Politics
Taking cue from Supreme Court, Breed to launch aggressive homeless sweeps in San Francisco
James Reem has lived in a tent on the corner of Fell and Baker streets for more than a year. An artist by trade, he said he was evicted from his apartment after troubles with his landlord and for a time lived out of a van. After the van got towed, someone gave him a tent and he turned to the streets.
His tent sits outside the city’s only DMV office, across the street from the Panhandle, a lush strip of greenery that opens into Golden Gate Park in a family-friendly neighborhood adorned by rows of manicured Victorians.
It’s a comfortable spot, said Reem, 59, with a sidewalk wide enough to accommodate his tent and still leave room for pedestrians. Some days, Reem is one of a dozen or more tent-dwellers on the concrete stretch.
“There are a few of us that stick together,” Reem said.
“They’re not concerned about the homeless,” James Reem said of San Francisco’s plans for encampment sweeps. “They’re concerned about getting rid of us.”
(Hannah Wiley / Los Angeles Times)
His adopted neighborhood is among dozens of sites likely to be targeted as the city launches what Mayor London Breed has said will be an assertive campaign to force people off the streets in response to a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
An estimated 8,300 people are living homeless in San Francisco. And despite a years-long effort to move people into temporary shelter or permanent housing, unsanctioned encampments remain a widespread and visible problem, often accompanied by garbage, theft and open drug use.
For years, Breed and other city officials said their hands were tied by decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers many Western states, that deemed it cruel and unusual punishment to penalize someone for sleeping on the streets if no legal shelter was available.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision in a pivotal June 28 ruling, saying that cities in California and the West may enforce laws restricting homeless encampments on sidewalks and other public property.
On Thursday, citing the ruling, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring state agencies to remove encampments in their jurisdictions. While the directive doesn’t require cities to follow suit, Newsom urged them to do so, characterizing the proliferation of encampments as a health and safety hazard that requires immediate action.
Breed, a fellow Democrat, has also embraced the ruling. She said last week that, armed with the high court’s decision, she will spearhead a “very aggressive” effort to clear homeless encampments beginning in August. She said the effort could include criminal penalties for refusing to disperse.
Breed was not available for an interview Friday, and her office has yet to provide details of what the sweeps will entail or where people living in tents are expected to relocate. Her spokesperson, Jeff Cretan, said some of those details would come into clearer focus next week.
During a July 18 mayoral debate hosted by the local firefighters union, Breed acknowledged her decision to orchestrate sweeps was “not a popular” one but said it was a necessary step.
“We have had to move from a compassionate city to a city of accountability,” she said. “And I have been leading the efforts to ensure we are addressing this issue differently than we have before.”
She said the city has worked over the last several years to add shelter beds and disperse outreach workers to offer services and support. But even when outreach workers offer shelter, according to the mayor’s office, those offers are rejected nearly 70% of the time.
San Francisco has experimented with sanctioned tent cities in an effort to address the needs of its homeless population.
(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
Breed’s crackdown is likely to offer headlines out of San Francisco that counter the narratives promoted by conservative pundits as Vice President Kamala Harris ramps up her presidential campaign. Her Republican opponents have long tried to paint Harris, who rose to political power in 2004 as San Francisco’s elected district attorney, as a California liberal whose policies have helped contribute to the surging homelessness and retail crime plaguing her home state.
But the Supreme Court’s ruling is proving divisive for California’s local Democratic leaders. More left-leaning Democrats, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, say the decision will allow cities to criminalize homelessness without doing anything to address the root causes, including addiction and a dearth of affordable housing. It’s a sentiment echoed by homeless advocates.
“This order won’t reduce homelessness or deter encampments, but it will leave vulnerable people even farther away from home and health than they are today,” Sharon Rapport, state policy director for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said in an emailed statement.
Whether San Francisco has enough shelter beds to accommodate the potential wave of people pushed off the streets is unclear. Since Breed took office, the city has expanded shelter beds from about 2,500 to nearly 4,000, her office said, and has expanded permanent supportive housing to about 14,000 slots.
The DMV encampment where Reem lives is one of several that city officials have cleared time and again, only to see it return days later. So far this year, the encampment has been cleared more than a dozen times, according to the mayor’s office.
Reem says he feels safer outside than he does in an emergency shelter, where he worries about his belongings getting stolen. He said he would accept help from city workers. But he also said he thinks Breed’s plan is less about helping people like him than it is about clearing out tents that make the public uncomfortable.
“They’re not concerned about the homeless,” he said. “They’re concerned about getting rid of us.”
Politics
Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
Politics
WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
Politics
Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him
On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.
The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”
After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.
That’s when things took a curious turn.
A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”
Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.
That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.
Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.
“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”
He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.
But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.
Or should be.
Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.
It’s also Trump Country.
Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.
St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.
“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”
He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.
“Right?” he called out.
“No!” a voice hollered back.
Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.
Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.
Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)
He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.
A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.
“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”
And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”
The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.
Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”
Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.
-
Vermont2 minutes agoLetter to the Editor: Suzanne Kenyon announces run for Vermont House
-
Virginia8 minutes agoNick Jonas set to perform at Caesars Virginia in June
-
Washington14 minutes agoPulitzer-winning Washington Post editor Dan Eggen found dead at 60 after being laid-off earlier this year
-
Wisconsin19 minutes agoWisconsin’s Mr. Basketball Announces Highly Anticipated Commitment Decision
-
West Virginia26 minutes agoChemical emergency at Kanawha County plant – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming32 minutes agoWyoming’s Title X Family Planning network remains a critical part of the state’s health care system
-
Crypto38 minutes agoCurrent price of Ethereum for April 22, 2026 | Fortune
-
Finance44 minutes agoGerman finance minister wants to scrap spousal tax splitting