” running against four City Hall veterans. He pledged to root out government corruption, a concern among voters following a series of political scandals in city departments and nonprofits in recent years.
Lurie had the advantage of his family’s vast wealth from the Levi Strauss fortune to buoy his campaign and strengthen his name recognition. He showered his campaign with more than $8 million of his own money.
His mother, Miriam Haas, contributed more than $1 million to an independent committee backing his mayoral bid. She married her second husband, Lurie’s stepfather Peter Haas, when Lurie was a young boy. Peter Haas, now deceased, was the great-grandnephew of the Levi’s founder and a longtime executive at the company.
Breed frequently characterized Lurie as an inexperienced leader who relied on his family’s money to get ahead.
Lurie responded by touting his role as founder of Tipping Point, a San Francisco nonprofit that funds efforts to lift people out of poverty, to highlight his commitment to solving intractable problems. He said the organization has funneled $500 million to Bay Area organizations focused on early childhood education, school scholarships, housing and job training since its founding nearly two decades ago.
Mayoral candidate Mark Farrell marketed himself as the candidate whose blend of political and business experience made him most qualified to get San Francisco back on track.
(Hannah Wiley / Los Angeles)
Farrell entered the race amid fanfare from supporters garnered during his seven years as a supervisor and six months as interim mayor before Breed was elected in 2018. He marketed himself as the candidate whose blend of political and business experience made him most qualified to get San Francisco back on track.
But his campaign was clouded by ethical concerns. This week, Farrell agreed to pay a fine of $108,000 following an investigation by city officials that determined he had illegally financed his mayoral campaign with money poured into a separate ballot measure committee he sponsored to reduce the number of government commissions in San Francisco.
Peskin, a longtime supervisor well-known in local politics, organized a robust grassroots campaign that openly embraced a liberal agenda. He frequently contrasted his working-class donors with the massive influx of tech money flowing to Lurie, Farrell and Breed. He focused his campaign on traditional San Francisco ideals, such as making the city affordable for nurses, teachers and the artists and bohemians who have long made the city a creative hub.
Politics
Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.
The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.
The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Politics
Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power
One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.
Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.
“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”
The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.
While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.
The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.
And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.
That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.
It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.
That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.
That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is true in the streets of America today.
Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.
The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.
USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.
The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.
HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.
‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Delaware2 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska