“As an adjudicated insurrectionist, Trump is an illegitimate president according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and therefore every official act as president will be illegitimate.”
–Mike Zonta, co-editor of OccupySF.net
The 14th Amendment states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Call your Congressperson and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121
Undeterred by armed soldiers, smooth-talking politicians, and riot police, journalist Amy Goodman has reported some of the most consequential stories of our time. Steal This Story, Please! is a gripping portrait of the trailblazer whose unwavering commitment to truth-telling spans three decades of turbulent history. From the frontlines of global conflicts to the organized chaos of her daily news show Democracy Now!, Goodman broadcasts stories and voices routinely silenced by commercial media.
Oscar-nominated filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin (Trouble the Water, The Janes) take us behind the scenes with the warm, wisecracking granddaughter of an Orthodox rabbi — raised in a tradition of asking hard questions – as she navigates a news landscape reshaped by technology, corporate consolidation, and political assaults on truth itself. Urgent, provocative and unexpectedly funny, Steal This Story, Please! is both a call to action and a celebration of resistance, posing the question: what happens to democracy when the press surrenders to power?
FROM ACADEMY AWARD-NOMINATED DIRECTORS CARL DEAL AND TIA LESSIN. EXECUTIVE PRODUCED BY JANE FONDA, TOM MORELLO, AND ROSARIO DAWSON.
A civil servant discovers his breaking point when the Trump administration’s cruelty and indifference threaten to violate the oath he swore to uphold.
Nicholas Enrich had finally achieved his lifelong dream: becoming USAID’s lead official for global health. But that dream turned out to be a nightmare in the tumultuous time after President Trump’s second inauguration.
In the months that followed, USAID became the first target of Elon Musk’s newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The mission to which Enrich had dedicated his career was being dismantled before his eyes—even the name of the agency was removed from the building’s facade. Enrich witnessed firsthand the Trump administration’s lies, how it systematically prevented USAID from providing lifesaving foreign aid, and the death and suffering around the world that resulted from careless decisions. Finally determining he could no longer keep quiet, and risking the career that he loved deeply, Enrich released a set of whistleblowing memos exposing the administration’s illegal and destructive actions.
Enrich was put on administrative leave, yet his memos went viral and had a sustained impact. In the days following their release, hundreds of canceled aid projects were revived, and the documents were cited in a Supreme Court case on the legality of USAID’s dissolution. While his memos were too late to save USAID, Enrich was one of the first government officials to publicly blow the whistle on DOGE’s reckless destruction, sounding an early alarm bell for other federal agencies that would soon find themselves in the crosshairs.
Urgent and profoundly human, Enrich’s story offers an astonishing behind-the-scenes look at a federal agency under siege, from the early days when Enrich and his team were unaware of what was to come to the shockingly ignorant, callous, and bigoted conversations they witnessed. Enrich reveals in this detailed, no-holds-barred account what was truly at stake when DOGE set out to dismantle one of America’s most effective humanitarian institutions, and how millions of lives hung in the balance.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s lack of an endorsement for her former chief of staff in the San Francisco House race was already playing an outsized role in this primary season, but now we get a bit more to the story.
While Saikat Chakrabarti has been quick to drop AOC’s name on his TV spots and during door-knocking sessions, AOC has not been so quick to offer an endorsement to her onetime chief of staff and campaign manager. And this has raised questions about what the status of their relationship is, exactly.
And while Chakrabarti may indeed still have a friendly relationship with AOC, as he says he does, he may have pissed off too many of the wrong people in Congress during his brief stint as her chief of staff in 2019. As the Chronicle reports today, citing people who would know, including House Speaker Emerita’s then-chief of staff, Drew Hammill, Chakrabarti was likely fired from AOC’s staff for mouthing off on Twitter too much about their more moderate Democratic colleagues in the House — thus his tenure in that role was only about seven months long.
“[As a staffer] you are supposed to be seen and not heard,” Hammill tells the Chronicle. “If other members don’t want to work with your chief of staff, that’s a problem.”
Hammill would not confirm or deny whether Pelosi herself had suggested to AOC that Chakrabarti needed to go, but Hammill tells the Chronicle that “it was made very clear to AOC a number of different ways that there is behavior here that is not in your interest,” implying that AOC was pressured to fire Chakrabarti.
That would be the implication of this August 2019 article from The Hill, in which Rep. Ocacio-Cortez sought to distance herself from Chakrabarti and specifically one tweet of his from a month earlier. At the time, July 2019, Pelosi was squabbling with some of the younger progressives in her party, including the so-called “Squad,” who had recently joined the House and was attempting to get them in line, and Chakrabarti posted a since-deleted tweet that only inflamed matters.
In it, he accused the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions of being segregationists, or even racists. “They certainly seem hell bent to do to black and brown people today what the old Southern Democrats did in the 40s,” he wrote.
Pelosi held a closed-door meeting shortly after the tweet was posted, in order to scold members, including AOC, for airing their intra-party grievances publicly instead of bringing their concerns to her, per The Hill. And in a public statement Pelosi even addressed the Chakrabarti tweet, saying, “Our members took offense at that. I addressed that.”
After Chakrabarti departed her office, Ocasio-Cortez gave an interview to the New York Daily News, saying of the tweet, “I think it was divisive. I believe in criticizing stances, but I don’t believe in specifically targeting members.”
Still, Ocasio-Cortez denied at the time that the tweet was the reason for Chakrabarti’s departure, saying, “We had been discussing this transition before that whole incident happened.”
The timing certainly points to the tweet being a pretty big problem, and a sort of straw that broke the camel’s back for Speaker Pelosi.
Chakrabarti also tells the Chronicle this week that he wasn’t fired, and it was a “planned departure.” “I felt that the stuff I was good at doing — setting up her office, the Green New Deal stuff — was accomplished,” he says.
Nevertheless, an endorsement from Pelosi seems fairly unlikely at this point, and the Chronicle notes that no other sitting member of Congress has offered their endorsement so far either.
In the most recent poll, state Senator Scott Wiener held a solid lead with 44% of the vote, and Chakrabarti had 26%, with challenger Connie Chan a distant third at 11%.
The primary is on June 2, and ballots have already started being mailed out.
US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins on Saturday openly celebrated millions of people losing their food assistance, which experts say is a direct result of the Republicans’ 2025 budget law that slashed funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $186 billion over a decade.
In a social media post pointing to preliminary data from her department, Rollins boasted that there were now “4.3 million off SNAP and counting!”
“Under President Trump, Americans are getting back to work!” Rollins added. “Healthy employment numbers mean less reliance on government programs. Leaving benefits for those who truly need them. America is back in business!”
In reality, the unemployment rate is currently higher than when President Donald Trump took office in February 2025 and there has been almost no growth in net employment since the president announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs just over a year ago.
The Associated Press on Monday published a fact check of Rollins’ claims about SNAP, finding that Republicans’ cuts to the program were far more likely responsible for the historic drops in enrollment than any purported improvement in the economy.
Caitlin Caspi, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut who studies food insecurity, told the AP that current job creation numbers are nowhere near strong enough to explain the massive number of Americans losing access to SNAP.
“We’re not seeing a linear kind of drop-off,” Caspi said. “We are not seeing, if you look at the unemployment rates, things that might be an indicator that a strong economy was driving this change. We don’t see, for example, a pattern of decline in unemployment that would match the pattern of decline in SNAP participation.”
Caspi’s analysis was echoed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which last week published an analysis finding that “economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades.”
Instead, CBPP pointed the finger squarely at the GOP’s budget law as the biggest culprit behind the decline.
“The deep cuts to federal funding for SNAP are shifting significant new costs to states,” wrote CBPP, noting that the GOP law “also dramatically expands SNAP’s already harsh and ineffective provision taking away people’s benefits for not meeting the work requirement.”
Rollins’ claims about SNAP enrollment were also criticized by Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio), who expressed disgust that the administration is bragging about kicking people off food assistance during a time when the price of groceries has continued to rise thanks in part to Trump’s own policies.
“Better economy where?” Brown wrote on social media in response to Rollins. “You mean the one where Americans paid $300 more on their groceries to compensate for Trump’s tariffs? Kicking 4.3 million Americans off of SNAP is not a flex, it’s a failure. That’s why I’ve authored legislation to reverse the Trump SNAP cuts.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Candidates for governor Xavier Becerra, left, and Tom Steyer attend SEIU-United Service Workers West’s Gubernatorial Candidate Worker Forum at Meruelo Studios in Los Angeles on Jan. 10, 2026.AFP via Getty Images
By Anabel Sosa, Senior California politics reporter May 4, 2026 (SFGate.com)
Another poll was released this week just as ballots head to California voters’ mailboxes, revealing that a Republican and a Democrat are now tied for first place in the governor’s race.
A recent poll published Monday by the California Democratic Party found that Republican Steve Hilton, the British-born former Fox News commentator, and Democrat Xavier Becerra, the former state attorney general and health and human services secretary, are tied with 18% of likely voter support.
With less than a month until Election Day, it appears voters are becoming more decisive regarding their chosen candidates.
Trailing behind Hilton and Becerra is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, with 15% of likely voter support, and Tom Steyer, the only billionaire candidate, with 12%. Former Rep. Katie Porter, who emerged as a leading candidate and was polling ahead of Becerra and Steyer in late February, now has 9% support; San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, the most recent candidate to announce his run, has 7% support, which is steadily up since he joined the race in late January.
Meanwhile, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Tony Thurmond, the public schools superintendent, remain in the low single digits, with 3% and 2%, respectively, and 13% of voters are considered undecided. For months, Hilton’s consistently been polling in the lead. He and Bianco are the only two Republicans running. Meanwhile, six remaining Democrats are splitting the party vote.
Now that Becerra is leading, there has been more scrutiny over his track record as both attorney general and working in the Biden administration. Last week, KQED pointed out that Becerra has changed his tune on single-payer healthcare, having received high-power endorsements from the California Medical Association, a doctor-funded PAC. The state Legislature has repeatedly tried to pass single-payer healthcare reform but has failed to pass an overhaul.
Steyer, who has never served in public office, has also reportedly changed his tune on single-payer healthcare. When he ran for president in 2020, he said he was against the public healthcare system, but he switched his stance in December. The other Democratic candidates, except for Mahan, support a single-payer system. Both Bianco and Hilton have suggested alternatives to the system but do not explicitly support a single-payer system.
Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party, sent smoke signals in a March 3 letter that unless some underperforming candidates dropped out, a Republican lockout in the general election was “implausible” but a possibility.
Since then, two Democrats have dropped out of the race. Rep Eric Swalwell ended his campaign, and resigned from Congress, after he faced multiple allegations of sexual assault. Betty Yee, the former state controller, ended her campaign at the end of April after polling in the low single digits. She immediately endorsed Steyer after her announcement. Even though both Swalwell and Yee are out of the race, both will still appear on the ballot.
The poll surveyed 1,200 Californians between April 30 and May 2 and was conducted by phone and online in both English and Spanish. There is a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.
Anabel Sosa is the senior California politics reporter at SFGATE. She previously covered the statehouse and elections for the Los Angeles Times. She has a masters degree in investigative journalism from UC Berkeley. You can reach her at anabel.sosa@sfgate.com.
‘You have a Trumpian move, almost something you might expect from Putin. One person is identified and barred from democratic participation.’ — Jerry Brown. Illustration by Neil Ballard
Jerry Brown was the youngest man to ever serve as governor of California in the modern era.
After leaving office, he embarked on a peripatetic career that included studying with Mother Teresa, hosting a radio show and lecturing a University of California, Berkeley class (Regarding the title of Hillary Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village,” he deadpanned to the students: “Doesn’t it give you a warm fuzzy?”).
Brown then jumped back on the political hamster wheel, running successfully for mayor of Oakland and state attorney general and, finally, becoming the oldest man ever to serve as governor of California.
Want the latest on the Mission and San Francisco? Sign up for our free daily newsletter below.Sign up
You’d think the notion of strict term limits would be an anathema to a four-time governor. You’d be right, but not for the reasons you’re expecting.
In June, San Franciscans will weigh in on Proposition B; voters began receiving their mail ballots last week. While city supervisors and mayors must, presently, sit out for four years before running for potential third and fourth terms, Prop. B would install a lifetime cap of two terms, full stop.
Since term limits were imposed on San Francisco supervisors nearly 36 years ago, only one has ever served more than two terms. And, if you can’t guess who it is, Gov. Brown will tell you.
“This is not complex,” he says. “This is all directed at one person in San Francisco: Aaron Peskin. People are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars because they’re worried he will support policies they don’t like.”
“You have a Trumpian move, almost something you might expect from Putin,” Brown continues. “One person is identified and barred from democratic participation. It’s a major abuse of the democratic process.”
“People say this is a solution looking for a problem. But it’s a solution looking for a problem that already happened: You’re a decade late, dude. I had my fun.” Aaron Peskin on Prop. B
The present term-limit system was passed in June 1990, and was in effect for the election of November 1990. Political consultant Jim Stearns undertook an analysis of all the mayoral and supervisorial contests since that time.
Factoring out runoffs, which were in place until the adoption of ranked-choice voting in 2002, 109 candidates ran for mayor and 587 ran for the Board of Supervisors (120 citywide, 467 in the districts). So, that’s nearly 700 candidates in the course of not quite 36 years.
Of those, only two had served two or more terms in office before seeking an additional term: Peskin (he won) and John Avalos (he didn’t). Doing the math, Prop. B would’ve affected not quite three-tenths of one percent of the candidates running for office since November 1990.
Absent its function as the Aaron Peskin Privatization Act, it’s difficult to parse just what problem Prop. B is purporting to solve.
Exterior shot of the San Francisco City Hall entrance sign on April 14, 2026. Photo by Zoe Malen
Prop. B is Supervisor Bilal Mahmood’s legislation. He insists that it has nothing to do with Aaron Peskin. He insists that it’s simply a “good government measure” to clarify “voter intent” and close a “loophole.”
Mahmood’s persistent repetition of the term “loophole” does not pass the Inigo Montoya test: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
He insists that, because in 1990 this was pitched as the “eight years is enough” measure and because some ballot arguments and media coverage simply stated it would impose a two-term limit, that voters made assumptions. This is the so-called loophole.
But any voter who actually looked at the brief description atop the June 1990 ballot would see that it clearly stated “Shall persons be prohibited from serving more than two consecutive four-year terms on the Board of Supervisors, and be prohibited from serving as a Supervisor again until four years have elapsed … ?”
Within the official argument for the 1990 measure was the following line: “Former supervisors may run for office again after 4 years.”
So there was no ambiguity here. And no loopholes.
Mahmood insists that Prop. B will create new opportunities for new leadership. That’s a hell of a claim for a measure that would’ve been irrelevant for 99.7 percent of the candidates who ran for the board or mayor over the past three-and-a-half decades.
It’s also an amazing thing to say when the mayor and four of the six supervisors elected in the latest cycle had never before held office.
Here’s a thought: If Mahmood and fellow Prop. B supporter Supervisor Matt Dorsey were truly committed to opening up the limited number of San Francisco elected positions to up-and-comers, perhaps they should resign the seats they simultaneously hold on the Democratic County Central Committee. You know, get some “new blood” in there.
Cleaner Streets, Stronger Community
After 5 years of working to fix SF’s litter problem, Clean Streets – a Mission-based, community-funded, litter pickup workforce has funded 1,236 hours of living-wage work and cleaned 617 miles of neighborhood streets. As little as $5 makes a difference. Click here to help us clean the Mission.
141
Mahmood noted that in pushing Prop. B, he and his fellow supes were “holding ourselves accountable. … It limits my ability to serve a third term.”
Hold on there, champ; Mahmood hasn’t yet been elected to a second term. And his legislation would not keep, say, Dean Preston from giving him another run in 2028.
When told that only two politicians have attempted to run for additional terms out of nearly 700 candidates, Mahmood noted that former District 2 supe Michela Alioto-Pier is exploring her possibilities.
Stop the presses: Add her in, and the relevancy ratio grows from 0.29 percent to 0.43 percent.
Bilal Mahmood, District 5 Supervisor, at the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 14, 2026 at the San Francisco City Hall. Photo by Zoe Malen.
Prop. B has, thus far, raised nearly $347,000. That includes $200,000 from cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen and $50,000 from billionaire retired VC and San Francisco Standard founder Michael Moritz, who have become two of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s most ardent backers.❮❯
Beauty Bar is Back! Revitalized!
Enjoy craft martinis, live DJ nights, and dance in a unique retro-salon setting. Open daily from 2pm to 2am. Swing by during the day or join us at night for music, drinks, and unforgettable memories!Club • Trending • 5K viewsDiscover the Vibe
SF Believes, a PAC with Lurie ties, has also kicked in $20,000.
San Francisco’s tech barons and the political organizations they foster have no fondness for Peskin. Moritz in 2024 penned a New York Times op-ed laying the blame for decades of city mismanagement on him, labeling Peskin the chief zealot in a “coterie of longstanding political zealots.”
The billionaire wrote in his op-ed that “Democrats like me” were “fighting to take the city back.” That part of his jeremiad, at least, seems to be indisputable.
Our messages to both Larsen and Moritz querying why they donated to Prop. B were not answered. Surely it’s just a “good government measure” to clarify “voter intent” and close a “loophole.”
Unlike the Chronicle, which inveighed against Prop. B in a particularly sharply worded editorial, Mission Local does not do endorsements. You can vote however you wish for whatever reason you wish; you can, like my high school chemistry teacher used to say, make a pretty pattern with the bubbles you fill in on the sheet.
We would be surprised if fewer than 60 percent of voters went for Prop. B; voters like term limits. Regardless, Mission Local isn’t telling you what to do.
But we’re under no obligation to keep mum when city officials piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin speaks during a mayoral candidate debate at KQED hosted by the station and the San Francisco Chronicle in San Francisco, on Thursday, September 19, 2024. (Photo by Carlos Avila Gonzalez/San Francisco Chronicle/POOL)
Jerry Brown is 88, and he doesn’t have time for any of the arguments from Bilal Mahmood or other Prop. B supporters.
“Look, that’s just a cover story,” he says. “There is only one operative motive here: Keep Peskin out to please some very well-heeled contributors. I’m not even sure the supervisors are the leaders. They may be the pawns, too.”
Peskin, meanwhile, says he has no plans to run for office against Supervisor Danny Sauter in 2028. But, to be fair, Peskin had no plans to re-enter public life in 2015 either, and only did so after a concatenation of strange and terrible events.
“People say this is a solution looking for a problem,” he says of Prop. B. “But it’s a solution looking for a problem that already happened: You’re a decade late, dude. I had my fun.”
With 17 years, Peskin is the longest-serving district supervisor and, if Prop. B passes, that title likely becomes permanent. In the pre-term limits days a little-remembered at-large supervisor named Dewey Mead served from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s. In the present day Mead doesn’t even merit a Wikipedia page.
“I spent 17 pretty intense years working 17 or 18 hours a day,” Peskin says. “It’s pretty nice living. I don’t want to say stress-free, but a vastly stress-reduced life.”
“It’s nice being able to walk down the street and not be barraged by 20 different people asking for 20 different things, 10 of which are intractable problems.”
Actually, that’s not entirely true. Even out of office, gobs of North Beach Frank Capra characters stop Peskin on his walks to and from Caffe Trieste; some even hand him sheaves of paper from the planning department or building department notices of violation and ask him how to extricate themselves from trouble.
Yes, Peskin admits, that’s still happening. “But now,” he says, “I just give them Danny Sauter’s number.”
This story has been altered to acknowledge that Jerry Brown was the state’s second-youngest governor. J. Neely Johnson was elected at 30 in 1856.
3,300 readers keep Mission Local free. Will you join them?
There are no paywalls at Mission Local. We believe San Francisco deserves critical, high-impact reporting that belongs to all its residents, not just those who can afford it.
But free to read doesn’t mean free to produce. We’re a small, independent newsroom rooted in San Francisco’s communities that only exists because people like you invest in the reporting that our city relies on all year round.
Keep Mission Local free for all by becoming a donor today.
Joe is a columnist and the managing editor of Mission Local. He was born in San Francisco, raised in the Bay Area, and attended U.C. Berkeley. He never left.
“Your humble narrator” was a writer and columnist for SF Weekly from 2007 to 2015, and a senior editor at San Francisco Magazine from 2015 to 2017. You may also have read his work in the Guardian (U.S. and U.K.); San Francisco Public Press; San Francisco Chronicle; San Francisco Examiner; Dallas Morning News; and elsewhere.
He resides in the Excelsior with his wife and three (!) kids, 4.3 miles from his birthplace and 5,474 from hers.
The Northern California branch of the Society of Professional Journalists named Eskenazi the 2019 Journalist of the Year.More by Joe Eskenazi
Sign relating to the San Francisco Elections inside the City Hall taken on April 14, 2026. Photo by Zoe Malen
Voting in San Francisco’s June 2 election has begun! Voters started receiving mail-in ballots on May 1 and on Monday, May 4, San Francisco opened up ballot drop boxes across the city.
If the 15-plus items on your ballot are overwhelming and you still have no clue who you’re voting for, don’t fret, we’ve got your back — Mission Local has put together a handy explainer on each ballot item below.
Voting is open through June 2. You can register to receive a mail-in ballot up until May 18, 15 days before Election Day. After that deadline you can still vote in person at the City Hall Voting Center, which is in the basement of the building, or at a polling place on Election Day.
U.S. representative, District 11 primary
In November, after almost 40 years of service, Nancy Pelosi announced her retirement, setting off a scramble to succeed her.
Not all of San Francisco is in District 11, so if it is not on your ballot, you live in the Excelsior, Ingleside, Visitacion Valley, or the Portola, and you don’t have to worry about this race.
The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 3. Because this is a federal race and not a city one, there is no ranked-choice voting.
The top candidates are:
Saikat Chakrabarti, a tech centimillionaire and former chief of staff to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Connie Chan, District 1 supervisor
Scott Wiener, San Francisco’s state senator and former District 8 supervisor
Read Mission Local’s coverage of the race here:
Whether you vote progressive, moderate or conservative, this might be helpful:
Who’s the most progressive S.F. congressional candidate? Q&A presses issue.
How S.F. congressional hopefuls view Israel, China and foreign policy (part 1)
How S.F. congressional hopefuls view Israel, China and foreign policy (part 2)
How the candidates perform in a debate ?
At S.F. congressional debate, candidates go on the attack
Who’s funding the race and how it’s being spent?
Saikat Chakrabarti spends $5M running for Congress. It’s just a down payment.
Saikat Chakrabarti flooding the zone with canvassers, paying up to $45/hr for 250+ of them
San Francisco supervisor, District 4
Voters in the outer Sunset will be voting for a supervisor to represent them on the Board of Supervisors. Whoever is elected will finish out the term of Joel Engardio, who was recalled last September for turning the Great Highway into a permanent park.
If voters hate who wins in June, there is another chance to weigh in on Nov. 3, when voters will elect someone for the full four-year term.
This race uses ranked-choice voting, which means voters should rank however many candidates they like in order of preference. Click here for an explanation of how ranked choice voting works (featuring Mission Local reporter Abigail Vân Neely’s cat, Sally).
Cleaner Streets, Stronger Community
After 5 years of working to fix SF’s litter problem, Clean Streets – a Mission-based, community-funded, litter pickup workforce has funded 1,236 hours of living-wage work and cleaned 617 miles of neighborhood streets. As little as $5 makes a difference. Click here to help us clean the Mission.
You might want to start with our Meet the Candidates series where we ask one question and color code the answers so you can see if candidates answered yes, no, or dodged the question.
Sunset Dunes park supporters face an election with no clear candidate
S.F. supe says campaign rival sabotaged Great Highway measure. She says he didn’t do the work.
District 4 shaping up to be San Francisco’s loudest and silliest race. As predicted.
Supervisor Alan Wong has $540K backing District 4 campaign, much from Lurie’s wealthy allies
With Supe Wong absent, District 4 candidates blast ‘big money’ and mayor’s influence
San Francisco supervisor, District 2
Voters in the Marina, Pacific Heights, the Presidio, and NoPa will be weighing in on who they want to represent them on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.
As in District 4, the winner will have to run again in the Nov. 3 election. At that time, another election will be held for a full four-year term.
This election is just to fill out the remainder of Catherine Stefani’s term because she left for State Assembly in December 2024.
This race uses ranked-choice voting, which means voters should rank however many candidates they like in order of preference. Click here for that feline-forward explanation of how ranked-choice voting works.
Start with our Meet the Candidate series where we ask one question and color-code answers to see if candidates answer yes, no, or dodged the question:
Should politicians oppose housing that blocks views?
You can read our other District 2 coverage here:
S.F. D2 supervisor candidates knock on doors hoping for different answers
Over $1M backing Supervisor Stephen Sherrill in District 2 race, much from PACs
S.F. housing is hottest topic in first debate between District 2 supervisor candidates
Troubling allegations were raised about Stephen Sherrill’s appointment. Do voters care?
School board
Three candidates are running to complete a term on the Board of Education, which sets policies and the budget for San Francisco’s public schools. Whoever wins will need to run again on Nov. 3.
Read Mission Local’s Meet the Candidates series, where we asked all three candidates the same question and color-coded their answers so you can see who answered yes, no or dodged the question.
Should Algebra 1 be offered to all eighth-grade students?
Do you support dipping into reserves to pay for ongoing expenses?
Proposition A
This proposition would allow the city of San Francisco to issue $535,000,000 worth of bonds to pay for earthquake safety-projects, including updating water infrastructure and seismic retrofitting of certain buildings.
More than two-thirds of voters must vote in favor for this proposition to pass.
Proponents say that the bond will allow the city to improve water infrastructure for firefighting, which could be crucial after an earthquake, when fires often break out.
Opponents say that the bond is unnecessary and that these projects should be paid for by cutting money from other areas of the city’s budget.
Proponents: Mayor Daniel Lurie, all members of the Board of Supervisors, Fire Chief Dean Crispen
Opponents: San Francisco Republican Party, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
Proposition B
This proposition would amend the term-limit rules for San Francisco’s mayor and supervisors so that they can only serve two four-year terms in that position over their lifetime. Currently, politicians can serve for two consecutive terms, not serve for four years, and then run for the same position again.
More than half of voters must vote in favor for this proposition to pass.
Proponents say that the change will bring new voices into elected offices, since long-serving politicians can build networks that make it hard for new candidates to compete.
Opponents say that having experienced hands in government with institutional knowledge is good and that restricting voter choice is anti-democratic.
Proponents: Mayor Daniel Lurie, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, S.F. Young Democrats, San Francisco Democratic Party, Supervisors Bilal Mahmood, Danny Sauter, Jackie Fielder, Myrna Melgar, Matt Dorsey, Stephen Sherrill, and Alan Wong
Opponents: former Mayor Willie Brown, former Mayor Art Agnos, Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Chyanne Chen, Shamann Walton, and Connie Chan, former California Governor Jerry Brown
Read Mission Local’s coverage of the proposition here:
Jerry Brown compares San Francisco’s Prop. B to Trump, Putin
Proposition C
The city is currently facing a huge budget deficit. So, city unions put Prop. D, an increase in business taxes on the ballot to stave off layoffs and cuts to city services.
But business leaders in the city became concerned that the tax would harm San Francisco’s economic recovery by driving businesses out of the city and discouraging new ones from opening up. They put their own measure, Prop. C, on the ballot.
It would decrease city revenue and, crucially, contains language that would nullify Prop. D if Prop. C gets more votes.
The choice is not just Prop. C or Prop. D, though: Mayor Daniel Lurie is opposing both measures, having originally called for unions and business leaders to work out the disagreement outside of the ballot box.
Here’s what Prop. C does: San Francisco currently has an additional business tax on businesses whose top executive makes 100 times more than their median employee. This proposition would raise the exemption threshold for that tax from $5 million to $7.5 million.
It would also move up a planned increase in the tax rate from 2028 to 2027. It’s predicted to decrease revenue to the city by $30 million to $40 million a year.
Proponents say this measure will help San Francisco’s economy because the new businesses that are exempted from the tax will be helped.
Opponents say that the revenue lost under this tax cut will require cutting city services and that they support Prop. D, which the passage of this measure would potentially kill.
Proponents: S.F. Chamber of Commerce, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco
Opponents: Mayor Daniel Lurie, San Francisco Labor Council
Read more of Mission Local’s coverage of the proposition here:
Firms fighting S.F. CEO tax have huge pay gaps, analysis shows
S.F. unions pledge to fight ‘every one’ of Mayor Lurie’s proposed layoffs
S.F. Mayor Lurie doesn’t like the CEO tax. But his allies on the board do.
S.F. Mayor Lurie opposes both competing business-tax measures
Proposition D
See above for some of the backstory, but Prop. D is being supported by San Francisco’s labor unions, a supermajority of its supervisors, and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
But business leaders oppose it, and are spending big to tank it, saying it will derail the city’s recovery. Mayor Lurie opposes both D and Prop. C, the rival measure.
Here’s what Prop. D does: This proposition would raise taxes on businesses whose top executive makes 100 times more than their median employee. It’s predicted to increase revenue to the city by $200 million to $300 million a year.
More than half of voters must vote in favor for this proposition to pass. This measure is competing with Prop. C. If both measures pass, then whichever one gets more votes will go into effect.
Proponents say this measure will help address the city’s large budget deficit, preventing cuts to city services and layoffs.
Opponents of this measure say that it will hurt San Francisco’s economic recovery because businesses will increase prices, reduce hiring, or leave the city.
Proponents: San Francisco Labor Council, SEIU Local 1021, SEIU 2015, IFPTE Local 21, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Supervisors Danny Sauter, Alan Wong, Bilal Mahmood, Jackie Fielder, Myrna Melgar, Shamann Walton, Connie Chan, and Chyanne Chen
Opponents: Mayor Daniel Lurie, S.F. Chamber of Commerce, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Stephen Sherrill, and Matt Dorsey
If you want to know how every San Francisco politician feels about the tax, we asked them all.
Read Mission Local’s coverage of the proposition here:
Firms fighting S.F. CEO tax have huge pay gaps, analysis shows
S.F. unions pledge to fight ‘every one’ of Mayor Lurie’s proposed layoffs
S.F. Mayor Lurie doesn’t like the CEO tax. But his allies on the board do.
S.F. Mayor Lurie opposes both competing business-tax measures
Governor
California Governor Gavin Newsom is terming out, so Californians are now choosing his replacement. The governor is the state’s chief executive. They are in charge of implementing laws and managing the operation of state government services. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on Nov. 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ governor voting guide here.
Lieutenant Governor Primary
The lieutenant governor sits on the boards of California’s higher education institutions: the University of California, the California State University system, and the California Community Colleges system. The lieutenant governor also serves on commissions involved in coastal protection, land use, and the environment.
Read CalMatters’ overview of the lieutenant governor candidates here.
Insurance Commissioner
The insurance commissioner oversees California’s Department of Insurance, which regulates the state’s insurance industry.
It investigates fraud and consumer complaints and makes sure that insurers don’t set rates that are too high, too low, or discriminatory. This election is the primary for a four-year term. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ voter guide for insurance commissioner here.
Read the Capitol Weekly’s Q&As with the candidates here.
Secretary of State
The secretary of state runs an office that oversees the state’s elections and registers and authenticates the state’s businesses, among other functions. This election is the primary for a four-year term. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ voter guide for secretary of state here.
Controller
The controller is the state’s chief fiscal officer. They keep track of how the state’s money is spent, audit state agencies, and sit on boards that make fiscal decisions. This election is the primary for a four-year term. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ voter guide for controller here.
Treasurer
The treasurer manages the state’s money and acts as its banker. They invest California’s money, finance projects throughout the state, and sit on the boards of agencies that manage pension funds for state employees. This election is the primary for a four-year term. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ voter guide for treasurer here.
Attorney General
The attorney general prosecutes violations of state laws, provides legal advice to state officials and agencies, and creates policies to protect Californians from illegal activities. This election is the primary for a four-year term. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ voter guide for attorney general here.
State Superintendent
The state superintendent manages the California Department of Education, which implements education policy decisions and oversees local school districts.
The state legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom are considering transferring management of the Education Department to the governor and State Board of Education in response to concerns that the current system is too fragmented.
What the State Superintendent’s new role would be is still being negotiated, but current proposals include centering the role around advocacy and independent oversight.
In the unlikely scenario that one candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote, they will win the office. Otherwise, the top two vote-getters will advance to the general election on November 5.
Read the Los Angeles Times’ voter guide for State Superintendent here.
Judge of the Superior Court, Seat #16
Superior Court judges hear the court cases for San Francisco county. Whoever wins a majority of the votes in this election will serve for a six-year term ending in 2032.
Board of Equalization, District 2
The Board of Equalization oversees California’s property tax system as well as a few other taxes. This election is the primary for a four-year term. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on November 5.
State Assembly Member, District 19 and District 17
Voters on the west side of San Francisco are part of District 19 and voters on the east side are part of District 17. This is a primary, so the top two candidates advance to the general election on Nov. 5.
There is only one candidate in District 17 — Matt Haney — and only two candidates in District 19 — Catherine Stefani and Philip Wing — so these primaries are not contested. Stefani and Wing will advance to the general, and Haney’s reelection is guaranteed.
3,300 readers keep Mission Local free. Will you join them?
There are no paywalls at Mission Local. We believe San Francisco deserves critical, high-impact reporting that belongs to all its residents, not just those who can afford it.
But free to read doesn’t mean free to produce. We’re a small, independent newsroom rooted in San Francisco’s communities that only exists because people like you invest in the reporting that our city relies on all year round.
Keep Mission Local free for all by becoming a donor today.
Io is a staff reporter at Mission Local covering city hall and S.F. politics. She is a part of Report for America, which supports journalists in local newsrooms.
Io was born and raised in San Francisco and previously reported on the city while working for her high school newspaper, The Lowell. She studied the history of science at Harvard and wrote for The Harvard Crimson.
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network condemns the abduction of Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila of the Global Sumud Flotilla, part and parcel of the massive international piracy carried out by the Zionist regime and its occupation naval forces, with the complicity of the Greek state and the responsibility of U.S. imperialism and its partners in Britain, Europe, Canada and Australia, and calls for the broadest global action to demand their liberation and the liberation of all Palestinian prisoners in Zionist jails.
In particular, we urge not only escalated popular mass and direct action to confront the imperialist-Zionist war machine, but also official action to expel Zionist embassies, particularly in the countries whose citizens have been abducted: Spain, Sweden and Brazil, and the imposition of a full arms embargo — with no exceptions — and an end to the trade in gas and oil that continue to fuel the economy of the genocidal settler regime.
The attack on the Global Sumud Flotilla, like the attacks on past flotillas to break the siege on Gaza, is a clear act of international piracy, conducted in international and foreign waters by the genocidal Zionist navy, and carried out with blatant disregard to international law and the law of the sea. Of course, this comes as no surprise, as the genocidal blockade and siege on Gaza and the ongoing military occupation and aggression targeting Palestine, Lebanon and Iran make clear, as does the 18-year history of popular civil efforts to break the siege via the sea. After the first two Free Gaza flotilla ships successfully arrived in Gaza in 2008, subsequent flotillas have been subjected to repeated military aggression and piracy; in 2010, 10 participants were martyred on the Mavi Marmara.
In the 2025 and 2026 flotilla efforts, detained internationals were subjected to torture, abuse, beatings, and sexual assault; after over 175 international participants in the flotilla were abducted from their boats by Zionist occupation naval forces, dozens of them were beaten, left with broken noses, ribs and bones, crammed into shipping containers, and then suddenly released on Crete — indicating coordination and complicity by the Greek government with the Zionist regime. Meanwhile, Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila were abducted by occupation forces and have been taken to occupied Palestine, where they are being held — while conducting a hunger strike — in Shikma Prison, otherwise known as Asqelan prison.
On 3 May 2026 they were brought before a Zionist court, which officially extended their detention. Both were bruised, with their lawyers reported that they were beaten, dragged and held in stress positions for hours. Both Abu Keshek and Ávila are members of the leadership of the Global Sumud Flotilla.
Saif Abu Keshek is a Palestinian-Swedish-Spanish organizer based in Barcelona, and is a longtime activist in the Palestinian liberation movement, chairing the Global Coalition Against the Occupation in Palestine. He has worked for years to mobilize Palestinians in exile and diaspora in the struggle to free Palestine. He is married and the father of three children.
Thiago Ávila is a Brazilian social and environmental activist who has been involved in campaigns for economic and environmental justice, including Palestine solidarity, over two decades of struggle. Married and the father of one, he is a prominent spokesperson for the Global Sumud Flotilla.
As we demand the liberation of Abu Keshek and Ávila, we emphasize that this is just a small part of the call for the liberation of all of the over 9,600 Palestinian political prisoners held by the Zionist occupation, who are routinely subjected to severe torture and abuse, including assassination, murder, and sexual assault, and who the Zionist regime openly boasts about its plans to kill through the new Prisoners’ Execution Law. The daily experience of Palestinian political prisoners — who have, now and in the past, included internationalist prisoners as well as Palestinian refugees and exiles, including those born and living outside Palestine — is one of starvation, repression, assault, denial of family and legal visits, and also of leadership in the Palestinian resistance struggle and the international anti-imperialist movement.
Given the return of over 175 flotilla participants to Crete after their abduction just outside Greek territorial waters by the occupation navy, we must highlight the complicity and involvement of the Greek government in the attack on the flotilla and on the ongoing genocide and theft of resources of the Palestinian people. Despite strong, widespread, historical and present-day support for the Palestinian cause among the Greek people, the Greek government, together with Cyprus, has dramatically escalated its military, resources and trade coordination with the Zionist regime, while Athens airport is adorned with Hebrew-language ads marketing Greek homes to “Israeli” tourists.
In February 2026, Samidoun international coordinator Mohammed Khatib was detained for a week on Crete and then deported from Greece after being told he had been declared an “undesirable foreigner” by the Greek government and banned from entering the country — an order issued silently one day following the Greek-Cypriot-“Israeli” tripartite summit in December 2025. Earlier, in September 2025, Samidoun’s international coordinator Charlotte Kates was detained and deported from Athens airport after being told upon her arrival that she was now newly subject to a ban on entering the Schengen area, despite being invited to deliver presentations by multiple Greek organizations.
The imprisonment of Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila poses a serious threat of significant escalation by the Zionist regime in its targeting of Palestinians outside Palestine, in exile and diaspora, as well as the repression of the Palestine solidarity movement. It is clear that Zionist embassies around the world are directly involved in demanding, advising and calling for the severe repression of Palestinians in exile and Palestine solidarity groups in states including Germany, the United States, Belgium, France, Britain, Australia, Canada and elsewhere, even as these imperialist powers are motivated to escalate their repression for ruling class interests.
Various sectors of the Zionist government, working hand in hand with imperialist security and surveillance agencies, as well as Zionist lobby organizations internationally, repeatedly incite the criminalization of not only Palestinian, Lebanese, Yemeni and Iranian resistance organizations, but of social movements and direct action organizations advocating for Palestinian liberation, including, notably, Palestine Action in Britain and Samidoun in Germany, the United States, Canada and elsewhere. They have repeatedly sought to ban and criminalize Palestinian organizations and are currently campaigning to ban the Masar Badil, the Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement, in Germany.
“Israeli” intelligence sources are responsible for the dubious “evidence” used to imprison the Holy Land 5 in the United States, where Ghassan Elashi and Shukri Abu Baker continue to serve 65-year sentences for charitable work; Anan Yaeesh in Italy, who was just sentenced to over four years in prison; Mohammed Hannoun and his colleagues in Italy, who are held in pretrial detention, with several freed after Italian judges rejected the spurious “Israeli” evidence; and at least 12 Palestinians in Germany, mostly Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, targeted for their social and political activity and community ties.
Zionist officials have stated, in particular, their desire to imprison Abu Keshek — a Palestinian with Spanish and Swedish citizenship involved heavily in organizing Palestinians in exile and diaspora — for involvement with a “terrorist organization” after abducting him from a flotilla support boat. They have highlighted his role with the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad (PCPA), one of the grassroots organizations that aims to restore the role of Palestinians outside Palestine in the liberation struggle. The PCPA was one of the three Palestinian organizations in Europe designated by the Zionist regime in August 2021 — six months after the designation of Samidoun in February 2021, and two months before the designation of six Palestinian NGOs in October 2021 — as “illegal” or “terrorist” organizations.
On 21 January 2026, the U.S. government continued with its ongoing stream of OFAC sanctions targeting Palestinian organizations in exile and diaspora, Palestine solidarity organizations, charities inside Gaza, and individual Palestinians, including the Popular Conference of Palestinians Abroad as well as Zaher Birawi, a Palestinian-British organizer and leader of the International Coalition to end the Siege on Gaza, a longtime participant and leader in the Freedom Flotilla efforts to break the siege. As we noted at the time, “The designation of the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad is clearly intended as a direct attack on Palestinian organizing internationally, viewed as a serious threat to the continuing genocide, as well as against Freedom Flotilla campaigns that aim to break the siege.” Alongside the designation of Birawi, it was also a transparent attempt to fracture the flotilla campaigns and to remove Palestinians in exile from participation in such actions.
In the same way that Samidoun was designated a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” in October 2024, alongside Palestinian writer and organizer Khaled Barakat, these additional SDGT designations, issued by the U.S. Treasury Department, have been repeatedly issued in an attempt to fragment the movement, impose fear in the community, sever organizers in the U.S. from the global movement and suppress Palestinian and solidarity organizing. Those targeted just since 2024 for U.S. sanctions have included individual organizers and leaders like Majed al-Zeer, Mohammed Hannoun, Amin Abou Rashed, Israa Abu Rashed and Adel Doughman, as well as Birawi, Barakat, and many others in Palestine, Algeria and Turkey, and organizations including the Wa’ed Association for Prisoners and released prisoners; Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Organization; Samidoun; the PCPA; the ISRAA Foundation; the Charity Association of Solidarity with the Palestinian People; and charitable organizations in Gaza that had supported people confronting genocide with millions of dollars or Euro in donations.
These designations have particularly targeted the organizing of Palestinians in exile and diaspora, support for the Palestinian prisoners’ movement, and efforts to break the siege, including through direct action as well as through financial support, and they have clearly been a coordinated U.S. imperialist/Zionist effort with European complicity and participation. Of course, these sanctions on organizations and individuals come together with the ongoing regime of coercive economic measures targeting states that defy U.S. imperialism, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and other independent states that defend their right to develop and define their future, and are repeatedly subjected not only to devastating economic aggression but also direct military assault and aggression by the U.S. and “Israel”.
The Zionist regime is directly invoking these designations, both its own 2021 labeling and the 2026 U.S. sanctions, as a justification for interrogating and imprisoning Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Avila. If it is allowed to get away with this latest crime, or is met with silence or indifference, we can only expect an intensification of abductions of Palestinians in exile as well as internationalists, increased criminalization of movements for justice in Palestine, and the escalated use of U.S. sanctions and OFAC/SDGT designations as a means of suppressing movements.
The U.S. State Department issued a bombastically threatening statement on 30 April, as the Zionist entity was launching its military assault on civilian international boats, specifically calling upon and stating “expectations” for U.S. “allies” to carry out state repression against the flotilla, while referring to the OFAC sanctions against the PCPA as well as the verbal support for the Resistance in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran offered by flotilla leaders (which, we must note, is entirely legal in the United States.) The U.S. demanded that the flotilla and its boats be denied docking, refueling and berthing as well as legal repression, even as the Zionist entity was engaged in blatant piracy. The U.S. government also made clear its goal to threaten and suppress U.S. participation in the flotilla.
Regardless of all debates in the movement regarding the effectiveness of any given tactic, it is clear to all that direct action against the war machine must be escalated; it must be further clear that the attack upon and imprisonment of flotilla leadership, particularly on the basis of “terrorism” for rejecting U.S. sanctions and Zionist designations, must be met with global solidarity, as part and parcel of the campaign to free all Palestinian prisoners, to break the siege on Gaza, for the return of all Palestinian refugees, and to free Palestine, from the river to the sea.
Free Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila; free all Palestinian prisoners in Zionist and imperialist jails!
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
The repression of Samidoun is part of a larger attack against the Palestinian diaspora, the Arab community and all internationalists that struggle for Palestine….It is part of the global struggle against colonialism and imperialism that will continue until the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea, the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and the liberation of all oppressed peoples and nations.
Like the Zionist entity fears the Palestinian resistance, so do the imperialist powers fear the Palestinian diaspora and their supporters that have been rising up again and again, especially since the start of operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the Zionist genocide. They fear a strong, popular movement that threatens their economic and political interests in Palestine and the region.
At this moment, we underline to comrades of the Palestine liberation movement in the United States: The response to “terrorist” designations of any kind cannot be to isolate the designated organizations, warn movement organizations against “coordinating” with them or refuse to speak about them.
This type of practice, justified as “smart” or “strategic legal advice” on far too many occasions, leads only to encouraging the U.S. regime to designate and sanction an increasing number of organizations and individuals, as it clearly indicates to our enemies that they can achieve their political goals by doing so. We cannot confront “terrorist” designations without understanding, quite clearly, that our enemies are not bound by the letter or spirit of the law, but are rather engaged in a genocidal war upon the Palestinian people as a whole, daily violating the greatest prohibitions in domestic and international law… The purpose of imperialist “anti-terror” law is not only to criminalize the organizations and subject them to financial sanctions and a starvation policy, it is also to alter and direct the politics and priorities of the movement as a whole.
For the solidarity movement’s work to be meaningful and effective, it must act to support the Palestinian Resistance organizations — and, indeed, to coordinate with them on the broadest possible level.
The response to these designations must be defiance, solidarity and refusal to allow our movement to accede to the US-Zionist-imperialist demands to isolate the resistance, isolate the Palestinian prisoners, and starve the Palestinian people through “legal compliance.”
Instead, we must redouble our efforts to escalate our resistance, support the intifada in the streets of the cities of the world, demand an end to the so-called “terrorist” list and the removal of all Palestinian, Lebanese, Yemeni, Iranian and other resistance organizations from such lists, stand with the Palestinian Resistance and all of the forces of Resistance in the region and the world, and demand the liberation of every Palestinian prisoner — and the liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.
*Israel continues to violate the Ceasefire agreement and international law. Demand the UN and US government use full authority to pressure the Israeli government to release the two remaining Flotilla activist, Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila, and immediately open the border to humanitarian aid.*
Tell your Republican Members of Congress you don’t want more of your taxpayer dollars going to ICE and Border Patrol: Use our tools to call your Republican senator(s) and Republican representative. The GOP is working on a reconciliation bill that could give ICE and Border Patrol up to $140 BILLION more to fund concentration camps and militarized deployments to US cities. It’s vital they hear from constituents now. Calls are most important, but after hours, you can use our email tool, too.
Tell your Members of Congress to end the illegal war on Iran. The Trump regime breezed through the 60-day deadline for getting congressional authorization for the attack on Iran, compounding the illegality of this disastrous war. Trump is brazenly defying congressional authority, and it’s time for Congress to take their power back, uphold their constitutional duty, and use the War Powers Resolution to end this war.
Help us measure the impact of May Day by filling out a quick survey about your participation. It’s easier to count crowd sizes, but the overall impact of a nationwide day of economic disruption is a bit more difficult to gauge. Please fill out the survey so we can get a better sense of how the movement participated, and continue growing our capacity to wield our economic power for future activations.
I saw plenty of energy, and plenty of young people at City Hall on May Day; maybe that’s because the high school and college kids all skipped class to go to the 2pm rally and march. Labor was out in force. So were tech workers who oppose the way some of their companies were sucking up to Donald Trump. A pretty broad coalition.
I also saw various socialist and communist groups, some of them pretty new and some of them sectarian orgs I hadn’t seen or heard from in decades.
A large, diverse crowd celebrated May Day at Civic Center plaza. Photo by Andrew Brobst
I learned that the Spartacists League (the last time I saw the Sparts at an event was in the 1990s) doesn’t like the Green Party, because the Green Party is working with the Peace and Freedom Party on statewide candidates, and P&F has some members who are affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, but the Green Party isn’t revolutionary enough. (Seriously, from a Spart flier: “Adding environmental justice to the list isn’t going to help.”) I saw the Revolutionary Communist Party (Maoists, sort of) and the Communist Party of America (Marxist-Leninists) on opposite sides of the Civic Center plaza; they don’t get along either.
Union tech workers told their bosses not to be evil. Tim Redmond photo. Ti. T
Three different newer and smaller socialist organizations had tables, and none of them wanted to work with the Democratic Socialists of America, which has actually been effective in electing people (like the mayor of New York and former Sup. Dean Preston). DSA, as one person told me, is “too much of a big tent.”
So: A small tent is better for mass mobilizations and revolution? I love the fact that the left is not monolithic, and we all have different opinions and approaches, but rejecting a Big Ol’ Socialist Tent seems like a bad strategy to me.
I argued with one of the CPA folks about Lenin’s interpretation of Marx, particularly the concept of the role of the State, which is always a fun academic discussion. She told me I clearly didn’t understand Marx because I am not sufficiently indoctrinated into revolutionary theory (which is true, I suppose; god help me, I’m a registered Democrat and a huge fan of Thomas Piketty, who is more of a traditional European democratic socialist.)
Senior and Disability Action folks were making a big statement. Tim Redmond photo
The last time I saw the Sparts and the RCP at an event, most of the members were from my generation or older. May Day, 2026: Lots of young people. Polls consistently show that younger generations in the US are intrigued, not disturbed, by socialism, which makes sense. The Democratic Party, frankly, hasn’t offered them a lot. Few leading Democrats have been talking seriously about student loan forgiveness or free higher education, taxing the rich, or dramatic action to address climate change, among other issues that matter to the generations that soon will be running this country.
Lots of young socialists from a wide range of groups that maybe could work together since they all mostly agree. Tim Redmond photo
At one point, after chatting with all the groups (and I am always happy to talk Marxism and political theory with folks on the left, whatever flavor they prefer), I asked one of the newer socialist groups why there were three tables with a few people at each of them when they all pretty much agree on most things, and the disagreements are healthy and can be debated. Why not (gasp) one big table for everyone? You know, kind of like the DSA.
Sponsored link
“That,” a guy staffing the table told me, “is a very good question.”
The voters will get to weigh in on lifetime two-term limits for supervisors and the mayor June 2. They won’t get to decide whether members of city commissions should be limited to three terms.
Instead, that will come before the Rules Committee Monday/4, when the panel considers a proposal by the Streamlining Task Force to cut some commissions, restructure others, and generally give the mayor more power. Snuck into the language:
generally establish the term and term limits of bodies, with four-year terms and three-term limits for Commissions, three-year terms and four-term limits for Advisory Bodies, and generally limit holdover service by members of bodies.
That would mean some of the best and most experienced commissioners (think Kathrin Moore at Planning) would be forced to step down—again, giving the current mayor and supes the ability to appoint members who are more conservative and more willing to do what the mayor says.
But wait, there’s more: Under the Charter Amendment that created this task force,
the Streamlining Task Force may introduce ordinances to effectuate its recommendations, and such ordinances shall go into effect 90 days after the introduction is published unless two-thirds of all Members of the Board of Supervisors vote to disapprove the ordinance.
When the task force creation was on the ballot, nobody talked about commission term limits. Now, there’s nothing we can do, since the mayor has enough call-up votes to guarantee this goes into effect.
That meeting starts at 10am.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee will consider Thursday/7 a measure that would allow suspend the law limiting behested payments and allow the
Mayor, members of the Mayor’s Office, and the Executive Director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and each of their direct reports to solicit donations from nonprofits, private organizations, grantmakers, foundations, and other persons and entities for the purpose of supporting the continued economic revitalization of San Francisco.
That’s a pretty broad mandate. In essence, it says anyone in the Lurie Administration can ask any rich person or special interest to help the mayor with anything he can possibly define as “economic revitalization.” The behested payments ordinance passed as a way to curb rampant corruption. This might not be such a good look.
The full board will consider Tuesday/5 Sup. Matt Dorsey’s plan to fundamentally change housing policy in San Francisco. Dorsey wants to eliminate the concept of Housing First, the idea that the most important solution to homelessness is to get people into homes, even if they are still struggling with substance use issues. Dorsey wants to ban city funding for any permanent supportive housing that isn’t free of “illicit” drugs. That meeting starts at 2pm.
48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
Help Outreach Working Group lift the fog of corporate media. Donate to help us maintain this website and distribute literature on the street.
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2023 AT 2 AM – 4 AM PDT How to create trust in a group? Details Event by Extinction Rebellion Empathy Circles online EMPATHY CAFE Duration: 2 hr Public · Anyone on or off Facebook How to create trust in a group? This is the question that arose in our... Continue reading →
California’s primary election for governor is less than a month away, and we have to ensure a single-payer health care champion makes it onto the November ballot. The California Nurses Association is all in for Tom Steyer — the only viable candidate in this race making CalCare a core part of... Continue reading →
Public Banking Coalition monthly meetings Next call: Nov 11 Excitement is building for public banking and once a month, PBI hosts an hour-long Public Banking Coalition online meeting to share the excitement and successes. Find out the latest updates on the advances being made all across the country from local advocates themselves... Continue reading →
When you volunteer for Saikat, it’s on us to give you a great experience and a genuine chance to make a difference. We don’t want to waste a second of your time. That’s why we’re always optimizing. And I’m excited to report that this Saturday we talked with 300% more... Continue reading →
Trump Regime Takedown: Every Saturday Saturday, March 7, 2026 12:00 PM 2:00 PM Tesla San Francisco999 Van Ness AvenueSan Francisco, CA, 94109United States (map) Google Calendar ICS Keep democracy alive every Saturday by showing up, taking a stand, and sticking together for the long haul. Standing together is better than standing alone. Let’s get together... Continue reading →
This Sunday’s Town Hall: Announcing This Week’s Progressive Town Hall: Every Sunday at 4pm ET/1pm PT RSVP HERE Join PDA activists online from across the country to discuss the importance of progressives reclaiming the American story from the MAGA right, an issue of heightened importance as we’re now within one... Continue reading →
We protest Heritage Foundation EVERY MONDAY (Join us!!!!) By admin | September 2, 2025 | Uncategorized Cliff Cash Comedy Premiered Jul 26, 2025 Every Monday at The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza Every Friday at Fox News D.C. 400 N. Capitol St. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza We are... Continue reading →
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2023 AT 2 AM – 4 AM PDT How to create trust in a group? Details Event by Extinction Rebellion Empathy Circles online EMPATHY CAFE Duration: 2 hr Public · Anyone on or off Facebook How to create trust in a group? This is the question that arose in our... Continue reading →
by 
by 
