Connect with us

Politics

Newsom threatens to take money from counties that don't reduce homelessness

Published

on

Newsom threatens to take money from counties that don't reduce homelessness

With television cameras rolling and traffic on a busy San Fernando Valley freeway humming in the background, Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened on Thursday to take away state funding from counties that don’t show improvement on homelessness.

“If we don’t see demonstrable results, I’ll start to redirect money,” Newsom said.

“This is a sincerely held belief that we need local government to step up. This is a crisis. Act like it.”

Unbridled frustration from the Democratic governor over the lack of progress on his top issue — homelessness — isn’t new, nor is warning about stripping money from reluctant counties. As he nears the halfway point of his second and final term in office, Newsom is using his soapbox as governor to increase public pressure and lay blame on local leaders for California’s most glaring humanitarian crisis.

Los Angeles County, in particular, has become a frequent target of Newsom’s ire. The governor again criticized the county on Thursday for delaying implementation of a law that expands the criteria for people to be detained against their will.

Advertisement

Caltrans workers clean up another section of the homeless encampment near Paxton and Remick.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

His trip to Pacoima came after his call to remove homeless encampments also appeared to fall on mostly deaf ears last month in Los Angeles, where elected officials criticized the order, or said it changed nothing in their policy approach. The governor’s executive order requires his administration to remove encampments on state property and urged cities and counties to do the same.

Mayor Karen Bass said “strategies that just move people along from one neighborhood to the next or give citations instead of housing do not work.” Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath said the county is already doing “urgent and humane encampment resolution.”

Advertisement

Two weeks later, Newsom arrived in a T-shirt, aviator sunglasses and a baseball cap with a California Department of Transportation crew to clean up encampments near an entrance to the 5 Freeway in Pacoima. The governor said he signed the executive order with “intention.”

“Folks may choose not to do anything differently,” Newsom said Thursday. “That’s a decision that could be made. Here’s what I get to decide. … If that’s the result, I’m going to redirect the money. It’s not complicated and I’m going to send it to people that actually want to get the job done.”

The governor and experts agree that the homelessness crisis is decades in the making, but opinions differ over whether Newsom’s more conservative policy approach and finger-pointing will help fix the issue. A dearth of affordable housing, low wages and the high cost of living are at the crux of a problem that has been exacerbated by mental health challenges and drug abuse.

A man carries a large rectangular object past an abandoned shopping cart.

“If this is not the most important issue, you’re not paying attention,” the governor said of homelessness.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The Newsom administration has spent more than $24 billion to clean up encampments, move Californians off the streets and sidewalks, and convert hotels and motels into temporary shelters, among dozens of other homelessness initiatives. The state has increased spending flexibility for local governments and given cities and counties more authority to force Californians into treatment under programs such as CARE Court and the expansion of conservatorships.

Proposition 1, Newsom’s ballot measure that voters narrowly approved in March, is expected to deliver more than $6 billion for 10,000 treatment and housing beds and expand care for drug addiction.

But Newsom’s policy approach to encampments and forced care have become points of contention between the governor and advocates for the unhoused, aligning him more with conservatives than progressives in his own party. The governor argues that he’s done his job and given cities and counties more funding, tools and authority to address the problem as they requested.

“There’s no more excuses,” Newsom said. “You’ve got the money. You’ve got the flexibility. You’ve got the green light. You’ve got the support from the state and the public is demanding it of you, and if this is not the most important issue, you’re not paying attention. This is the biggest scar on the reputation of the state of California.”

Los Angeles County released a statement defending its response to the homelessness crisis, describing it as a massive and complex undertaking:

Advertisement

“New bed capacity needs to be built to accommodate a population of patients who will require locked facilities when held for treatment involuntarily. Without first taking those steps, the work of moving people off the streets for their own health and safety would fail. This does not mean L.A. County is standing still. Our Pathway Home encampment resolution program already has moved hundreds of people inside as we have also extensively supported the City of L.A.’s Inside Safe program that has sheltered thousands of others.”

In June, Newsom praised a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed Grants Pass, Ore. to enforce a law that banned camping in public places despite the city not having enough shelter to offer the people living in encampments.

Academics and homeless advocates cast Newsom’s encampment order, which followed the ruling, as a reaction to political pressure that could make the problem worse instead of offering a solution to help California’s most vulnerable residents.

“People can’t disappear themselves,” said Margot Kushel, a professor of medicine and the director of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco. “There is no easy way out of this. I have deep compassion for everybody’s frustration. I’m frustrated. I want this problem to be over. I understand this is unacceptable, but I think when you’re in a hole, you need to stop digging.”

Kushel and others described California’s fundamental problem as the shortage of affordable housing. The Newsom administration has spent a lot of funding on the problem of homelessness, Kushel said, but the state still isn’t building enough housing as the need continues to grow.

Advertisement

A state audit also found that California has failed to monitor the effectiveness of its costly homelessness programs, which raised questions about whether Newsom’s efforts are worth the price tag as the state grapples with a budget deficit. The governor has pushed for more accountability around how local governments use state dollars.

The state budget enacted in July broadens the responsibilities of a state Housing Accountability Unit to include oversight of state homelessness grants to cities and counties and adds more staff positions for the work. A separate bill, Assembly Bill 3093, seeks to require local governments to plan to build housing for all income levels, including homeless populations.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan applauded Newsom for focusing on improving accountability.

Workers in hard hats and high visibility clothing stand with a shopping cart on the shoulder of a road.

State transportation crews take part in the cleanup.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Mahan said the development of more affordable housing is critically important, but it takes too long and costs too much to immediately address the problem. San José has focused on using state and federal funding to offer interim and transitional housing communities to provide “a ladder off the streets.”

Last month, Newsom informed San Diego County of the state’s intent to reclaim a $10-million grant to build 150 tiny units for lack of action and redirect the funds to San José.

Mahan said he backs the idea of a statewide framework with set targets and specific goals for local governments to build shelter and treatment for its homeless residents.

“I think it will get us out of the fantasy land of thinking that we can prioritize solutions that will work if we just happen to have another $100 billion,” Mahan said.

Times staff writer Rebecca Ellis contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending