San Francisco, CA
Tech titans flood San Francisco mayoral race with big-dollar donations – Washington Examiner
Tech titans are heavily invested in San Francisco’s mayoral race, flooding millions of dollars into the tight political contest with less than a month to go before the election.
Billionaires and millionaires, such as Camilo Acosta, are fed up with the city’s political system, which is often accused of prioritizing progressive ideology over common sense. The city has a homelessness, crime, drug, and theft problem that has seen little improvement over the years.
2024 ELECTIONS LIVE UPDATES: LATEST NEWS ON THE TRUMP-HARRIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Acosta, who founded a start-up sold to Meta in 2020, told the Los Angeles Times his office had been broken into and his laptops looted. Another time, a homeless man wandered into his office in the middle of a manic episode.
Police offered little to no help during both terrifying incidents, he said.
Frustrated with the path San Francisco is on, Acosta, who currently runs a $30-million fund that invests in artificial intelligence, is opening up his wallet in the hope that his contributions will help chart a new course.
Acosta is throwing his financial weight behind Daniel Lurie, a nonprofit executive and heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, who is in the running against incumbent Democratic Mayor London Breed.
There are 13 candidates in the high-stakes race, but the top five include Breed, Lurie, former interim Mayor Mark Ferrell, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, and Supervisor Ahsha Safai.
In addition to addressing San Francisco’s decadeslong problems, including a lagging post-pandemic economic recovery, the city is ushering in a new area of AI, and the tech industry is paying attention.
This year’s campaign contributions by wealthy tech executives, venture capitalists, and others woven into the industry mark a notable shift in their eagerness to reshape local politics. Two decades ago, San Francisco courted major tech companies with financial incentives and promises of a more active environment. Now, with its roots in deep, big tech wants more say in how the city is managed.
“It used to be that all of us down in Silicon Valley, people thought of San Francisco as an old-fashioned town, not a technology town,” Russell Hancock, president and chief executive of the think-tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley, said, adding that the view has “changed significantly” and that San Francisco has became “a major epicenter.”
Here are some of the big names who have donated to San Francisco’s mayoral contest.
Jan Koum, worth $15.2 billion, backing Lurie

Koum, co-founder and retired CEO of WhatsApp, has contributed $500,000 to a committee supporting Lurie. Koum is fairly new to San Francisco politics but has previously spent generously on various Jewish or pro-Israeli causes and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
Chris Larsen, worth $3.1 billion, backing Breed

Larsen, a crypto billionaire, is ready to use his considerable clout and bank account to get Breed reelected.
Larsen, a self-made businessman and angel investor best known for co-founding Silicon Valley startup Ripple Labs, spent $750,000 before the March primary supporting two of Breed’s ballot measures that give law enforcement easy access to surveillance tools, such as drones and license plate readers, and another that demands accountability for welfare recipients.
He has also donated $600,000 to an independent committee backing Breed.
Tony Xu, worth $2.4 billion, backing Breed

Xu, a Chinese-American billionaire businessman, co-founded DoorDash with his friends at Stanford University in 2013. He led the company’s IPO in 2020, making him a billionaire at 36 years old.
Born in Nanjing, China, Xu immigrated to the United States when he was 5 years old.
He has given Breed’s camp $100,000.
Oleg Nodelman, worth at least $105 million, backing Lurie
Nodelman, founder of the biotech investment advisory firm EroR1, has given Laurie close to $500,000.
Before EcoR1, he was a portfolio manager at BVF Parkerts, one of the first hedge funds that invested in the biotech sector. He’s also a board member for three publicly traded companies focused on biotechnology.
Garrison Mason Morfit, net worth $75 million, backing Lurie
Morfit, CEO of ValueAct Holdings, gave $100,000 to “Believe in SF, Lurie for Mayor” PAC on Sept. 16.
ValueAct Capital is a San Francisco-based investment firm with more than $10 billion in assets under management. Morfit serves on the advisory council for Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs and previously served on the board at Microsoft.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Jonathan Gans, multimillionaire, backing Lurie
Gans, president of Ironwood Capital Management, has given Laurie $300,000.
He joined the firm in 1996 as a member of its Investment & Risks committee and is a trustee of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco celebrates drop in traffic deaths
San Francisco says traffic deaths plunged 42% last year.
While the city celebrates the numbers, leaders say there’s still a lot more work to do.
“We are so glad to see fewer of these tragedies on our streets last year, and I hope this is a turning point for this city,” said Marta Lindsey with Walk San Francisco.
Marta is cautiously optimistic as the city looks to build on its street safety efforts.
“The city has been doing more of the things we need on our streets, whether its speed cameras or daylighting or speed humps,” she said.
Viktorya Wise with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said there are many things the agency has been doing to ensure street safety is the focus, including adding speed cameras at 33 locations, and it’s paying off.
“Besides the visible speed cameras, we’re doing a lot of basic bread and butter work on our streets,” Wise said. “For example, we’re really data driven and focused on the high injury network.”
Late last year, Mayor Daniel Lurie announced the city’s street safety initiative.
“Bringing together all of the departments, all of the city family to collectively tackle the problem of street safety,” Wise said. “And all of us working together into the future, I’m very hopeful that we will continue this trend.”
San Francisco, CA
Year 1 of the Lurie era is done. Here’s how he kept — or whiffed — his biggest promises
On Jan. 8 of last year, San Francisco tried on its new mayor like a pair of Levi’s 501 jeans.
So far, it has liked the fit.
For 365 days, Mayor Daniel Lurie has taken swings at solving the city’s ills: scrambling to scrap the fentanyl scourge, working to house the homeless, and shaking his proverbial pompoms with enough vigor to cheerlead downtown back to life.
So is San Francisco all fixed now?
The eye test tells one story. The data tell another. But politics is more than paper gains and policy battles. It’s also a popularity contest — and Lurie has categorically been winning his, riding high on a stratospheric 71% approval rating.
Lurie’s rainbow-filled Instagram posts have gone a long way toward soothing locals’ doom-loop fears, but the political fortress he’s built over the past year could easily crumble.
After all, his predecessors as mayor, London Breed and the late Ed Lee, each enjoyed positive approval ratings (opens in new tab) in their first year in office. But the honeymoons lasted only about that long before voters gradually soured on their performance. Should San Franciscans’ adulation for Lurie similarly ebb, his policies might meet more resistance.
Still, if there’s one pattern with Lurie’s efforts in his freshman year, it’s this: While he hasn’t achieved all of his lofty goals, he has fundamentally changed how the city approaches many of its problems, potentially setting up success for future years.
As we enter Lurie: Year 2, here’s a rundown of where the mayor has delivered on his campaign promises, where he’s been stymied, and why voters may continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. At least, for now.
Misery on the streets
Headwinds: While Candidate Lurie promised to declare a fentanyl “state of emergency” on his first day in office, he quickly found it wasn’t legal to do so. (Per the city’s administrative codes, an emergency needs to be sudden and unforeseen; the fentanyl epidemic was neither.) Instead, the mayor asked the Board of Supervisors to grant him similar powers that an emergency declaration would have afforded him, and they agreed. But as Lurie touted his efforts to curb drug use on Sixth Street, all those drug dealers just moseyed on down to the Mission. The mayor’s first year in office ended with 588 drug overdose deaths, according to the office of the medical examiner (opens in new tab). That’s an improvement from the 635 in 2024, but it’s still an appalling body count — and December 2025 isn’t even part of the official tally yet.
Silver linings: The mayor employed his newfound powers to speed up approvals of initiatives, notching well-publicized wins, like fast-tracking the 822 Geary stabilization center, where police can place mentally ill folks instead of arresting them. It’s got a 25% better success rate at connecting patients to treatment than previous facilities, according to city data, part of a noted change for the better in the Tenderloin. And while some of the police’s high-profile drug busts didn’t net, you know, actual drug dealers, law-and-order-hungry San Franciscans were just happy to see batons fly.
Shelter-bed shuffle
Headwinds: On the campaign trail, Lurie talked a big game about his nonprofit experience, which he claimed had allowed him to cinch deals to create shelter that seasoned politicians had been too slow to enact. He even promised 1,500 treatment and recovery beds built for homeless folks in just six months. By midyear, he had backed off that promise. The real number of beds Lurie created in 2025 is about 500, and that’s after 12 months — twice the amount of time he gave himself.
Silver linings: Housed San Franciscans gauge success on homelessness with their eyeballs, not bureaucrats’ spreadsheets. By that measure, Lurie is succeeding. As of December, the city counted (opens in new tab) just 162 tents and similar structures, almost half as many as the previous year. (And as a stark counter to what some would call an achievement, for people on the streets, that can mean danger — without a thin layer of nylon to hide in, homeless women say they are experiencing more sexual assaults.) And drug markets haven’t vanished; they just moved to later hours. But are folks really getting help? Rudy Bakta, a man living on San Francisco’s streets, would tell you no, as he’s stuck in systemic limbo seeking a home. He’s just one of thousands.
Reviving the economy
Headwinds: Lurie asked for (opens in new tab) “18 to 24 months” to see downtown booming again, so we shouldn’t ding him for Market Street’s continued slow recovery. Foot traffic downtown has generally risen, reaching 80% of pre-pandemic levels by midyear, but slumped to roughly 70% as of November. While it doesn’t sound like much, that’s a reversal of the rising trend the city controller had projected. Office attendance is also slipping. It had risen past 45% of pre-pandemic occupancy in January 2025 but by the fall had slid below 40%.
Other economic indicators are wobbly too. Hotel occupancy “lost steam” in November, the controller wrote, nearing pre-pandemic levels in the summer but dipping below 2019 levels in the fall. The poster child for downtown’s troubles is undoubtedly the San Francisco Centre, the cavernous, and soon tenantless, shell of its former self. And while public employee unions are undoubtedly happy that promised layoffs were avoided, Lurie’s light hand in his first-ever budget pushed some even harder decisions to 2026’s budget season.
Silver linings: There’s a brighter story to tell outside the Financial District: Neighborhoods are where the action is nowadays. Just ask anyone dining at one of Stonestown Galleria’s 27 restaurants. This is where Lurie’s Instagram account (opens in new tab) truly has generated its own reality, crafting an image of a retail and restaurant renaissance. While that neighborhood vibrancy may lead some to shrug their shoulders concerning downtown’s continuing malaise, it’s worth noting that San Francisco’s coffers depend on taxes generated by the businesses nestled in those skyscrapers. There’s a reason we had a nearly $800 million budget deficit last year.
Fully staffing the SFPD
Headwinds: At first glance, Lurie appears on track to meet his campaign promise to staff up the city’s police force. “I’ve talked with current command staff and former command staff. We can recruit 425 officers in my first three years. We will get that done,” he said at a 2024 League of Women Voters forum. True to his word, the SFPD hired and rehired roughly 144 officers last year. There’s just one problem: The department recalculated the number of officers it needs in order to be fully staffed, raising the number to 691. And the police academy, which already struggled with graduating officers, might be hampered in the aftermath of a cadet’s death, after which top brass reassigned the academy’s leadership.
Silver linings: Crime is trending down, and that’s what voters care about, full stop. The reduction is part of a national trend (opens in new tab), yes, but San Francisco’s rates are experiencing an exceptional drop. Really, Lurie really should be sending Breed a thank-you card. Her March 2024 ballot measure Proposition E (opens in new tab) gave the SFPD carte blanche to unleash a bevy of technological tools to enable arrests, including drones and license plate readers, which have seen noted success. “Soon as you slide past that motherf—er with stolen plates, they’re gonna issue a warning to every SFPD station in that area, if not the entire city … and they start dispatching to that area,” rapper Dreamlife Rizzy said in a recent podcast, as reported by the New York Post (opens in new tab). That is music to any crime-fighting mayor’s ears.
San Francisco, CA
Downtown San Francisco Immigration Court Set to Close In a Year
The federal immigration court in downtown San Francisco that started 2025 with 21 judges and will soon be down to just four, thanks to Trump administration mass-firings, will close by January 2027.
News arrived Wednesday that federal officials are planning to shut down the immigration court at 100 Montgomery Street in San Francisco by the end of the year, and transfer all or most immigration court activity to the court in Concord. Mission Local reported the news via a source close to the situation, and KTVU subsequently confirmed the move.
Jeremiah Johnson, one of the SF judges who was fired this past year, serves as vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, and confirmed the news to KTVU.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration court operations, has yet to comment.
As Mission Local reports, a smaller set of courtrooms at the other SF immigration facility and ICE headquarters at 630 Sansome Street will remain open for business.
The Concord immigration court saw five judge fired last year, though two had not yet begun hearing any cases. Seven judges remain at that court, and four remaining judges based at 100 Montgomery are expected to be transferred there by this summer.
Mission Local previously reported that out of 21 judges serving at the courthouse last spring, 13 have been fired in recent months, and four others are scheduled for retirement by the end of this month.
This is happening as the court has a backlog of some 120,000 pending cases.
As Politico reported last month, the Trump administration has fired around 98 immigration judges out of the 700 who had been serving as of early last year.
Olivia Cassin, a fired judge based in New York, said this was by design, and, “It’s about destroying a system where cases are carefully considered by people with knowledge of the subject matter.”
This is all perfectly legal, as Politico explained, because immigration judges serve in administrative courts as at-will employees, under the purview of the Department of Justice — and do not have the same protections as the federal judiciary bench.
A spokesperson for the DOJ has said that the department is “restoring integrity to our immigration system and encourages talented legal professionals to join in our mission to protect national security and public safety,” following “four years of the Biden Administration forcing Immigration Courts to implement a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens.”
Johnson also spoke to Politico suggesting that this recruitment language by the DOJ is disingenuous, and that the real intention is just to cripple the entire court system and prevent most legal immigration cases from being heard.
“During Trump One, when I was appointed, there was a policy that got some pushback called ‘No Dark Courtrooms.’ We were to hear cases every day, use all the [available] space,” Johnson said, speaking to Politico. “Now, there’s vacant courtrooms that are not being utilized. And any attempts by the administration saying they’re replacing judges — the math just doesn’t work if you look at the numbers.”
Two Democrats in the House, Reps. Dan Goldman of New York and Zoe Lofgren of California, have recently introduced legislation that would move immigration courts out of the Executive branch, but that seems likely to go nowhere until Democrats regain control in Congress.
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios