“A manufactured conspiracy”: Minnesota’s labor movement denounces federal surveillance operation

Demonstrators march during the nationwide "Stop ICE Terror" rally through downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 20, 2026 in protest against US President Donald Trump's policies. Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP via Getty Images

Posted in Politics and Movements: US

Leaders and workers respond to the federal government’s surveillance of organized labor and community in Minnesota.

by Amie Stager August 21, 2026 (therealnews.com)

Demonstrators march during the nationwide “Stop ICE Terror” rally through downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 20, 2026 in protest against US President Donald Trump’s policies. Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP via Getty Images

Workday Magazine Logo

This story originally appeared in Workday Magazine on Aug. 21, 2026. It is shared here with permission.

On Tuesday morning, a coalition of leaders and members from labor, community, and faith organizations in Minnesota denounced Operation Puppet Master, an alleged campaign by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spy on Minnesotans during Operation Metro Surge earlier this year. In a press conference held outside of Target’s headquarters in downtown Minneapolis, the coalition urged Minnesotans to continue standing in solidarity with one another, and demanded companies headquartered in the state sign the business for democracy pledge.

The call comes after the New York Times published a report on August 13 about the campaign by DHS. Details were made public in a motion for discovery filed by Kevin Riach, an attorney for healthcare worker Isaac Sant. According to the motion, federal agents “surreptitiously recorded dozens of conversations with ordinary people who were simply exercising their First Amendment right to protest ICE’s lawless rampage in our state. The agents gathered information about Minnesotans from law enforcement databases and internet searches, and created dossiers that are apparently now available agency-wide.” 

The documents describe surveillance and infiltration of union and community meetings during and before Operation Metro Surge. Eighteen organizations, including labor unions, were listed in a chart connecting them to Direct Action Minnesota (DAMN), a group of individuals who resisted what coalition members call a “terror campaign” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during Operation Metro Surge. Sant is one of 15 individuals who were indicted and charged by the federal government for conspiracy in what organizers have called an act of political repression and retaliation. More than half of the 15 are rank-and-file union members, and now the federal government is claiming labor organizations to be part of the alleged conspiracy. The motion continues: “With no evidence, the government alleged to the grand jury that this conspiracy in this case extends far beyond the defendants to include the AFL-CIO, the Minneapolis Federation of Educators, the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Monarca, Veterans for Peace, and the Grease Pit bicycle repair shop, among others.”

In addition to the AFL-CIO, Minneapolis Federation of Educators (MFE) Local 59, and Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE), SEIU Local 26 is also named by DHS along with the Workers Solidarity Circle and Black Cat Workers Collective. The motion also states that Homeland Security Investigations subpoenaed financial records for several labor unions, including SEIU locals in Minnesota and the Communication Workers of America (CWA). 

Alec Stewart is a MAPE union member and one of the Minnesota 15. “The revelation of Operation Puppet Master exposes that while the government was targeting immigrant communities, tearing families apart, abducting children and murdering folks in the street, they were also attempting to disrupt and dismantle one of the facets of Minnesota that makes us so unique, and that is our strong and unified labor movement,” he said at the press conference.

Treasure Thoreson is a teacher, executive board member at MFE Local 59, and one of the Minnesota 15. Thoreson spoke at the press conference about the food drives, fundraisers, grocery deliveries, and support that educators gave to their community all while continuing to show up to schools to educate students. “The government feels so threatened by our ability to come together and use our protected First Amendment rights, our legal rights as unionists that they feel they must surveil and disrupt. However, that to me is a signal that what we are doing is effective, impactful, and powerful,” she said. According to Thoreson, a GoFundMe that she donated to was flagged by DHS as evidence that she is part of a conspiracy.

GET FEARLESS, AD-FREE, UNCOMPROMISING REAL NEWS IN YOUR INBOXSign up

Gabriel Van de Water is a community organizer and artist who is one of the Minnesota 15. Van de Water referred to a report by Human Rights Watch detailing the human rights abuses that happened under Operation Metro Surge. “Human Rights Watch referred to the occupation as a manufactured crisis. This administration has chosen to follow up that crisis with a manufactured conspiracy,” said Van de Water. “The Minnesota 15 case and others like it must be understood as an attempt to criminalize dissent, to make an example out of some of us so that all of us hesitate to exercise our rights to protect one another. We will not allow this to happen.”

Kieran Knutson is president of CWA Local 7250, which was also named in the document. “We are more determined than ever to stand up to our repressive government. We are more determined than ever to stand in solidarity with working class people,” he said. “The Minnesota 15 are some of the finest people I know. These are our people, we have their backs. We know that this prosecution against them is a bogus attack on the entire movement.”

Emilia Gonzalez Avalos, the executive director of Unidos MN, a grassroots social justice organization, spoke about the surveillance and infiltration enacted by the federal government on community members and noted the silence of corporations like Target. “They sat in our libraries, in training rooms, and wrote down what we thought about the Constitution. They took down license plates outside a church in Roseville, and built files of the families inside, their addresses, children, and where they work. Federal agents walked into a Target store in Richfield and detained two citizens who were at work,” said Gonzalez Avalos. “To this day, Target has said nothing about it. We came here today because that silence still has answers available.”

Target has been the center of national boycott campaigns for rolling back its diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments, and now this Minnesota coalition is demanding that the corporation meet with coalition members before early voting begins on September 15. Best Buy, 3M, and Cargill were also named by the coalition as corporations that are being urged to sign the pledge.

There is also a labor-endorsed call to boycott Target during the back-to-school season. President of MFE Local 59 Marcia Howard highlighted this call by the American Federation of Teachers that was supported by the national AFL-CIO, which passed a resolution supporting the boycott at its constitutional convention held in Minneapolis in June. 

“Educators spend eight billion dollars on back to school supplies,” said Howard. “Between AFT calling for a boycott and AFL-CIO extending that boycott, the only thing that this corporation needs to do is make good. Make good for Alex Pretti, for Renee Good. For all of us who have been in the streets, for our students, for each other.”

Target made $5.1 billion in profits in 2025, and its chair and former CEO Brian Cornell pulled in over $21 million. 

Minnesota AFL-CIO president Bernie Burnham speaks in front of Target’s headquarters in downtown Minneapolis. The AFL-CIO was one of the organizations listed by DHS. Photo by Amie Stager.

Bernie Burnham, the president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, which represents 1000 local unions and hundreds of thousands of workers in the state, said at the press conference that “attacks on labor are not new. Those with power always push back when they face the kind of solidarity we saw in Minnesota last winter.” Burnham continued, “Instead of holding federal agents accountable for shooting and killing Renee Good and our [American Federation of Government Employees] union brother Alex Pretti, or addressing the dangerous and deadly conditions within immigration and detention facilities, the Trump administration continues to weaponize our federal government to intimidate our unions, our communities, and anyone who peacefully opposes their radically authoritarian agenda.”

Coalition members say they remain unintimidated. “Countless Minnesotans rose to the occasion and stood strong in the face of what the Trump administration tried to do to our communities and the whole nation owes those Minnesotans a debt of gratitude,” said Phillip Cryan, the executive vice president of SEIU Healthcare Minnesota & Iowa. “We keep us safe. If they come after any of us, 15 of us, or 1500 of us, the hundreds of thousands of us who did what we needed to do this winter to protect our communities, will be there to support them.”

The Real News Network

Independent · Nonprofit · Nonpartisan

Donate Now →

Related

Amid deadly temperatures, GOP advances bill to ban federal heat protections for workers

How Trump and DOGE made it easier for you to get diarrhea

First came the Flock cameras. Now local cops want autonomous drones.

Amie Stager

Amie has always been a student of media and culture. Her interest in art and literature growing up turned into a curiosity for storytelling that opens up readers’ inner and outer worlds. During a Washington D.C. trip in high school, she visited the Newseum and found a way to use her passion and skills to serve, love, and protect her community in an empowering and liberating way. After a gap year and six years working as a barista, she’s now pursuing work in journalism and writing. She graduated spring 2021 from the University of Minnesota Hubbard School for Journalism and Mass Communication with a major in journalism and minors in art and anthropology. When she’s not writing for Workday Magazine or Up with the Workers she’s exploring landscapes, museums, and coffee shops. Follow her on Twitter @amiestager.More by Amie Stager

Casar Demands Shutdown of Texas Detention Center After ICE Abducts 5-Year-Old on Way to Soccer Match

Liam Tadeo is seen in a family photo that his aunt posted on a GoFundMe fundraiser

Liam Tadeo is seen in a family photo that his aunt posted on a GoFundMe fundraiser after he and his father were detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement on August 16, 2026, and taken to South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. 

(Photo: Patricia Resendiz/GoFundMe)

“Liam should be starting kindergarten this week,” said Rep. Greg Casar. “Instead, he’s sitting in a trailer prison right now in Dilley, Texas.”

Julia Conley

Aug 21, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

US Congressman Greg Casar on Thursday repeated his call for the Trump administration to close the immigration detention center in southern Texas where it’s held thousands of children over the past 18 months—children, the progressive Democrat said, who “should be playing soccer, going to school, living their lives, not being arrested on the streets,” as one of the center’s newest detainees, 5-year-old Liam Tadeo, was earlier this week.

Casar demanded the release of at least 112 children who are being held at South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, outside San Antonio, days after Tadeo was abducted along with his father by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during a traffic stop in Austin.

RECOMMENDED…

US Rep. Joaquin Castro

Condemning ‘Commodification of Child Imprisonment,’ Castro Leads Call to Shut Down Dilley ICE Center

A little girl sits in a stroller in front of federal immigration enforcers at a courthouse

‘Five-Alarm Fire’: Thousands of Immigrant Kids Set to Lose to Lawyers Thanks to Trump

Tadeo and his father were on their way to the child’s soccer game, days before he was set to start kindergarten, when they were arrested and taken to the detention center, said Casar. The facility, which is commonly known simply as Dilley, is a for-profit center run by CoreCivic that has come under scrutiny over reports of medical neglect and poor conditions for the dozens of families detained there.

“Liam should be starting kindergarten this week,” said Casar, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “Instead, he’s sitting in a trailer prison right now in Dilley, Texas.”

Lidia Terrazas of Univision posted a video on social media showing Tadeo crying during the arrest.

“Liam has been living in the United States for most of his life,” said Terrazas. “I just want you to see him. I want you to look at his face. I can’t even imagine what he was feeling in this moment… He’s crying, he looks at his dad while surrounded by immigration officers.”

Terrazas and Casar both noted that Tadeo has the same name as another 5-year-old boy, Liam Conejo Ramos, who was abducted by ICE on January 20 in Minnesota, as he was returning home from preschool with his father. Images of the boy wearing a blue bunny hat and a Spider-Man backpack were circulated widely online as the public expressed outrage over his detention, which happened around the same time that two US citizens were fatally shot on the streets of Minneapolis by federal immigration agents.

A federal judge ordered the release of Conejo Ramos and his father in February, but they are now fighting a ruling to deport them.

Patricia Resendiz, Tadeo’s aunt, posted a fundraiser on GoFundMe, asking the community “for help to secure the release of my nephew.”

“The detention of Liam and my brother-in-law was cruel; they are not criminals—they were simply on their way to a soccer match,” wrote Resendiz. “Liam is a beautiful, intelligent, and big-hearted little boy. My sister is devastated, and so are we. Liam was detained right in front of my son, his cousin. My son told me that the ICE agents said to Liam, ‘You can’t escape.’ We appreciate any help you can provide.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE have not responded to questions from the press, including Newsweek and Univision, about Tadeo’s detention.

But DHS recently told FOX 7 Austin that it would continue ramping up deportation operations in the Texas capital, with the agency asserting that “being in detention is a choice” and imploring undocumented immigrants to “self-deport.”

“The United States is offering illegal aliens $2,600 and a free flight to self-deport now. We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the US the right legal way to live the American dream. If not, you will be arrested and deported without a chance to return,” said DHS. “Under President [Donald] Trump and Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin, ICE is targeting the worst of the worst.”

Despite the administration’s persistent claims that undocumented immigrants should “self-deport,” AL.com reported on Thursday on a Venezuelan family who attempted to return to their home country, went to an ICE check-in appointment as part of the process, and were detained and taken to Dilley, where they’ve been held for more than a month.

The family’s 7-year-old daughter has appealed to Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), the chair of a Senate subcommittee on homeland security appropriations who spoke out against Conejo Ramos’ detention earlier the year, asking her to help secure the family’s release.

https://x.com/Timodc/status/2089533409701855389?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2089533409701855389%7Ctwgr%5E630e04a3ee3abbe6b7c5b89e17639be2ed44951c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F5-year-old-boy-detained-by-ice-in-texas

Tadeo was detained a day before Judge Dolly M. Gee of the US District Court in Los Angeles ordered a new oversight effort at Dilley and other detention facilities in Texas and California where children are being held. The judge found that children at Dilley have likely been forced to live in unsafe temperatures with inadequate sleeping quarters and without basic hygiene products like soap.

The court also found that the government may be keeping inaccurate records regarding the length of children’s detention. Under the Flores settlement, children cannot be held in immigration detention for longer than 20 days. Over the past year, said attorneys for minors who have been detained at Dilley, about 1,560 children have been held at the facility for more than 20 days.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Julia Conley

Julia Conley is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Aisha Wahab Wins Special Election to Finish Swalwell’s Term

Aisha Wahab, left, and Melissa Hernandez, right.

SF Politics/Jay Barmann

Published Aug 20, 2026 · SFist.com

State Senator Aisha Wahab has officially been declared the winner of Tuesday’s special runoff election to fill the remainder of former Congressman Eric Swalwell’s term that ends in January, representing much of Alameda County.

Wahab was the clear favorite to win, however she won by a far slimmer margin in this runoff than she did in the special election that preceded it in mid-June, or in the early June primary for the seat’s subsequent term.

With 95% of the votes tallied, Wahab won with 53% of the vote on Tuesday, six points off ahead of Hernandez, who had 46.9%. That’s compared to the 26 points that Wahab led by in the June 16 special election that preceded this runoff.

As SFist reported earlier this week, Wahab’s opponent, BART Board President Melissa Hernandez, has been the beneficiary of a large sum of attack-ad spending from AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), funding that seems motivated largely by Wahab’s Muslim identity, and her having called Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide. The ads focused on attacking Wahab’s voting record in the California legislature, and misrepresenting it as being soft on crime and sex trafficking.

Political watchers say that AIPAC may also simply be flexing its financial muscle as a warning to other progressive Democrats, however it’s especially curious given that neither Hernandez nor Wahab have made Gaza any sort of talking point in their campaigns. (Hernandez has said she believes Israel went too far in their retaliation against Hamas in Gaza, but stopped short of calling it a genocide.)

As Wahab told Politico of the AIPAC money, “On every single credential, I am the most qualified. So what’s the elephant in the room? At the end of the day, all I can say is that it’s based on prejudice and racism.”

Wahab and Hernandez will now face off one more time in November, in the race for the two-year term in Congress representing California’s 14th District. That race is likely to see further spending on attack ads to damage Wahab, though it’s not likely that the result will much different than Tuesday’s.

Democratic political consultant Jim Ross told the Chronicle this week that Tuesday’s runoff was a test of what that AIPAC’s ad spending could do — and he suggested that if it brought Hernandez within five points of Wahab, that meant she could still be a viable candidate in November. How about six points?

Previously: Race to Replace Eric Swalwell In Congress Turns Ugly as Voters Head to Polls Once More

S.F. judge hands down sentence for protesters who shut down Golden Gate Bridge

By Annie VainshteinAbigail Vân Neely, Staff Writers Updated Aug 21, 2026

Gift Article (SFChronicle.com)

Golden Gate Bridge protester Em Tillotson, center right, gets a hug of support from Nida L, center left, one of the Golden Gate 26, as Golden Gate Bridge protester Bhavika Anandpura, second from left, gets support from Raye Kahn, left, press cooordinator and a Golden Gate 26 misdemeanor co-defendant at the Hall of Justice on Friday. Lea Suzuki/S.F. Chronicle

A San Francisco Superior Court judge on Friday sentenced seven people who shut down the Golden Gate Bridge in 2024 to protest the war in Gaza to 30 days in jail, with credit for time they’ve already served, and six months of probation.

Given the time they’ve already spent in jail, the protesters will likely serve another 11 to 13 days behind bars and will not be retried on charges on which the jury deadlocked.

After a two-month trial, a jury found the demonstrators guilty last month of false imprisonment, obstruction of a thoroughfare and unlawful assembly — all misdemeanors. They were also each fined $1,000 and can opt to spend an additional 13 to 15 days serving on a work program. Their probation begins on Friday, but none will be required to serve their sentence until there is a verdict in their appeals, which their attorneys said they intend to file.

Bhavika Anandpura, Sarah Ferrell, River Allen, Rocky Chau, Conrad de Jesus and Em Tillotson faced up to five years in county jail. Sara Cantor was convicted of an additional misdemeanor count for refusing to disperse, and faced 5 ½ years.

The protesters avoided a maximum sentence of 15 years when the jury deadlocked 10-2 on a felony conspiracy charge, with 10 voting guilty. The jury was also hung 11-1 on a misdemeanor trespassing charge, with the majority voting not guilty. On Friday afternoon, Assistant District Attorney Angela Roze said prosecutors would dismiss the charges “in the interests of justice,” meaning the protesters will not face retrial.

Just before 8 a.m. on April 15, 2024, several cars stopped together on the Golden Gate Bridge. Protesters demanding an end to Israel’s war in Gaza emerged. They stopped traffic for four hours. Some locked themselves together with metal bars, a tactic law enforcement calls the “sleeping dragon.”

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins charged 26 people on the bridge with a host of criminal offenses, saying the demonstration threatened the health and welfare of people traveling across the bridge, including a person with a brain tumor who missed a medical appointment, a mother who had to help her young sons defecate in a bag, nurses who could not get to work, and a woman who now suffers from a fear of heights.

A judge later found insufficient evidence to charge most of the defendants with more serious crimes. 

Civil rights activists and defense attorneys called Jenkins’ charges an unreasonably harsh response to protesters fulfilling what they saw as a moral duty to speak out against U.S. military support for Israel.

In a statement, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said she believed the court’s sentence finally held the defendants accountable for their actions. 

“I continue to encourage civil discourse and exercising our rights under the First Amendment, but this serves as a reminder that when such acts become unlawful and compromise public safety that there will have to be consequences,” said Jenkins

Jenkins said her department’s initial hope was that the defendants would be sentenced to a one-year term of probation and 16 actual days in jail, representing one day in jail for each hour that each victim named in the convictions was “trapped on the bridge against their will.” 

“We hope that imposing a custodial sentence will hopefully act as a deterrent to future criminal conduct by others considering blockading a bridge,” she said.

Every seat in the courtroom on Friday was filled by family members and supporters of the seven defendants, who were separated from the gallery by plexiglass. Judge Teresa Caffese began the proceedings by reading a letter written by a juror in the trial, who said that while they believed convicting the defendants of the misdemeanor counts was the right decision, they hoped she would weigh her sentencing with fairness and compassion. 

“Nothing in the trial suggested they acted out of malice or personal gain,” the juror wrote, saying they believed the defendants were empathetic, well-intentioned people who “cared deeply about the causes they support.”

After reading the letter, Caffese said she believed the defendants’ unequivocal goal was to cause as much disruption as they could on the bridge, regardless of how their conduct would be classified under the law. The defendants, she said, testified that they believed what they were doing was legal, as a matter of conscience.

“Both claims cannot be true. Either laws were violated or they were not,” said Caffese. “History contains countless examples of protests (done) without violating laws.”

Caffese said the defendants, who initially resisted arrest, only agreed to surrender after they learned their vehicles, which were parked on the bridge, would be sawed in half. She claimed they had “made their point” in less than an hour, when they received media coverage, and could have ceased their demonstration at that point. In her preamble, she also described the way Dr. Martin Luther King “willingly accepted” arrest, demonstrating a commitment to his cause and a principle that “civil disobedience carries responsibility.”

After summarizing statements written in support of the defendants, Caffese denied their requests for diversion and emphasized that they were not being sentenced for their beliefs. She denied an attorney’s request for Chau, who cares for his older mother, to serve his custodial time on home detention, but later allowed for him to serve it “non-consecutively.”

She also made an exception for Cantor, the defendant who had faced a lengthier sentence. Cantor, who uses a cane to walk, had allegedly been sent to solitary confinement during her initial days in jail because jail staff saw her cane as a weapon, her attorney said. Caffese allowed Cantor to serve her custodial time in home detention.

Several demonstrators’ attorneys pressed the judge after the sentencing to ask why she was imposing county jail for a non-violent protest involving defendants with clean records, rather than considering less restrictive alternatives, such as electronic monitoring or home detention. At one point, one of them grew increasingly agitated and began to raise her voice at the judge.

“In this courthouse, any misdemeanor that goes down gets the option of (the alternative work program),” said Deputy Public Defender Nuha Abusamra, noting that even offenders with criminal records were often released on home monitoring. “So I’m wondering, what is it other than their political beliefs?”

The judge refused to answer her question directly, saying she had already stated her reason. 

During a short recess, Jordan Harger, one of the original “Golden Gate 26,” whose case had been diverted, said they believed the punishment was “abhorrent.”

Any jail time, especially in the county’s jails, was unjust, Harger said. Harger and others rejected the judge’s invocation of Martin Luther King Jr. and believed there was no reason to put someone in jail for “fighting a genocide.”

“My comrades are deeply principled people. And they are very brave people,” Harger said, appearing to cry and shake slightly. “And I know that when they’re in that jail they’ll be sharing their commissary. They will be educating others. They will be caring for other incarcerated people.”

As the hearing came to a close, the defendants and a swarm of their supporters filed out of the courtroom and into the hallway, where they began to rejoice and holler, clapping and dancing in a circle. 

Aug 21, 2026|Updated Aug 21, 2026 4:13 p.m.

Annie Vainshtein

Reporter

Annie is a reporter for the Chronicle covering breaking news, crime and human-interest stories. She previously wrote for the Chronicle’s Arts & Entertainment section, Datebook. Before joining the Chronicle, she studied journalism at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, where she launched a culture column for the campus newspaper, produced radio stories for NPR affiliate KCBX, and worked as a DJ and writer for KCPR, the university’s radio station. Her work has appeared in VICE and Flood Magazine and has been recognized by the California Journalism Awards and the San Francisco Press Club.

How to reach Annie

Email avainshtein@sfchronicle.com

Abigail Vân Neely

Public Safety Reporter

Abigail Vân Neely covers crime, criminal justice and breaking news in San Francisco and the East Bay. She previously worked at Mission Local, where she reported on policing, the courts, homelessness, addiction and city government. She has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Stanford University and lives in San Francisco.

How to reach Abigail

Email Abigail.Neely@sfchronicle.com

Pentagon orders ‘research security audits’ of UC Berkeley and 29 U.S. institutions

audit_U.S. Secretary of War_Cc.jpg
The U.S. Department of Defense said its audit on domestic institutions’ foreign collaborations is “to protect American taxpayer-funded research investments” from unauthorized foreign exploitation. (Photo by U.S. Secretary of War under PDM 1.0.) 

The U.S. Department of Defense has ordered a “research security audit” of UC Berkeley and 29 other academic institutions, demanding an immediate review of foreign academic, financial and research collaborations, according to a U.S. official.

In a press release, the DOD said failure to comply with the audit before Aug. 31 could mean losing federal research funding in the future.

The Pentagon said its aim is “to protect American taxpayer-funded research investments from unauthorized technology transfer, intellectual property theft and adversarial exploitation.” Universities have been directed to audit foreign collaborations, assess exposure of sensitive research and terminate existing partnerships with “problematic” institutions.

According to Fox News — who received the full list from a U.S. official — the Pentagon also issued audit notifications to UC San Diego and UCLA.

The Pentagon claims the 30 universities listed are collaborating with “foreign institutions engaging in problematic activities” in countries such as China, Russia and Iran. The audit also targets universities with ties to “organizations associated with rebranded Confucius Institutes.”

“As a member of the (UC) Berkeley faculty, I think this particular assertion that Berkeley has done anything wrong is nonsense,” said Goldman School of Public Policy professor Andrew W. Reddie. Reddie is the founder and faculty director of the UC Berkeley Risk and Security Lab, which researches technology and security as it relates to global policy.

Reddie pointed out that federal funding has been important in making the United States a “behemoth” of innovation, crediting it with creating technologies such as the gene-editing tool CRISPR and large language models, both of which have close ties to campus.

“Universities are critical partners in executing a wide range of Department of War research programs, and the Department must therefore ensure that our research investments are well protected from foreign exploitation,” said Joseph Jewell, assistant secretary of war for science and technology, in the press release.

The move comes as the federal government has become increasingly critical of foreign academic collaborations nationwide, especially of those with China. In August, UC Berkeley disputed a U.S. Department of Education dashboard claiming campus had received $224.5 million in gifts and contracts from Chinese sources over the past 25 years. Federal concerns about Chinese researchers led to a researcher being fired from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory last fall. Campus also ended a decade-long relationship with China’s Tsinghua University in 2025.

“The trouble is that, at least from this administration’s perspective, an overwhelming amount of the good ideas are emanating from the U.S. and then escaping the U.S.’s clutches,” Reddie said. “But there’s a lot that the U.S. gains from the broader international ecosystem of science and innovation, and indeed much of our science and innovation has been useful for the globe at large.”

Campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof declined to comment on the audit order.

Congrats, America, the US Debt Hit $40,000,000,000,000

Economy, dollar, close up
A close-up of a US dollar. Photo credit: Karolina Grabowska / Pexels (Free use)

Economy

Klaus Marre 08/20/26 (WhoWhatWhy.org)

It’s been a century since an administration decreased the national debt.

Listen To This Story

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt had not yet reached $1 trillion. However, in his inaugural address, the new president recognized the looming danger that it posed.

“For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present,” he said. “To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.”

Reagan added that it is possible for individuals to live beyond their means by borrowing money, but that this only works for a limited amount of time.

“Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation?” Reagan said. “We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.”

And act he did. By the end of his two terms in office, the debt had nearly tripled to almost $3 trillion.

Fast forward to 2016, when the debt was $19 trillion. At that time, presidential candidate Donald Trump echoed Reagan and also warned that “we are mortgaging our future [and] we are mortgaging our children’s future.”

Fortunately for America, he went on to explain that he “went to Wharton” and understood the debt, and that the country would “pay it back so easily” once he created a dynamic economy (it’s worth watching the clip just to hear Bill O’Reilly sigh 6:57 into this interview).

Well, that didn’t happen. In just 10 years, the debt doubled again and reached $40 trillion on Wednesday.

And it keeps piling up.

For example, even though the “One Big Beautiful Bill” cut $1 trillion from social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by taking healthcare and food stamps away from millions of Americans, this one piece of legislation will add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about five times as much as the nation had racked up through the first 200 years of its existence.

That number pales in comparison to the interest the country has to pay to the people and governments to which it owes money. This year, that figure will surpass $1 trillion for the first time. And, over the next decade, interest payments are expected to total $16.2 trillion.

Of course, one has to take into account inflation, which is why it is worth comparing the debt to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).

When Reagan took office, it amounted to a bit over 30 percent of GDP. Now, that figure has soared to 122 percent.

In other words, if we took the money generated by selling all of the goods and services produced in the US in the coming year (from lemonade stands to every single manufacturing plant) and used it to pay down the debt, the country would still be in the red by $8 trillion.

And, of course, that is not the government’s money to take; it just gets a part of that in the form of taxes. So let’s think about the debt in that way: Last year, the government collected $5.23 trillion in revenue, more than half of which comes from individual income taxes (while that seems like a lot, keep in mind that it also spent more than $7 trillion, which gets to the heart of the problem).

So, let’s say that the federal government starts spending nothing for a while (but still collects taxes). That means no military, no Medicare, no Social Security, no judges, no federal law enforcement, no Congress, no air traffic controllers, and not even a shiny new ballroom.

When Reagan took office, it was $4,000 (or about $17,000 in today’s dollars). Now, however, it has ballooned to $120,000 for every American, or $286,000 per taxpayer (i.e., not counting children, retirees, and billionaires like Trump who often avoid paying taxes altogether).

At the current rate (and taking into account those interest payments), it would take nearly a decade to eliminate all of that debt.

All of these numbers are almost too large to fathom, so it helps to look at the problem on an individual level.

The median income in the US is about $65,000. If somebody making that much money had as much credit card debt, percentage-wise, as the US, (which is a more apt comparison than a mortgage because a mortgage is backed by a property) that would come out to about $80,000. To get out of that debt, they would have to use every penny they earn for 15 months to pay off that credit card — without spending a dime on food, shelter, health insurance, taxes, gasoline, etc.

Or let’s look at the share of the debt per person. When Reagan took office, it was $4,000 (or about $17,000 in today’s dollars). Now, however, it has ballooned to $120,000 for every American, or $286,000 per taxpayer (i.e., not counting children, retirees, and billionaires like Trump who often avoid paying taxes altogether).

That is your share of the bill that the nation’s leaders have accrued over the past four decades or so.

And this is a bipartisan problem.

It’s been a century since an administration decreased the debt. In the eight years that Warren Harding (who died in office) and Calvin Coolidge were at the helm, it decreased $7 billion. Ironically, that is how much the debt increases every single day now.

Since then, it has just gone up, up, up.

In the first four years after Reagan made that nice speech, it was up 82 percent. Since then, the debt has increased less than 30 percent only three times — twice under Bill Clinton and then in Barack Obama’s second term.

We have no faith in these lawmakers, who refuse to make tough choices because they only worry about their next election and not the problems their inaction causes down the road — whether that’s related to the debt, climate change, or artificial intelligence.

That doesn’t necessarily mean Democrats are more responsible stewards of taxpayer money. Instead, it’s probably more of a reflection of how Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when one of their own isn’t in the White House but they control Congress.

The main difference is that they are bigger phonies when it comes to the debt because there is no tax cut for billionaires or military increase that they don’t like (and, for what it’s worth, as Reagan and other GOP presidents have proven, none of that money is “trickling down” to regular Americans).

And that brings us back to the Gipper.

Reagan wasn’t wrong when he said that “to continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.”

Now, different economists have different opinions as to when the debt becomes unsustainable. We believe that it already is for the simple reason that there is no political will to do anything about it.

We have no faith in these lawmakers, who refuse to make tough choices because they only worry about their next election and not the problems their inaction causes down the road — whether that’s related to the debt, climate change, or artificial intelligence.

This year, between one-fifth and a quarter of all government revenue will go toward paying interest on the debt. If that’s not unsustainable, then what is?

There are those who say there is no magic bullet to fix this.

Perhaps.

However, there is a pot of money that grows even more quickly than the US debt: the wealth of American billionaires.

Since 2020, the debt grew a little more than 30 percent under Joe Biden and it’ll be the same again under Trump (or more in light of the sluggish economy, high inflation, and a proposed $1.5 trillion military budget).

However, the wealth of US billionaires skyrocketed 32 percent in just the first year of Trump’s second term and totaled $2.2 trillion — more than the annual budget deficit.

And that’s just individual billionaires, not the other ultra-rich (there are nearly a million individuals in the US whose net worth is at least $10 million, and 74,000 households are worth $100 million or more) and corporations that are raking in record profits — often while being subsidized in some way by taxpayer money — while regular Americans are struggling with a surging cost of living.

That seems like a great place to start.

And we better get to it soon, because we are either on the precipice of the upheaval Reagan was predicting or (like Wile E. Coyote) we have already gone over that cliff without realizing it.

One way or another, what comes next won’t be pretty… and time is up.

  • Klaus MarreKlaus Marre, a former congressional reporter, is a senior editor for US politics at WhoWhatWhy. He writes regularly here, and you can also follow him on Bluesky and Substack.

A stunning win for the left in Florida: 6 takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries

  • Patricia Mazzei | © 2025 The New York Times Company
  • Aug 19, 2026 (SFExaminer.com)
U.S. House of Representatives Chamber Wikimedia (copy)
Nixon’s breakthrough victory, and losses by Republicans endorsed by President Donald Trump in several Florida congressional primaries, suggested that maybe Florida is no longer quite as immune to national trends. Photo: CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

OAKLAND PARK, Fla. — State Rep. Angie Nixon, a progressive firebrand who ran such an underdog campaign that she could not afford a single television ad, won the Democratic Senate nomination in Florida on Tuesday in a shocking upset.

With her defeat of Alex Vindman, a candidate with establishment backing who raised more than 16 times as much campaign money, Nixon, a democratic socialist, continued the left’s winning streak this year in Democratic primaries.

Florida had appeared impervious to the prevailing political winds in recent election cycles, with Republicans doing exceptionally well in the state in 2022, in what was otherwise a strong year for Democrats. Nixon’s breakthrough victory, and losses by Republicans endorsed by President Donald Trump in several Florida congressional primaries, suggested that maybe Florida is no longer quite as immune to national trends.

Here are six takeaways from Tuesday night’s primaries in Florida, Alaska and Wyoming, and a special election in California:

(Almost) no money? No problem. The grassroots propelled the left to victory, again.

Money is usually key to political campaigns in Florida, the nation’s third-largest state and home to 10 television markets. Nixon raised only $975,000, compared with Vindman’s more than $16.3 million. And she spent just $60,000 on advertising, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm, compared to his $2.2 million.

Vindman will face questions about why his campaign did not spend more introducing him to voters. But credit Nixon, a union organizer, for knowing how to harness the enthusiasm of grassroots Democrats and volunteers — and deftly using social media — to inform them about her candidacy.

A final weekend push in South Florida, home to many Democratic voters even as much of the region has trended toward Republicans, appears to have paid off: Nixon, who is from Jacksonville, defeated Vindman in Miami-Dade County, the state’s most populous, and in neighboring Broward County, where he lives.

After a long hiatus, Democratic enthusiasm is back. Will it be enough for Nixon?

Some of the most exciting elections for Florida Democrats over the past 20 years featured Black progressives named Barack Obama, who won the state twice, and Andrew Gillum, the former mayor of Tallahassee who lost a governor’s race by a hair in 2018. Nixon will surely try to learn from the coalitions they built and capitalize on the excitement that propelled her big win.

But neither Obama nor Gillum entered the general election with so little name recognition, campaign organization or money, all of which are needed to reach Florida’s giant and varied electorate.

Also: How will the democratic socialist label play? Nixon joined the Democratic Socialists of America in June, though the DSA has not endorsed her candidacy. And Florida has gotten redder since Obama won the state in the 2008 and 2012 presidential races and Gillum narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race. Sen. Ashley Moody, the Republican incumbent who faced no serious primary opposition Tuesday, is sitting on more than $8 million in campaign funds.

Florida could elect its first Black governor. He’s a Republican.

Ex // Top Stories

Making pies with the master ahead of SF’s annual pizza festival

This year marks the fourth annual Pizza, Bagel and Beer Festival. The Examiner visited Tony Gemignani for a crash course in making the perfect pizza

Growing Democratic Socialists of America SF behind housing ballot measure

Local chapter grew 28% to more than 1,500 members this year after member Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral victory in NYC and other electoral wins

GOP’s Gates offers sharp contrast with Bonta for attorney general

Republican challenger says he thinks the incumbent has done a poor job of protecting public safety and has the wrong priorities

Rep. Byron Donalds, who has long had Trump’s endorsement in the president’s adopted home state, crushed his rivals in the Republican primary for Florida governor. He has far out-raised the Democratic nominee, former Rep. David Jolly, a former Republican.

But Donalds did not break 50% on Tuesday, as some Florida Republicans had hoped. And he did not win some largely white, rural counties in North Florida. Donalds is Black. Some Republicans will be looking at his underperformance in those counties with concerns about whether some white Republicans will be unwilling to vote for a Black nominee, choosing to stay home in November instead.

Donalds dismissed concerns that he had not won a majority of the vote, telling reporters he would earn that support.

“They want the same thing we all want,” he said of Republicans who voted for his rivals. “We want a Florida that is based on common sense, law and order, freedom.”

Yet another scandal-plagued House Republican loses a primary.

Rep. Cory Mills lost the Republican primary in Florida’s 7th Congressional District to Ryan Elijah, a former local television news anchor, after Mills lost key support within his own party. Two House colleagues endorsed Elijah, saying they could not risk losing the Republican-leaning seat with a weak candidate.

Mills faced a House Ethics Committee investigation related to allegations of assault and threatening behavior toward women. His ouster followed that of Rep. Chuck Edwards of North Carolina, who was accused of sexually harassing two female former staff members and announced Aug. 5 that he would not seek reelection. The next day, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee lost a primary after drawing criticism for anti-Muslim remarks.

It wasn’t a progressive sweep. See Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, and Moskowitz, Jared.

Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Jared Moskowitz, both moderate, pro-Israel Democrats, easily fended off rivals after Republican gerrymandering led them to compete in new districts. Wasserman Schultz, an 11-term incumbent, overcame frustration from Black Democrats who did not want her to represent a historically Black district. Moskowitz bested a democratic socialist.

Sullivan (the senator) and Peltola advance to November ballot.

Sen. Dan Sullivan, the incumbent Republican, and former Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, easily advanced to the general election ballot Tuesday in Alaska’s Senate primary, setting up a highly anticipated matchup that could decide control of the Senate.

But the real intrigue was whether Dan J. Sullivan, a retired fifth-grade teacher accused by Republicans of being a Democratic plant to confuse voters and draw votes away from the other Sullivan, would join them. (The lesser-known Sullivan has denied the allegations.) Alaska’s nonpartisan primaries send the top four vote-getters to the general election, and many votes were yet to be counted.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

The Democrats’ On-Again, Off-Again Class Politics

MEYERSON ON TAP (Prospect.org)
The Democrats’ On-Again, Off-Again Class Politics

After World War II, Dems lost touch with their New Deal roots. Now they’re coming back home.I’ve been reading the journals of historian-speechwriter-liberal activist-Prospect founding sponsor Arthur Schlesinger over the past week. They’ve helped me understand a good deal about American liberalism (as well as making clear, were there any doubt, that the line between Harvard historian and party animal was, and surely still is, easy to cross).

Schlesinger’s three-volume history of the New Deal, written during the 1950s, remains essential reading for anyone interested in the waxing and waning of American liberalism. Even as Schlesinger was embarked on that project, he also became one of the leading speechwriters for Adlai Stevenson, the Illinois governor who was the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, losing both times, decisively, to Dwight Eisenhower.

Despite his allegiance to and affection for Stevenson, Schlesinger admits in his 1952 journal entries that Stevenson had no interest in incorporating the class-based politics of the New Deal (and of Harry Truman’s Fair Deal) into his speeches and, more broadly, into his political identity. A few weeks after Stevenson’s loss to Eisenhower, Schlesinger writes, “Adlai was right that we should not run against Hoover,” the Republican president on whose watch the pre–New Deal economy collapsed, and against whose relatively laissez-faire and pro-corporate economics both Roosevelt and Truman had successfully campaigned. “This issue meant very little to younger people,” Schlesinger continues, “for whom Social Security and collective bargaining and economic opportunity were as secure and unalterable parts of the landscape as the trees and bushes.”

A decade later, while working in John F. Kennedy’s White House, Schlesinger comes away from a meeting with UAW President Walter Reuther and Sen. Hubert Humphrey, noting that both of them still spoke in “the New Deal’s distinctive rhetoric. Walter and Hubert could talk about ‘the people,’ about their ultimate wisdom, and the importance of doing things for them, in a way quite alien to the New Frontier”—the not particularly class-based perspective of the Kennedy administration. “I wish I could figure out,” Schlesinger laments, “the terms in which the idealism and imagination of the New Deal could be infused into the anti-sentimental, anti-rhetorical, understated mood of the New Frontier,” whose leaders he terms “technocrats.”
Read today, these passages illuminate the links between the shifting shapes of American liberalism—and, for that matter, American socialism—and the American economy. Writing at a time when New Deal reforms had produced an economy of opportunity “as secure and unalterable” as the landscape, when, as historian Nelson Lichtenstein recently noted in our pages, the real wages of working-class Americans doubled in a single generation, the postwar Democratic establishment had abandoned the class politics of its predecessors, whose victories had appeared to create a permanent middle-class majority.
Reuther and Humphrey, by contrast, were at that point semi-social democrats who were concerned about those who either didn’t make it into that middle-class majority or whose membership therein was precarious. At the time, as Schlesinger noted ruefully, their concerns about these numerically marginal constituencies (at least, that was how they were viewed by the liberal establishment) registered only at the margins of liberal consciousness. The whole point of Michael Harrington’s The Other America, published in 1962, was to document the persistence of American poverty at a time when that poverty—as opposed to the pervasive poverty that preceded World War II—had become largely invisible.

Even as Schlesinger was writing his Stevenson- and Kennedy-era journal entries, American liberalism was slowly turning to those who’d been excluded by reason of race or gender from the rights and benefits of post–New Deal citizenship. It was Black activists who compelled the Democrats to focus on ending, or at least diminishing, those exclusions, but despite the socialist ideals of such civil rights leaders as Martin Luther King, A. Philip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin, it was the prisms of race and gender far more than that of class through which Democrats viewed the American landscape, and through which they largely defined themselves for the rest of the 20th century.

But can anyone look at what Schlesinger was writing in the 1950s and yet still marvel at the rebirth of class-based progressivism and socialism today? There are virtually no young people today who view their economic prospects as “secure and unalterable,” a view we now know was peculiar to the boomer generation. Is it any wonder that DSA, despite the fierce moral commitments of its founders, stayed a small organization of several thousand until the crash of 2008 and its prolonged and incomplete recovery made clear to young people, then and since, that the economy—deregulated and all but devoid of unions—was anything but secure? Is it any wonder that this year’s Democratic primaries, including this week’s in Florida, are defined by the precinct-walking and phone-banking of the young, class-based left, while the Democrats opposed to them can mobilize money but few if any volunteers?

The technocrats are being driven from the Democrats’ temple—or opting, rather, to hurriedly grasp onto some of the class-war perspectives that the Democratic base has embraced. While Schlesinger would doubtless reject some of DSA’s stances (as do AOC and Bernie Sanders, and it’s hard to imagine Angie Nixon celebrating Fidel), I’m confident he’d welcome the Democrats’ turn to a 21st-century version of the New Deal. They’re speaking his preferred language again.
Harold Meyerson
Editor at Large

Economists Blame $40 Trillion Debt Milestone on Two Things: GOP Ineptitude and Tax Cuts for the Rich

President Trump Signs His "Big, Beautiful Bill" Into Law And Celebrates Independence Day At The White House

US President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, 2025 in Washington, DC.

 (Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

“There is one point that should be very clear: It has been run up almost entirely due to Republican tax cuts and their inept management of the economy.”

Jake Johnson

Aug 20, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

Congressional Republicans have seized upon news that the US national debt reached $40 trillion to bash what they described as “unaffordable socialist policies” and out-of-control spending.

But economists and policy analysts say Republican policy decisions—from massive tax cuts for the rich to disastrous wars of choice in the Middle East—are primarily responsible for the explosion of the national debt over the past quarter-century. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promised to eliminate the national debt, has so far overseen an $11.6 trillion debt surge across his two White House terms.

RECOMMENDED…

Shoppers wait in line at a grocery store in Washington, DC on January 23, 2026. ​

New Inflation Numbers Prove ‘Catastrophic Mismanagement of Our Economy’ by Trump

Democratic Senate Candidate James Talarico Holds Rally Day After GOP Primary

Possibly ‘Best Political Ad Yet This Season’ Shows Texas Republican Ken Paxton’s 2012 Pen Theft

“I have never been a deficit hawk, and I’m not about to change my religious affiliation now,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote Thursday. “But whatever we think of debt and deficits, there is one point that should be very clear: It has been run up almost entirely due to Republican tax cuts and their inept management of the economy.”

Economist Paul Krugman similarly wrote that while the $40 trillion figure “has no special significance,” it underscores “the incredible irresponsibility of the Trump administration, with its unfunded tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, billions in wasteful military spending—redesigning aircraft carriers because Trump doesn’t like the way they look!—and more.”

“As Jared Bernstein and Bobby Kogan have shown, our deficit would be far more manageable if first [George W.] Bush, then Trump, hadn’t rammed through tax cuts that hugely favored high-income Americans,” Krugman added.

Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, estimated in 2023 that tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and Trump’s first term were “responsible for 57% of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90% of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to Covid-19 and the Great Recession are excluded.”

BlueSky: https://embed.bsky.app/embed/did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mthnjhbb3k2h?id=3861853595039886&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.commondreams.org%252Fnews%252Feconomists-trump-40-trillion-debt&colorMode=system

Last summer, Trump signed into law another massive tax cut package that will disproportionately benefit the rich and large corporations—and add trillions of dollars more to the national debt over the next decade.

“From now on, whenever you hear someone fret about how huge, horrible, and out-of-control the national debt is, explain to them that it’s largely because of tax cuts to the wealthy—who are also the major recipients of interest on that debt,” former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote on Thursday.

The US national debt reached $40 trillion months earlier than forecasters expected, partially due to lost federal revenue from Trump’s court-invalidated tariffs.

“Before his second term is even over, Donald Trump is responsible for more than $10 trillion of this,” Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) wrote on Thursday. “Just INTEREST on this debt is now sucking up more of our public money than even the military and Medicare. DC Republicans are leaving our kids a colossal mess to clean up.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Jake Johnson

Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

S.F. Dems alter rules to vote on billionaire tax, potentially defying state party

San Francisco Dems, in unprecedented move, could break with state party to oppose billionaire tax

by Junyao Yang August 20, 2026 (MissionLocal.org)

View of a city street lined with parked cars and trees, with a domed government building visible in the distance under a clear sky.
San Francisco City Hall shot at Fulton and Pierce, near Alamo Square. Photo by Genesia Ting

The California Democratic Party narrowly voted in early August to support the upcoming billionaire wealth tax. San Francisco’s local party chapter appears poised to buck that choice: It is taking unprecedented action to independently consider whether to oppose the measure next Wednesday. 

The tax, or Prop. 40, would impose a one-time 5 percent levy on roughly 200 billionaires in California. It would use the money raised to fund Medi-Cal, which will face an estimated $30 billion shortfall per year once federal tax cuts go into effect on Jan. 1.

In the past, the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), the county Democratic Party, would not have been able to break from the state party’s endorsement on California ballot measures. “By our bylaw, we cannot endorse state propositions, it’s the role of the California Democratic Party,” read the party’s endorsement page in 2020.  

But this year, on June 24, a week after Prop. 40 qualified for the ballot, the local party voted to change its bylaws. Now the San Francisco Democratic Party is able to diverge from the state Democratic Party on endorsements of state ballot measures. 

The change gives the committee “the power to take a position” when a measure “really does not align with our values,” Mike Chen, a member who sponsored the amendment in June, said ahead of the vote. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party also has the power to make separate endorsements, Chen added. 

At that meeting, Michael Nguyen, another DCCC member, asked if anything on the November ballot had prompted the change. Chen replied that he did not have a specific measure in mind when drafting the amendment.

State of Play | 300x250 | 8/2026 (copy)

As of Thursday, Prop. 40 is the only state ballot measure that the San Francisco DCCC is considering in its endorsement process, according to its agenda. 

“The only reason to bring it up is that they object to it,” said Kim Tavaglione, the executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council. “Clearly they do.” 

David Campos, the former Mission District supervisor and vice chair of the state Democratic Party, agreed. “If you’re happy with where the state is” on Prop. 40, he said, “then there’s no reason to put it on the agenda.” 

Nancy Tung, the San Francisco democratic party chair who opposes the measure, said in a statement that the party is considering Prop. 40 locally “because the endorsement process at the state executive board meeting was very split, and because of the strong position against held by respected groups like Planned Parenthood and the California Professional Firefighters.” 

Prop. 40 has picked up its fair share of opposition among Democrats. Gov. Gavin Newsom and his likely successor, Xavier Becerra both oppose the measure. So does Mayor Daniel Lurie, who told San Francisco Business Times in January that it would drive revenue out of California.

The San Francisco DCCC can spend funds promoting its preferred candidates and causes, and do so handsomely: It had $556,120 in the bank as of June 30

The local DCCC has undergone a shift in recent years. The majority slate of its current elected members were supported in their 2024 election by tech-backed political action committees, and lean moderate and pro-business. They took over after eight years of progressive control of the party.

The DCCC also voted in March to oppose Prop. D, the San Francisco “Overpaid CEO tax” in the June election. Opposed by Lurie and a barrage of spending, it subsequently lost. 

Party members and organizers say that while it is too early to say definitively, it is likely the DCCC will vote to oppose the billionaire tax. Progressives on the body are discussing their options, Nguyen said. “But we have no votes to stop it.” 

Voting to oppose the tax would be “a complete change from the party’s practice,” said Peter Gallotta, a progressive member of the San Francisco DCCC since 2017. “It’s important that there is a one-voice rule where as Democrats we stand together and unite around the state party’s decision and its process around these decisions.” 

Youth & Teen Registration |  300x250 | 8/2026

Having the state party taking one position on the billionaire tax, and the local party potentially taking another, Gallotta argued, could be confusing to voters. 

“People already find it hard to understand where the Democratic Party is on key issues that affect their lives,” he added. “This is not the time to create more confusion.” 

Tung, the DCCC chair, disagreed. “I don’t think it will cause confusion any more than seeing opposing views play out during the election,” she wrote. “It’s important for us to have rigorous debate on issues of statewide significance.”

Local chapters are not breaking rules by having separate ballot measure positions, said Campos. The state party’s bylaws only prohibit local chapters from diverging on candidate endorsements. 

But no other local party has taken up the issue, Campos added. 

Much of the San Francisco DCCC’s power lies in its ability to make endorsements. Voters are “looking for information from a trusted source, and there’s no more trusted source in San Francisco politics than the Democratic Party,” said Jim Ross, a political consultant with decades of experience in local politics, during the 2024 election.  

If the local party votes to oppose Prop. 40, it could unlock a war chest from wealthy donors — many of them billionaires — who are already giving millions of dollars to defeat the measure. Among them are tech titans who have already bankrolled candidates and ballot measures in recent San Francisco elections, like crypto billionaire Chris Larsen, venture capitalist Michael Moritz, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan and tech financier Ron Conway. 

Plus, taking a position against Prop. 40 could unlock vast sums from the state groups fighting the billionaire tax, which the local party could then spend on slate cards promoting other, unrelated candidates. Those groups have spent tens of millions to fight the measure already.

“The S.F. DCCC slate card and political program would have a shit ton of money from the ‘No on Prop. 40’ committees,” said Gordon Mar, a progressive member of the local party. 

Meanwhile, the “No on Prop. 40” statewide campaign would also gain: It could advertise that the San Francisco Democratic Party, a supposed bastion of liberalism, has come out against the measure. “It’s an arrow in their bow that they can then utilize and put in the mail pieces across the state,” Gallotta said.  

Prop. 40 has a narrow lead in a recent poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s IGS Poll, but is below the 50 percent threshold needed: 48 percent of likely voters supported it in the poll, and 41 percent opposed. Divisions were along party lines. 

We won’t ignore your neighborhood

When a San Francisco neighborhood has a Mission Local reporter, it means someone is there. We’re following new housing projects proposed on your block, keeping tabs on what your district supervisor is up to at City Hall, and letting you know when longtime businesses close (and new ones open). When big news breaks, we already know the context.

Most neighborhoods don’t have that. Yours could. 

That’s what Mission Local is building. Our reporters don’t parachute in — they write consistently on San Francisco, so you’re never reading about your neighborhood from someone who just looked it up.

So far we are in five of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. But we know all San Franciscans deserve our kind of coverage. Will you join us?

Put a reporter on your block!

Latest election coverage

OpenAI workers ditched their boss’ politics for Anthropic’s 

OpenAI workers ditched their boss’ politics for Anthropic’s 

Ro Khanna backs Connie Chan, saying next S.F. congressperson will have ‘huge megaphone’

Ro Khanna backs Connie Chan, saying next S.F. congressperson will have ‘huge megaphone’

California billionaire-tax brawl kicks into high gear

California billionaire-tax brawl kicks into high gear

Junyao YangStaff Reporter

junyao@missionlocal.com

Junyao covers San Francisco’s Westside, from the Richmond to the Sunset. She joined Mission Local in 2023 as a California Local News Fellow, after receiving her Master’s degree from UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Junyao lives in the Inner Sunset. You can find her skating at Golden Gate Park or getting a scoop at Hometown Creamery.More by Junyao Yang