Politics
San Francisco ties welfare to drug-screening, boosts police powers in stunning tough-on-crime shift
Mayor London Breed was all smiles during a packed primary party on Tuesday in Hayes Valley, a boutique neighborhood about a half mile from City Hall, stopping for selfies and congratulations as she navigated the crowded bar toward a microphone.
“Change is coming!” Breed shouted to thundering applause from the patio at the hip cocktail bar Anina.
Early results showed promise for a slate of local candidates running on a more centrist agenda, and for ballot measures that would transform downtown with new development and called on the city school board to reinstate Algebra I as an offering for middle school students.
But the focus of Breed’s excitement that evening was two ballot measures she championed to broaden police surveillance powers and impose drug treatment mandates that were garnering overwhelming voter support — a stunning rightward shift for a city known nationally for its progressive politics.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed rallies supporters during an election night party.
(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)
The first measure, Proposition E, bolsters police powers in the city. The second, Proposition F, will require drug screening and treatment for people receiving county welfare benefits who are suspected of drug use.
The measures give teeth to efforts to address the city’s open-air drug addiction crisis — and the street crime and rampant homelessness that come with it. Taken together, they give credence to Breed’s message that San Francisco is not the bastion of lawlessness its critics love to claim.
“Enough is enough,” Breed said. “We need change.”
Breed faces a difficult reelection campaign in November as she seeks a second full term in office. Two of her opponents — Levi Strauss heir and nonprofit founder Daniel Lurie, and venture capitalist Mark Farrell, a former district supervisor and interim mayor — are considered moderates by San Francisco standards, and have blasted the mayor for the city’s street conditions and the lagging post-pandemic economic recovery.
A third opponent, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, is a well-known progressive likely to garner support among stalwart liberals concerned with the city’s recent shift toward the center.
As she navigates a middle path forward, Breed’s supporters hope the ballot victories inject her reelection bid with a jolt of energy and chart a clearer path forward for a city that has struggled to get homeless people off the streets and to rebound from the pandemic-related exodus of its downtown tech sector.
“This is a really good night for London Breed, Madam Mayor,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) told the crowd. “This city has been getting beaten up for the last few years, and San Francisco is coming back, and it’s going to be even better than ever.”
The ballot measures approved Tuesday build on several initiatives Breed has spearheaded over the past year to put teeth to the city’s efforts to stem drug addiction and overdose deaths, adding punitive components to policies that long have centered on a gentler treatment-focused approach.
Last fall, city officials announced plans for a law enforcement task force, set to launch in spring, that will investigate opioid deaths and illicit drug dealing in the city as potential homicide cases. Months before, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom deployed the California National Guard and California Highway Patrol to target drug-trafficking networks funneling fentanyl into the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods, an operation that has led to hundreds of arrests.
Breed contends those efforts are paying off: Over the last six months, property crime has fallen by 30% and violent crime by 4%, according to the mayor’s office.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed says the ballot measures voters approved this week give needed teeth to efforts to address the city’s drug crisis.
(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)
Breed said the drug-screening initiative will build on those efforts by compelling more people with substance-use disorder into treatment.
Proposition F, set to go into effect in January 2025, will modify the County Adult Assistance Programs, which offers cash benefits to low-income single adults 65 and under without dependent children. Recipients will now be required to undergo a drug-screening assessment if there’s “reasonable suspicion” they struggle with substance-use disorder, and to enter into treatment if warranted.
Proponents say the change will safeguard city resources against a street drug culture that’s ballooned because of San Francisco’s lenient policies and generous benefits.
The program assisted about 5,700 people monthly in the 2022-23 fiscal year, according to the city controller’s office, with some recipients receiving up to $712 per month. Between March 30, 2023, and the start of February, 141 people who were cited for public drug use were also receiving the county assistance, according to the mayor’s office. Of those, 33% did not actually live in San Francisco.
“This is just adding another level of accountability of screening, and hopefully what will lead to the kind of results we want to see: people who are in treatment and people who end up getting clean and sober,” Breed said.
Critics of Proposition F dismiss it as a poorly crafted proposal that fails to fix the roots of the city’s homeless crisis: a lack of affordable housing and quality treatment options. They echoed a popular progressive tenet that forcing people into drug treatment doesn’t work, and said the policy changes will have devastating consequences on low-income residents who rely on the assistance to for housing and other necessary expenses.
“It’s just going to make treatment less accessible for everyone in San Francisco,” said Jeannette Zanipatin, state director for the left-leaning nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. “To sell an initiative with false promises is just really the mayor and her office choosing political convenience over really trying to roll up their sleeves and find real solutions that are actually going to have an impact on the overdose crisis.”
The measure wasn’t drafted with specific rules around how the drug screening will be administered or how treatment will be enforced. Breed has directed the city’s Human Services Agency to create an “action plan” for implementation, meaning it could be months before official guidelines are available.
Breed’s office has said the measure was intentionally designed to be flexible on the treatment component. Treatment options could range from out-patient services to a prescription for buprenorphine, a medication used to treat addiction. They noted it doesn’t include a requirement for participants to remain sober, recognizing that people often lapse in recovery and shouldn’t be kicked out of the program for a slip-up.
“I don’t think Proposition F is as bad as its critics say it is, and it’s probably not going to be a panacea as some of its more fervent supporters said it was either,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey, a moderate Democrat who’s been candid about his own addiction recovery journey. “But I do think on balance, it’s a step in the right direction.
Wiener, one of the state Capitol’s leading progressives, didn’t support Proposition F but said he understands why people voted for it. “Only by San Francisco standards would this be considered moderate,” he said. “As in many cities right now, there is a concern about public safety and public drug use and people want their neighborhoods and their city to be as good as it can be.”
Proposition E, the measure that bolsters police powers, also passed handily. The measure weakens certain oversight authority by the Police Commission, which has been a voice for clamping down on police use of force.
The measure also eases restrictions that have been blamed for fostering a lax police response to retail and property crimes. It provides more leeway for police to pursue suspects by car and allows officers to use drones for certain pursuits. The changes also loosen requirements for documenting suspect confrontations that lead to police use-of-force and authorize body camera footage to stand in for certain paperwork.
Supporters of Proposition E said it will cut the amount of time police spend behind desks on administrative tasks and ensure they are properly equipped with technology to fight crime. Opponents see a troubling retrenchment toward reduced transparency and oversight.
“It made it easier for SFPD to hide police violence and makes it harder for the public to hold police officers accountable,” said Yoel Haile, director of the Criminal Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California. “What we’re seeing right now happen is politicians who are offering the public these tried and failed solutions as the magic bullet to real frustrations that people have about crime and public safety.”
Breed is offering no apologies.
On Thursday, she delivered her State of the City address at Pier 27, a waterfront venue with a shimmering view of the city’s skyline as her backdrop. She sharply rebutted the narrative that San Francisco had lost its progressive way, instead positing that Tuesday’s election results were in alignment with the city’s liberal values to house and treat those suffering from addiction and provide communities with quality policing.
Throughout her speech, she doubled down on the message that San Francisco is turning a corner, proclaiming it a “city on the rise.”
“San Francisco is not wearing the shackles of your negativity any longer,” she said as the room echoed with applause.
Politics
FBI Director Kash Patel says bureau ramping up AI to counter domestic, global threats
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FBI Director Kash Patel said Saturday that the agency is ramping up its use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to counter domestic and international threats.
In a post on X, Patel said the FBI has been advancing its technology, calling AI a “key component” of its strategy to respond to threats and stay “ahead of the game.”
“FBI has been working on key technology advances to keep us ahead of the game and respond to an always changing threat environment both domestically and on the world stage,” Patel wrote. “Artificial intelligence is a key component of this.”
‘PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED’: INSIDE THE FBI’S HALLOWEEN TAKEDOWN THAT EXPOSED A GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK
Kash Patel, director of the FBI, speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. ( Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Patel said the bureau is developing an AI initiative aimed at supporting investigators and analysts working in the national security space.
“We’ve been working on an AI project to assist our investigators and analysts in the national security space — staying ahead of bad actors and adversaries who seek to do us harm,” he said.
Patel added that FBI leadership has established a “technology working group” led by outgoing Deputy Director Dan Bongino to ensure the agency’s tools “evolve with the mission.”
EXCLUSIVE: FBI CONCLUDES TRUMP SHOOTER THOMAS CROOKS ACTED ALONE AFTER UNPRECEDENTED GLOBAL INVESTIGATION
The bureau is ramping up its use of AI tools to counter domestic and international threats. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP )
“These are investments that will pay dividends for America’s national security for decades to come,” Patel said.
A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News Digital it had nothing further to add beyond Patel’s X post.
The FBI currently uses AI for tools such as vehicle recognition, voice-language identification, speech-to-text analysis and video analytics, according to the agency’s website.
DAN BONGINO TO RESIGN FROM FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROLE IN JANUARY
Patel credited outgoing Deputy Director Dan Bongino for his leadership with the AI initiative. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Earlier this week, Bongino announced he would leave the bureau in January after speculation rose concerning his departure.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“I will be leaving my position with the FBI in January,” Bongino wrote in an X post Wednesday. “I want to thank President [Donald] Trump, AG [Pam] Bondi, and Director Patel for the opportunity to serve with purpose. Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you. God bless America, and all those who defend Her.”
Politics
Lawmakers weigh impeachment articles for Bondi over Epstein file omissions
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers unhappy with Justice Department decisions to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein threatened Saturday to launch impeachment proceedings against those responsible, including Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general.
Democrats and Republicans alike criticized the omissions, while Democrats also accused the Justice Department of intentionally scrubbing the release of at least one image of President Trump, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggesting it could portend “one of the biggest coverups in American history.”
Trump administration officials have said the release fully complied with the law, and that its redactions were crafted only to protect victims of Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender accused of abusing hundreds of women and girls before his death in 2019.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), an author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of the investigative trove, blasted Bondi in a social media video, accusing her of denying the existence of many of the records for months, only to push out “an incomplete release with too many redactions” in response to — and in violation of — the new law.
Khanna said he and the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), were “exploring all options” for responding and forcing more disclosures, including by pursuing “the impeachment of people at Justice,” asking courts to hold officials blocking the release in contempt, and “referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice.”
“We will work with the survivors to demand the full release of these files,” Khanna said.
He later added in a CNN interview that he and Massie were drafting articles of impeachment against Bondi, though they had not decided whether to bring them forward.
Massie, in his own social media post, said Khanna was correct in rejecting the Friday release as insufficient, saying that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”
The lawmakers’ view that the Justice Department’s document dump failed to comply with the law echoed similar complaints across the political spectrum Saturday, as the full scope of redactions and other withholdings came into focus.
The frustration had already sharply escalated late Friday, after Fox News Digital reported that the names and identifiers of not just victims but of “politically exposed individuals and government officials” had been redacted from the records — which would violate the law, and which Justice Department officials denied.
Among the critics was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who cited the Fox reporting in an exasperated post late Friday to X.
“The whole point was NOT to protect the ‘politically exposed individuals and government officials.’ That’s exactly what MAGA has always wanted, that’s what drain the swamp actually means. It means expose them all, the rich powerful elites who are corrupt and commit crimes, NOT redact their names and protect them,” Greene wrote.
Senior Justice Department officials later called in to Fox News to dispute the report. But the removal of a file published in the Friday evening release, capturing a desk in Epstein’s home with a drawer filled of photos of Trump, reinforced bipartisan concerns that references to the president had been illegally withheld.
In a release of documents from the Epstein family estate by the House Oversight Committee this fall, Trump’s name was featured over 1,000 times — more than any other public figure.
“If they’re taking this down, just imagine how much more they’re trying to hide,” Schumer wrote on X. “This could be one of the biggest coverups in American history.”
Several victims also said the release was insufficient. “It’s really kind of another slap in the face,” Alicia Arden, who went to the police to report that Epstein had abused her in 1997, told CNN. “I wanted all the files to come out, like they said that they were going to.”
Trump, who signed the act into law after having worked to block it from getting a vote, was conspicuously quiet on the matter. In a long speech in North Carolina on Friday night, he did not mention it.
However, White House officials and Justice Department leaders rejected the notion that the release was incomplete or out of compliance with the law, or that the names of politicians had been redacted.
“The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim.”
Other Republicans defended the administration. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the administration “is delivering unprecedented transparency in the Epstein case and will continue releasing documents.”
Epstein died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He’d been convicted in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution in Florida, but served only 13 months in custody in what many condemned as a sweetheart plea deal for a well-connected and rich defendant.
Epstein’s acts of abuse have attracted massive attention, including among many within Trump’s political base, in part because of unanswered questions surrounding which of his many powerful friends may have also been implicated in crimes against children. Some of those questions have swirled around Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before the two had what the president has described as a falling out.
Evidence has emerged in recent months that suggests Trump may have had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during their friendship.
Epstein wrote in a 2019 email, released by the House Oversight Committee, that Trump “knew about the girls.” In a 2011 email to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to help him sexually abuse girls, Epstein wrote that “the dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him … he has never once been mentioned.”
Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
The records released Friday contained few if any major new revelations, but did include a complaint against Epstein filed with the FBI back in 1996 — which the FBI did little with, substantiating long-standing fears among Epstein’s victims that his crimes could have been stopped years earlier.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the president’s most consistent critics, wrote on X that Bondi should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain under oath the extensive redactions and omissions, which he called a “willful violation of the law.”
“The Trump Justice Department has had months to keep their promise to release all of the Epstein Files,” Schiff wrote. “Epstein’s survivors and the American people need answers now.”
Politics
Sen Murphy warns ‘people are going to die’ as Congress punts on expiring Obamacare subsidies
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A bipartisan Obamacare fix remains out of reach in the Senate, for now, and lawmakers can’t agree on who is at fault.
While many agree that the forthcoming healthcare cliff will cause financial pain, the partisan divide quickly devolved into pointing the finger across the aisle at who owns the looming healthcare premium spikes that Americans who use the healthcare exchange will face.
Part of the finger-pointing has yielded another surprising agreement: Lawmakers don’t see the fast-approaching expiration of the Biden-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies as Congress failing to act in time.
“Obviously, it’s not a failure of Congress to act,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Fox News Digital. “It’s a failure of Republicans to act. Democrats are united and wanting to expand subsidies. Republicans want premium increases to go up.”
Partisan rancor over Obamacare has seeped into how lawmakers view the effect that expiring subsidies will have on their constituents. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., argued that it was a “life or death” situation, while Republicans contended that Democrats set up the very cliff they maligned. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
DEMOCRATS’ LAST-MINUTE MOVE TO BLOCK GOP FUNDING PLAN SENDS LAWMAKERS HOME EARLY
Senate Republicans and Democrats both tried, and failed, to advance their own partisan plans to replace or extend the subsidies earlier this month. And since then, no action has been taken to deal with the fast-approaching issue, guaranteeing that the subsidies will lapse at the end of the year.
A report published last month by Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit healthcare think tank, found that Americans who use the credits will see an average increase of 114% in their premium costs.
The increase can vary depending on how high above the poverty level a person is. The original premium subsidies set a cap at 400% above the poverty level, while the enhanced subsidies, which were passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, torched the cap.
For example, a person 60 years or older making 401% of the poverty level, or about $62,000 per year, would on average see their premium prices double. That number can skyrocket depending on the state. Wyoming clocks in at the highest spike at 421%.
SENATE MULLS NEXT STEPS AFTER DUELING OBAMACARE FIXES GO UP IN FLAMES
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., doesn’t want to blow up Obamacare or get rid of Obamacare subsidies, but he does want to provide Americans with more options for healthcare. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
In Murphy’s home state of Connecticut, premiums under the same parameters would hike in price by 316%.
“When these do lapse, people are going to die,” Murphy said. “I mean, I was talking to a couple a few months ago who have two parents, both with chronic, potentially life-threatening illnesses, and they will only be able to afford insurance for one of them. So they’re talking about which parent is going to survive to raise their three kids. The stakes are life and death.”
Both sides hold opposing views on the solution. Senate Republicans argue that the credits effectively subsidize insurance companies, not patients, by funneling money directly to them, and that the program is rife with fraud.
Senate Democrats want to extend the subsidies as they are, and are willing to negotiate fixes down the line. But for the GOP, they want to see some immediate reforms, like income caps, anti-fraud measures and more stringent anti-abortion language tied to the subsidies.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who produced his own healthcare plan that would convert subsidies into health savings accounts (HSAs), argued that congressional Democrats “set this up to expire.”
SENATE REPUBLICANS LAND ON OBAMACARE FIX, TEE UP DUELING VOTE WITH DEMS
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., panned Senate Democrats’ Obamacare subsidy proposal as “obviously designed to fail.” (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
But he doesn’t share the view that the subsidies’ expected expiration is a life-or-death situation.
“I’m not taxing somebody who makes 20 bucks an hour to pay for healthcare for somebody who makes half a million dollars a year, that’s what they did,” he told Fox News Digital. “All they did was mask the increase in healthcare costs. That’s all they did with it.”
Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., similarly scoffed at the notion, and told Fox News Digital, “The Democrat plan to extend COVID-era Obamacare subsidies might help less than half a percent of the American population.”
“The Republican plan brings down healthcare costs for 100% of Americans,” he said. “More competition, expands health savings accounts. That needs to be the focus.”
Democrats are also not hiding their disdain for the partisan divide between their approaches to healthcare.
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital that the idea that this “is a congressional failure and not a Republican policy is preposterous.”
“They’ve hated the Affordable Care Act since its inception and tried to repeal it at every possible opportunity,” he said, referring to Obamacare. “The president hates ACA, speaker hates ACA, majority leader hates ACA, rank-and-file hate ACA. And so this is not some failure of bipartisanship.”
While the partisan rancor runs deep on the matter of Obamacare, there are Republicans and Democrats working together to build a new plan. Still, it wouldn’t deal with the rapidly approaching Dec. 31 deadline to extend the subsidies.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., predicted that the Senate would have a long road to travel before a bipartisan plan came together in the new year, but he didn’t rule it out.
“It’s the Christmas season. It would take a Christmas miracle to execute on actually getting something done there,” he said. “But, you know, I think there’s a potential path, but it’ll be heavy lift.”
-
Iowa6 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa1 week agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine4 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland6 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota7 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
New Mexico4 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
World1 week agoCoalition of the Willing calls for transatlantic unity for Ukraine