“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
Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner speaks during the daily briefing on the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, in the Brady Briefing Room at the White House on April 2, 2020, in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)
“You cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee on Friday morning announced a “sweeping” probe into alleged self-enrichment by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump who has served as a high-profile White House envoy in the Middle East while also, according to Congressman Jamie Raskin, “soliciting billions of dollars from Gulf monarchies for [his] private business ventures.”
In a letter addressed to Kushner, the Maryland Democrat charges that by pushing for investments in his international investment firm, A Fin Management LLC (Affinity), while also serving as “Special Envoy for Peace” for the Trump administration, he has created “a glaring and incurable conflict of interest” in the eyes of the American people.
While Raskin points out that Kushner repeatedly vowed to stay out of government during Trump’s second term and, going further, said he would not raise funds for Affinity during that time, both promises were “quickly” broken.
In April of 2022, the New York Timesreported how Kushner had secured a $2 billion investment from a sovereign wealth fund directed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MbS. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, investigations were demanded over accusations that previous financial ties meant that MbS had Kushner “in his pocket.”
According to Raskin’s letter on Friday:
Mr. Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, has amassed approximately $6.16 billion in assets under management—including $1.2 billion in the past year alone—with an extraordinary 99 percent of its funding derived from foreign nationals. These include sovereign wealth funds operated by the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. At the same time, Mr. Kushner has assumed a central role in sensitive geopolitical negotiations across the Middle East and beyond.
Despite explicit public assurances that he would avoid both government service and fundraising during President Trump’s second term, Mr. Kushner has done precisely the opposite. He has inserted himself into the world’s most volatile global conflicts as one of the United States’ chief negotiators all while deepening his financial reliance on, and entanglement with, foreign governments.
Citing the horrific US complicity in Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza as well as Trump’s illegal war of choice against Iran, Raskin’s letter to Kushner charges that “your decision to play completely irreconcilable and unethical dual roles has been haunting American foreign policy since President Trump returned to Washington in 2025.”
Noting that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia remains “your largest investor through Affinity and thus possesses significant financial leverage over” Kushner, Raskin explains to the president’s son-in-law in his letter that “you cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn of the Saudi monarchy at the same time; you cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own.”
Due to these concerns, explained Raskin, the House Committee on the Judiciary investigation will probe “your conduct and that of your firm with the goal of learning information critical to reforming our bribery laws, conflict of interest provisions, other statutes and rules governing the conduct of government and special government employees, and FARA.”
Offering a list of requests, the letter demands that Kushner provide a detailed account of his communications with various investment partners and entities related to his business dealings and that of his work as special envoy to the president, with a deadline of April 30 to comply.
“This investigation will be a priority for our Committee in the coming period,” Raskin’s letter states. “We expect your full cooperation and that you will provide us with all relevant documents that touch upon how your business interests, family wealth, and governmental duties and missions have merged and converged.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A new poll of the California governor’s race shows the early effects of former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s fall from grace.
After several allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against the Bay Area congressman broke over the last week, Swalwell abruptly exited the California governor’s race. He had been one of the leaders of the Democratic pack, and with him no longer running, the field is once again wide open, a new poll from Emerson College shows.
The poll, commissioned by conservative-leaning Nexstar Media Group and KTLA-TV’s “Inside California Politics,” is the first major survey since Swalwell dropped out. It offers an early snapshot of how Democratic voters are reshuffling their support, although two Republican candidates are still holding an advantage at the very top.
Republican and former Fox News contributor Steve Hilton ranked highest with 17% support, making him the strongest candidate in the crowded field so far. His support has been narrow but steady for the last several months, and earlier this month he received an endorsement from President Donald Trump, which could help unify Republican voters.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race, follows Hilton with 14% support. Bianco is tied with billionaire Tom Steyer, a Democrat and former presidential candidate, whose inundation of the airwaves with ads has helped him pull ahead among the Democrats in the primary race.
Swalwell had been closely competing in the polls with Steyer and former Orange County congresswoman Katie Porter before he dropped out. In the Emerson survey, Porter had 10% support, continuing her roller coaster election season as she’s moved up and down in the polls.
Xavier Becerra, former health secretary and former California state attorney general, benefited the most from Swalwell’s departure, gaining 15 points among Democrats, the executive director of Emerson College Polling, Spencer Kimball, said in a Thursday news release. Becerra notched 10% overall support in the poll, a huge leap from his polling in the low single digits over the last few months.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan trailed behind the other candidates with 5% support. However, multiple billionaires have begun to back him after the demise of Swalwell’s campaign, Forbes reported. He was already the favorite of the tech donor class, raking in millions from Silicon Valley.
With Hilton and Bianco remaining at the top so close to the June 2 primary, it could be a wake-up call for Democrats who may end up splitting the vote too thin if the field doesn’t narrow soon. Under the state’s primary system, the two top candidates move forward to the general election regardless of party affiliation.
One of the biggest considerations though, is that 23% of voters are still undecided, suggesting that there is still significant room for change as the primary approaches. Pollsters from other surveys had previously pointed to the lack of enthusiasm among voters in the governor’s race so far.
The Emerson College poll also shows some of the top issues that are driving voter preferences.
The economy is the main issue for 41% of voters, according to the poll, maintaining its lead since April 2025. Housing affordability was the most important issue for 20% of voters, followed by threats to democracy at 10%, and crime, immigration and health care all at 6%.
The Emerson College poll surveyed 1,000 likely primary voters April 14-15. (The Swalwell allegations became public April 10, with Swalwell withdrawing from the governor’s race April 12 and announcing his resignation from Congress on April 13). The survey was only offered in English and the margin of error is 3 percent. Respondents were contacted by email and by text, where they were provided an online link.
California voters will decide which two candidates are to move on to the general election in a June 2 vote. The general election is scheduled to be held Nov. 3.
Madilynne Medina is a news reporter for SFGATE. Born and raised in the Bay Area, she earned a B.S. in journalism from San Jose State, where she served as executive editor for the Spartan Daily, and has also worked at NBC Bay Area. When she’s not out in the field reporting, she’s likely trying a new workout or listening to The Weeknd. You can contact her at madilynne.medina@sfgate.com.
CNA learned that the Assembly does not expect to refer A.B. 1900 to a hearing, halting its advancement in the legislature
California Nurses Association (CNA) members urge the California State Assembly to advance A.B. 1900, the California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act, also known as CalCare, at a time when health care is needed more urgently than ever before. The failure to advance A.B. 1900 shows a lack of leadership and a capitulation to corporate health care interests. CalCare is a comprehensive, high-quality single-payer program that would be many Californians’ only lifeline for care. Nurses remain relentless in their pursuit to guarantee health care as a human right in the state.
“We condemn this disgraceful move by the California State Assembly to stop CalCare from moving forward in the legislature,” said CNA Executive Director Puneet Maharaj. “Nurses know that Californians desperately need guaranteed health care. We have fought for decades to ensure that health care is a human right, regardless of patients’ ability to pay.
“Any delay in CalCare directly impacts the health of Californians,” continued Maharaj. “We can’t wait for the disastrous impacts of H.R. 1 or for more people to die. NOW is the time to pass CalCare. Our legislators still have time to do the right thing.”
CalCare was reintroduced in the Assembly on Feb. 12, 2026. A recent poll conducted by David Binder Research found that nearly two-thirds of California voters want to see transformational changes, not minor reforms, to California’s broken health care system. Uncertainty and anxiety about health care costs have been rising – exacerbated by unprecedented trillion-dollar cuts at the federal level – with more than 40 percent of voters saying it’s become harder to afford health care in the past several years. The poll also shows that more than three-quarters of Democrats are more likely to support a candidate for governor if they were to run on creating a single-payer system.
California’s union nurses, represented by CNA, are committed to continuing to lead the organizing to build the grassroots movement necessary to win support for and pass CalCare. More than 300 organizations have endorsed CalCare, including the California Federation of Labor Unions, ACLU California Action, California Faculty Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association, California Teachers Association,, California Working Families Party, The Arc of California, University Professional and Technical Employees, and United Auto Workers (Region 6). Hundreds of patients and community activists have already filled four town halls earlier this year to learn about CalCare. Supporters have held drop-in actions at nearly 100 district offices in support of CalCare and dialed some 20,000 Californians to drive more than 750 calls to the Capitol. At the California Democratic Party’s Convention in February, several hundred people rallied for the passage of CalCare.
Nurses are grateful to the 25 legislators who are joint authors or coauthors of CalCare. A.B. 1900’s joint authors are Assemblymembers Ash Kalra, Isaac Bryan, Alex Lee, Liz Ortega, and Chris Rogers. The bill’s principal coauthors are Assemblymembers Damon Connolly, Sade Elhawary, and Nick Schultz and Senator Lena Gonzalez and Senate Pro Tem Emeritus Mike McGuire. The coauthors include Assemblymembers Dawn Addis, Robert Garcia, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Corey Jackson, Tina McKinnor, Celeste Rodriguez, LaShae Sharp-Collins, and Rick Chavez Zbur and Senators Josh Becker, Dave Cortese, John Laird, Sasha Renée Perez, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, and Scott Wiener. Nurses are also deeply appreciative of the ongoing efforts of Assemblymember Mia Bonta, Chair of the Assembly Health Committee, to pass CalCare.
Nurses are calling on the California legislature to do the right thing and refer CalCare to committee before the deadline.
California Nurses Association/National Nurses United is the largest and fastest-growing union and professional association of registered nurses in the nation with more than 100,000 members in more than 200 facilities throughout California and more than 225,000 RNs nationwide.
Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump listens as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks during a press conference at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on April 12, 2024, in Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The president and GOP House speaker wanted a 5-year extension of a despised domestic spying bill. Instead, they got just two weeks. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight tomorrow!” said one Democratic lawmaker
A dramatic series of votes in the US House of Representatives resulted in a dead-of-night extension of what critics describe as a “deceitful proposal” to continue a controversial domestic spying program, known as Section 702, that allows federal agencies to spy on the communications of Americans without a warrant.
While US President Donald Trump and his allies on the issue have pushed aggressively for a longer agreement to continue the controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, most of the Democratic caucus and a band of renegade, more libertarian-leaning Republicans have resisted.
In the 228-197 final vote, a total of four Democrats—Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, and Thomas R. Suozzi of New York—joined with all but 25 Republicans who voted to pass a 10-day extension. Twenty GOP members voted against it, while five did not vote.
Ahead of the votes—including on separate versions asking for a 5-year and then 18-month extensions of Section 702—opponents of any clean extension, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said anyone opposed to warrantless spying on Americans must vote no.
“They have called us back at midnight to cast a secret vote to reauthorize FISA while America sleeps,” said Khanna in a late-night social media post. “A yes vote gives Trump more power to surveil Americans. Every Democrat must vote no. Everyone who loves the constitution must vote no.”
They have called us back at midnight to cast a secret vote to reauthorize FISA while America sleeps. A yes vote gives Trump more power to surveil Americans. Every Democrat must vote no. Everyone who loves the constitution must vote no. pic.twitter.com/kJGQm5EWW3
The bloc of 20 Republicans who voted against the shorter extension also refused to budge on the push, despite heavy lobbying from the Trump White House and pressure from House Speaker Mike Johnson, for the 18-month and 5-year versions.
The holdouts on both sides of the aisle, meanwhile, have been demanding privacy reforms to make sure the communications of US citizens are not swept up in the surveillance of noncitizens targeted abroad by the nation’s spy agencies and law enforcement.
“Let me be clear,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) explaining her no vote in a statement. “There is no new warrant requirement in tonight’s amendment to FISA reauthorization. It does absolutely nothing to fix the massive loopholes in 702 collection that allow the government to spy on Americans without a warrant. It does nothing to fix the data broker loophole. And it slaps a 5-year extension on this bill so that this White House can continue to spy on Americans and violate our privacy rights for an even longer time.”
Speaker Johnson, she charged, “is trying to pass it in the middle of the night—like so many of other pieces of his agenda—because he knows it is not what the American people want. Don’t be fooled: this bill simply continues to the spying and surveillance of the American people.”
Outside critics of the clean extension effort have criticized Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York and Jim Hines of Connecticut—the latter of whom was reportedly conferring with the Republican whip team on the floor of the House late Thursday night—with sabotaging efforts to get a bill with stronger protections.
Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, which has led a bipartisan coalition against a clean extension of the FISA provision, said serious questions must be asked about the role some Democrats are playing in the current fight to win significant reforms.
“Speaker Johnson’s failure to ram through an 18-month FISA extension creates time for Congress to vote on critical privacy protections, namely closing the backdoor search and data broker loopholes,” Vitka said after the short-term extension was passed overnight. “This failure of Himes and House Republican leaders is a testament to the good-faith, bipartisan movement fighting tirelessly for Americans’ privacy rights. This is a major opportunity to protect Americans’ civil liberties, and the Republicans who withstood this pressure should be celebrated for putting privacy over party.
“Extraordinarily, four Democrats chose to back Speaker Johnson over Leader Jeffries on this critical privacy vote,” Vitka added. “Given that top Intelligence Democrat Jim Himes was caught speaking with Speaker Johnson before the vote, reporters should be asking whether he engineered these defections in an effort to sabotage the mere chance for the House to enact key, broadly bipartisan civil liberties protections. It would be unconscionable for someone with a critical oversight role like Himes to do so.”
For his part, Khanna said the battle for meaningful reforms to the FISA law continues.
“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Khanna. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight tomorrow!”
Vitka said that from now until the end of the month, when the short-term extension expires, lawmakers “fighting against privacy reform to face reality: the American people don’t want FISA to continue as-is and are watching like hawks.”
“If you want to renew FISA,” he added, “you must come to the table and agree to real privacy reforms that stop the government from bypassing the courts to collect private information on Americans.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
District 1 supervisor Connie Chan (left), former software engineer and Capitol Hill staffer Saikat Chakrabarti. Photos by Yujie Zhou.
This is part of a series of interviews with front-runners in the race to replace Nancy Pelosi as the representative for California’s 11th congressional district. Read about the candidates’ foreign-policy views here.
Three front-runners are vying to represent San Francisco as Nancy Pelosi’s replacement in Congress: District 1 supervisor Connie Chan, former software engineer and Capitol Hill staffer Saikat Chakrabarti, and California State Sen. Scott Wiener.
The job will involve a good deal of tech policy chops, and Mission Local decided to ask the three contenders how they would approach Silicon Valley if they go to Washington, D.C.
All agreed to be interviewed for Mission Local’s previous Q&A on foreign policy, where the candidates spoke about Gaza, Taiwan, and more. But only Chan and Chakrabarti agreed to participate in this interview, which focuses on AI, regulating Silicon Valley giants, cryptocurrency, and San Francisco’s own tech policies.
In some matters, Chan and Chakrabarti’s platforms overlap quite a bit.
Both are in favor of more regulation. Specifically, limiting the powers of tech monopolies, protecting jobs from AI, and removing legal protections that have kept tech firms from being held liable for some of harms enabled by their products. Both agreed that cryptocurrency should be restricted.
The two begin to diverge when it comes to the role of tech in government itself.
Chakrabarti, who became a centimillionaire after being one of the founding engineers at Stripe, is a fan of creating a federal digital currency. Chan expressed doubts that such a currency could be created in a way that would safeguard privacy and consumer protection.
Chan’s tech platform focuses on regulating the way that tech is being deployed in the workplace and other sectors. Chakrabarti wants to create “a society with abundance for all,” echoing a phrase and alluding to a movement that last year was a darling of Democratic Party policymakers.
He seeks public ownership and control over AI through public-equity stakes in AI companies and by converting financially troubled AI enterprises (and financial institutions) into public utilities.
Wiener’s legislative record as a state senator offers clues as to what he might do in Congress.
He’s one of several state legislators who have moved to regulate tech, and he tends to work with tech leaders in doing so.
In March of this year, Wiener and Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan teamed up to promote SB 1074, a bill that, if passed, would make it easier to sue the largest tech companies (those with a market capitalization greater than $1 trillion and over 100 million monthly users in the United States) for anti-competitive behavior.
In 2025, Wiener successfully passed SB 53, which requires large AI model developers to publish information on their websites about, among other things, how they plan to manage the risks posed by their products. An earlier version of the legislation, SB 1047, was vetoed by the governor in 2024.
SB 53 also established CalCompute, a publicly owned cloud computing cluster that would be developed within the University of California system and could be used for AI research and development. That’s still awaiting state funding.
Each candidate was interviewed separately, in person. Their answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
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.
120
+
AI development is accelerating rapidly. How should Congress make sure regulation keeps pace?
Chan: It is the AI industry claiming that the technology is rapidly developing. I am skeptical about the technology itself and the rate of growth, which might turn out to be a tech bubble. There are a lot of doubts both from the people in the industry and from investors who are watching it.
I am questioning how sophisticated that technology really is becoming. AI is really automation and algorithms, maybe on steroids. What is happening remains to be seen.
When I’m in Congress, my approach to regulating any technology, inclusive of AI, is to look at the technology itself and regulate accordingly. AI in the space of healthcare. AI in the space of entertainment industries. AI in education. AI in the workforce. All these should be regulated accordingly, prioritizing safety and the workforce — in this case, not taking away jobs.
If we make sure that these are our guiding principles in regulating AI, then I think we can go a long way.
Chakrabarti: You have to have public ownership and public control of this technology to keep pace.
Artificial intelligence is a technology that’s threatening to wipe out half of all of our jobs. It will have a profound impact in San Francisco, especially with all the white collar jobs here. It might even wipe out humanity itself — that’s what a lot of tech leaders are saying. The regulations that are being proposed are nothing near the scale of the problem that we’re facing.
I want to be clear, I don’t believe AI itself is good or evil. The question in front of us is, will this technology be for the benefit of all humanity? Or is it going to just further the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of a very few?
Are we going to be looking at a dystopia where a few powerful people have all the wealth and power, and everyone else is in a permanent underclass — which is a term they use in tech here today. Or could we actually harness this power to create a society with abundance for all, a “Star Trek” future rather than a “Mad Max” future.
First, we need to make sure that the productivity gains from AI are going to workers, not just the CEOs. If you look at how automation entered manufacturing in Germany, they have labor corporations and government sit on the boards of their major auto manufacturers, and they make five- and 10-year industrial plans.
The result of automation there was their workers started to make double the wages of their American counterparts. They made more cars per capita, and had more automation.
Second, we need to actually be looking at a public option for AI. We should be treating computing power as a utility. In some industries, such as insurance underwriting or certain financial services, there might not be that much work required at all to provide those services.
What’s happening is those services are just being consumed by AI monopolies who are taking up more and more of our GDP. Instead of more and more of our economy being held in the hands of a few monopolies, these should be provided as public services by the government because they’re not going to require any work.
Third, we need to actually have a federal jobs guarantee. There are tons of types of work that are not going to be affected by AI. Caretakers, educators — all kinds of work where we have massive job shortages — we have no training programs, no jobs guarantee. We need to have an actual, retraining program with a job guaranteed at the end.
The other thing is, we should actually be having public equity stakes in these AI companies. LLMs are essentially supercharging the expansion of capital. We need to have a way for the benefits of that capital to come back to humanity, not just getting consolidated further and further. LLMs are trained off of the sum total of human labor, so humanity should have a stake in it.If Congress passes a national AI regulatory framework, should it preempt state laws like California’s AI regulations, or should states be allowed to go further?
Chan: Especially when it comes to technology, I am always going to be in the space of respecting local control in terms of policy.
In AI regulation, we should not preemptively stop local governments like San Francisco or state governments like California from being able to also impose their own regulations that can be more restrictive and more on target in regulating upcoming technology.
Chakrabarti: Legally, federal law preempts state law. A national AI framework should keep space in it to allow states to create their own regulatory frameworks that go further. I think states are great innovation labs for regulation. But regulations alone are not going to be the thing that actually tackles AI. A lot of this is about control and ownership, and that does have to happen at the federal level.Should Congress create a new federal liability standard that makes tech companies responsible for certain harms caused by AI-generated content on their platforms?
Chan: Not just around AI, but also around technology, social media content, and so much more. Congress absolutely should establish a framework for consumer safety and consumer protection.
Chakrabarti: Yes, they should. We currently don’t have liability for AI companies or tech companies that have the potential for harm on their platforms at all. They should be responsible for certain kinds of harm on their platform.Would you vote to narrow Section 230 protections for large social media platforms?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a U.S. law that protects online platforms from being held legally responsible for what users post, while allowing them to moderate content — effectively separating these platforms from other publishers, like newspapers, which are held to a different legal standard. Supporters say Section 230 enables free speech. Critics argue that it lets platforms avoid accountability for most harms that were enabled by these platforms.
Chan: If you are going to be in the business of publishing information, then you ought to also be in the business of fact-checking. That is how I view social media; that’s also their responsibility.
There has been a long debate about whether social-media platforms should function similarly to news outlets. My expectation is that we should amend this section to specifically tailor it to social-media platforms and how they should be regulated.
While I am always going to be an advocate for First Amendment rights, I’m also going to be a strong advocate against hate speech, or any language that promotes violence and predatory language for our kids and people online.
Chakrabarti: Yes. I’m not in favor of repealing Section 230, because I do think that would have a profound impact on free speech on social media platforms. But I do believe that there are certain kinds of harms that we should hold tech companies and social media companies responsible for.Would you vote for legislation like the American Innovation and Choice Online Act that would prohibit dominant platforms such as Google, Amazon, Apple or Meta from preferencing their own products, even if that could force parts of those companies to be separated?
Chan: I’m always in favor of breaking up monopolies. I truly am a supporter of small businesses and diversity in terms of options, platforms and competition.
Chakrabarti: Yes. These massive platforms are using their monopoly and platform power to essentially preference products that are either their own products vertically integrated or preferencing products that just pay the most. They’re doing a pay-to-play system.
Regulation has to regulate how these search algorithms actually work, because consumers search on Amazon thinking they’re getting the best products at the top. What they’re actually getting is the products that paid the most to get their search results at the top.Do you believe cryptocurrency should become a mainstream part of the U.S. financial system? Or do you think Congress should be working to limit its role?
Chan: I absolutely think that we should limit crypto. We haven’t even done a good job in regulating the existing banking industry. If crypto becomes another alternative system, it can easily help people abuse the system for illegal uses, potentially leading to criminal activities.
Chakrabarti: No, it should not become a mainstream part of the U.S. financial system. Right now what we’re seeing with cryptocurrency is a massive amount of corruption. Especially with this president, [who] is openly trading cryptocurrency as a way to essentially do a quid pro quo corruption. Foreign governments will buy Trump’s crypto coin in exchange for favorable trade agreements and favorable tariff deals.
We need to make sure that currency is in the purview of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve, and we don’t lose that power as a nation state.Would you support legislation authorizing the Federal Reserve to issue a U.S. central bank digital currency?
Chan: The United States has yet to have a good grasp of regulating its existing banking industry and safeguarding people’s privacy and consumer protection, let alone digital currency. I am not confident that we have the capacity to ensure consumer protection yet.
Chakrabarti: Yes, I am a fan of a federal digital currency. I believe that would make a lot of things simpler. I don’t believe it should be required. I still believe cash should exist. But I’m a big fan of things like public banking.
Having something like a U.S. digital currency would make it easier for us to do things like deposit money into people’s bank accounts, if they have a public bank account, when we’re doing things like relief because of COVID-19, or something like a child poverty tax credit.
I believe we need to have the federal government play more of a role in banking in general. Not only should we have public banking for consumers, we should also have public banking that directly saves funds and finances affordable housing in our country.
We used to have a nation where we had way more digital public banking services that we built outright. The Automated Clearing House, Fedwire, these are things that the federal government built. We should go back to that kind of a stance where the federal government is directly building financial services.
I also think we should have public debit cards, so that our small businesses aren’t dying from credit-card fees.If you could create one piece of legislation to make tech better, what would it be?
Chan: I want to do many things, but what I will prioritize at this moment is really the public interfacing of ChatGPT, particularly with our youth — to understand how ChatGPT is being used.
I understand that it’s already in a lot of consumer spaces, but having it to be potentially used and tested with young people in learning environments and potentially in healthcare treatment environments — these are all my concerns.
Chakrabarti: It would be a way to get towards a public option for AI. The bit of legislation that we’ve already done significant work on at my think tank could become relevant: There’s potentially a bubble in AI right now that might pop.
If that bubble pops, we’re going to see AI companies and banks coming to the government for a bailout. Instead of providing a bailout, I believe the government should buy out these companies on pennies on the dollar, buy out the banks on pennies on the dollar, convert them into public utilities, and then actually give us, the people, control over where this technology goes and how we can use it, rather than having it be in the hands of a few powerful people at the top.Learning from the past, should San Francisco have done anything differently regarding Uber, Twitter, Airbnb, DoorDash, or Waymo?
Chan: We should’ve really regulated Uber, Lyft and Waymo by having additional regulations and layering a permit before they can operate here.
I wish that we could continue to have some commitment from the city with these companies in a framework of how they should be regulated, and how they should contribute to the city, local economy — to understand that when they’re on our roads, these are the impact they bring, so that we could actually have conversations about how we mitigate those impacts.
Chakrabarti: We have seen how the previous tech wave gave all these tax breaks to try to draw these companies in, [and] led to a lot of displacement and a lot of the affordability crisis that we have in our city today.
Instead, what we need to do with this next tech wave that’s coming our way with AI, which is going to be at a scale that’s even larger than what we saw last time, is we need to actually make sure that the public benefits from it, not just the tech companies at the top.
We have to get away from this mindset where we believe we are at the mercy of the tech companies. The tech companies should be working for us for the good of humanity.
I don’t think we should have done the massive tax break we gave for Twitter to come into downtown.A lot of people are talking about AI in San Francisco, but not everyone seems to agree on what that is. Could you explain to us what AI is, and how you would regulate it?
Chan: I think the vision these AI companies seem to have is to have this so-called artificial intelligence do some of the analytical tasks for humans, but I know that we’re not there yet.
The principles that I approach AI and any technology with are safety and what kind of impact it has on our workforce. For example, in healthcare, like telehealth, the question is: If they’re using this technology to do diagnostics, how do you safeguard the technology to make sure that it is safe and that it is not replacing our medical staff and experts?
Chakrabarti: AI has many different definitions right now. In the current world, when people are talking about AI, they’re really talking about these frontier large-language models. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini.
AI is partly the algorithm; the actual neural network that runs these models. But it’s also the vast amounts of physical infrastructure powering it.
Fundamentally, the problem is this technology is potentially going to define the future of society, and a handful of CEOs get to determine that future for everybody.
I don’t think that makes sense. I think this is funny to me about who gets to decide the future of our society. A decision like that should be in the hands of we, the people.
Regulations that fall into the bucket of just trying to slow this technology down are not going to be sufficient. It has to be an actual vision for how you use this technology for the good of mankind. The details of that are basically what I laid out in the first question.
San Franciscans will have their first chance to weigh in on their next congressperson on June 2. The top two vote-getters in that “jungle primary” will advance to the general election on Nov. 3, regardless of party affiliation.
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.
Yujie is a staff reporter covering city hall with a focus on the Asian community. She came on as an intern after graduating from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and became a full-time staff reporter as a Report for America corps member and has stayed on. Before falling in love with San Francisco, Yujie covered New York City, studied politics through the “street clashes” in Hong Kong, and earned a wine-tasting certificate in two days. She’s proud to be a bilingual journalist. Find her on Signal @Yujie_ZZ.01More by Yujie Zhou
While Chakrabarti is running to replace the retiring Nancy Pelosi in California’s 11th District, AOC has explicitly declined to offer an endorsement when pressed by reporters. KRON4 +1
Status of the Endorsement
AOC’s Response: When asked recently about Chakrabarti’s bid, AOC provided what some critics called a “word salad” or “non-answer,” stating she is “trying to think about the role that I am trying to play more broadly” and citing the constraints of a “lean team” managing many endorsement requests.
Other Endorsements: Despite her silence on Chakrabarti, AOC has endorsed other progressive candidates for the 2026 cycle, including Analilia Mejia in New Jersey and Junaid Ahmed in Illinois.
Public Reaction: Prominent progressives like Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks have sharply criticized her for failing to support her former aide, who was a key architect of the Green New Deal and her own 2018 victory. Reddit +5
Context of the Race
Chakrabarti is competing in a high-profile primary on June 2, 2026. His opponents include: Instagram +2
Scott Wiener: A California State Senator widely considered the establishment favorite.
Connie Chan: A San Francisco City Supervisor.
Marie Hurabiell: An attorney and activist.
While AOC remains on the sidelines, Chakrabarti has secured other progressive endorsements, including from former Representative Jamaal Bowman and drag icon Peaches Christ.
Sen. Chuck Schumer faced fresh calls to step aside as the Senate Democratic leader on Wednesday after he broke with the overwhelming majority of his caucus and voted against a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing the Trump administration from selling more US bombs and bulldozers to Israel.
“Mr. Schumer, you are out of touch with the base of this party, and with your own caucus,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who first called on Schumer to resign as Democratic leader last year, said in a short video posted to social media following Wednesday’s votes. “Step aside.”
The two resolutions, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called for halting the sale of around $450 million worth of bulldozers, 1,000-pound bombs, and related military equipment to the Israeli government, which has repeatedly used American weaponry to commit war crimes in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and Syria.
Despite facing record support from the Senate Democratic caucus—with 40 votes to block the sale of bulldozers and 36 votes to block the sale of bombs—the resolutions failed to pass, as Senate Republicans united against them.
But strong Democratic opposition to new US weapons sales to Israel was seen as evidence that the party is slowly catching up to its base, which overwhelmingly supports restricting American military aid to Israel.
“The fact that 40 of 47 Democratic senators voted to withhold military hardware from Israel is a new high-water mark in holding Israel accountable for violating US and international law,” said Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy.
Williams went on to rebuke Schumer, who has led the Senate Democrats for nearly a decade, for opposing the resolutions “against the supermajority of his own caucus and Democratic voters.”
“It’s well past time for him to step aside for leaders who actually represent the views of the party’s base,” said Williams.
Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action and a New York City resident, said Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—who also voted against both resolutions—“are betraying their constituents and woefully out of line with the Democratic voter base.”
“Instead of sending the bombs that Israel uses to commit war crimes, the people of New York want our representatives to invest in lifesaving policies here at home,” said Miller. “We need to stop arming Israel so that the people of Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran, and across the region, can live. Millions of lives depend on it.”
The votes on the Israeli arms measures came after the Senate rejected another war powers resolution aimed at withdrawing US forces from the illegal assault on Iran, which President Donald Trump launched without congressional approval—and in partnership with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—in late February.
Schumer vocally supported the Iran war powers resolution. But one of his colleagues, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said the efforts to end the US-Israeli war on Iran and the push to halt weapons sales to Israel are interconnected.
“A vote to approve arms sales to Israel at this time would be seen as a message of approval for Trump and Netanyahu’s disastrous war against Iran. I will not send that message,” Markey said in a statement late Wednesday. “Why would we send American military weapons that could prolong, escalate, or worsen this horrible situation in the Middle East? I say no more.”
J Street, the pro-Israel liberal advocacy organization, similarly connected the two fights following Wednesday’s votes.
“We continue to oppose Trump and Netanyahu’s war of choice against Iran, and applaud those senators whose principled stand in today’s vote reflects the American public’s strong opposition to both the Iran war and to Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank that undermine efforts for peace in the region,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group’s president.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
By Joe Garofoli, Political Columnist April 16, 2026 (SFChronicle.com)
Gift Article
From left: California governor candidates former Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health Secretary Xavier Bacerra, former state Controller Betty Yee and California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond participate in a forum in Los Angeles last September.Carlin Stiehl/Tribune News Service
The possibility that Democrats will be locked out of the race for California governor has dramatically shrunk, political analysts believe.
That’s a huge silver lining for the party after its leading candidate, former Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out of the race after a Chronicle report in which a former staffer alleged he had sexually assaulted her.
Sacramento data expert Paul Mitchell, who created an online model that simulates thousands of election scenarios, said that “the program really believes that the odds of two Republicans splitting the vote is more remote, almost nonexistent.”
Not only that, Mitchell, said, but the model forecasts Swalwell’s supporters migrating to Tom Steyer and former Rep. Katie Porter, meaning support for those two candidates could be “growing to an extent that they could actually be the top two candidates, creating a greater chance of a Top Two general election with NO REPUBLICAN, which would be quite a twist!” he wrote in an email.
Other analysts weren’t ready to go that far, but agreed that it is now unlikely — but not impossible — that Democrats will be watching the November election from the sidelines.
“I’ve been saying all along that I think that two Republicans is possible, but not probable,” said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. “I continue to say it’s not probable that there would be two Republicans” on the ballot in November.
The organization released a poll Tuesday that showed Swalwell leading the race with 18% support, followed by Fox News commentator Steve Hilton with 17%, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco with 14%, Steyer with 14% and Porter with 10%. The other top Democratic candidates scored at 5% or lower. The survey was conducted before Swalwell exited the race and resigned from Congress.
Since PPIC’s February survey, Swalwell surged higher than any other candidate (11% to 18%), while support for Porter decreased the most (21% to 10%).
Baldassare noted that Swalwell’s name will remain on the ballot, and it is probable that he will receive votes.
In 2014, former San Francisco Democratic state Sen. Leland Yee received 380,361 votes out of 4 million cast just two months after being indicted in a federal corruption investigation. He finished in third place in the primary, ahead of several candidates who had been actively campaigning. Baldassare noted that 69% of Swalwell’s supporters described themselves as liberal in the new PPIC poll, meaning “that they’re going to be looking for a liberal, and that’s a sizable number of people who will make it possible for at least one Democrat to get into the top two.”
There are roughly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans in California.
Some of the migration of Swalwell supporters has begun. Steyer received the endorsement Monday from the board of the 310,000-member California Teachers Association, which had previously backed Swalwell.
CTA President David Goldberg praised Steyer for walking the picket line with teachers and for promising to reform Proposition 13, even though that will be a huge uphill battle.
“He’s been a champion for holding corporations accountable and closing the corporate tax loopholes that leave hardworking Californians behind and our essential public services without vital revenue to benefit the wealthy few,” Goldberg said.
Analysts also said President Donald Trump’s endorsement this month of Hilton “probably consolidates at least a lot of the MAGA support behind Hilton,” decreasing the chance of two Republicans advancing, said Ruth Bernstein, the senior principal with EMC Research, which was Swalwell’s longtime pollster.
Bernstein added that it’s possible that with some of the lower-polling Democrats trying to breathe life into their campaigns in the aftermath of Swalwell’s exit, “we could, instead of seeing support consolidating around one or two Democratic candidates, potentially support starts to spread between more candidates, which again, could lead to two Republicans.
“So I do think the likelihood (of a Democratic lockout) has decreased, but it’s not impossible,” Bernstein said.
Joe Garofoli is the San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer, covering national and state politics. He has worked at The Chronicle since 2000 and in Bay Area journalism since 1992, when he left the Milwaukee Journal. He is the host of “It’s All Political,” The Chronicle’s political podcast. Catch it here: bit.ly/2LSAUjA
He has won numerous awards and covered everything from fashion to the Jeffrey Dahmer serial killings to two Olympic Games to his own vasectomy — which he discussed on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” after being told he couldn’t say the word “balls” on the air. He regularly appears on Bay Area radio and TV talking politics and is available to entertain at bar mitzvahs and First Communions. He is a graduate of Northwestern University and a proud native of Pittsburgh. Go Steelers!
Image: Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty announces charges.
Thank you, Mary Moriarty, for demonstrating the courage to do your job in this challenging moment.
Here is what has happened.
Gregory Donnell Morgan, Jr. was driving a black rental SUV east on Highway 62 in Minneapolis on the afternoon of February 5. He had no ICE markings on the vehicle. He was driving illegally on the shoulder to get around slower traffic. The driver of another car briefly pulled onto the shoulder to slow him down, then moved back into the legal lane.
Morgan sped up to pull alongside them. He slowed his car to match their speed. He rolled down his window. And he pointed his duty weapon directly at two people in the car next to his, while he kept driving illegally on the shoulder of the Crosstown.¹
That is the factual basis, in the words of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, for the first state criminal prosecution of a federal immigration agent since Operation Metro Surge began. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty charged Morgan on Thursday with two counts of second-degree assault; a nationwide warrant is now out for his arrest. Case number 27-CR-26-9656.¹
Let’s take a beat to stop and say plainly what just happened. An on-duty federal agent pulled a gun on two civilians during a petty traffic dispute on a public highway in broad daylight. He was not making an arrest or executing a warrant, though those would not be his duties or jurisdiction even if he had been asked to do them. He was angry that someone slowed him down on the shoulder, so he pointed a firearm at two human beings inside a moving vehicle. The Hennepin County Attorney just filed felony charges for it, and the Minnesota State Patrol assembled the evidence to do it.
Moriarty’s office explained in the release why this charging decision came faster than the ones still pending in the Good, Pretti, and Sosa-Celis cases. The State Patrol was able to investigate without federal obstruction or interference.¹ When state investigators are not locked out of crime scenes, evidence warehouses, and agent personnel files, they are more able to do their jobs. When the FBI withholds evidence and the Department of Homeland Security refuses to identify the agents involved in shootings, investigations become more difficult, though not impossible. Cases should still be prosecuted when publicly available evidence is sufficient even when the federal government is uncooperative.
Morgan is not a famous name, and that is part of the significance. The shooting of Renee Good drew tens of thousands of protesters into the streets;² the killing of Alex Pretti stripped Gregory Bovino of his Border Patrol command.² Morgan’s case is different: an on-duty agent had a wild road rage incident that led to them pointing his firearm at people. An easy case in terms of the facts, still deserving of credit because it is a first. Before today, no a single ICE agent had been charged for beating, murdering, or kidnapping since Trump was put into office. Waving a duty weapon in the face of innocents should result in charges, and after almost eighteen months and thousands of similar incidents, we finally have a prosecutor stepping up.
Over the last 4 months, Mary Moriarty has likely become the most visible County Attorney in the nation, which has produced unprecedented scrutiny and public engagement in how she does her job. That is a good thing, and something for people everywhere to take note of. Learn who your County Attorney and District Attorney are, and set expectations with them.
She has been clear from the day Renee Good was killed that federal agents do not enjoy absolute immunity from state criminal law, though charges have been painfully slow to materialize and there has been minimal transparency over what seem to many like unnecessary delays. Her office has also issued Touhy demands, filed a federal lawsuit against DHS and DOJ for withholding evidence, and opened criminal investigations into seventeen separate incidents.⁴ She has walked her staff and her community through months of work to get to this charging decision. Today’s filing is the first product. More should follow.
I want to thank you all. The Existentialist Republic community is verifiably responsible for thousands of calls to Mary Moriarty’s office. Thousands of emails filled her staff’s inboxes. ER members stood on Minneapolis sidewalks handing out flyers to thousands of their neighbors, face to face, for weeks.
Credit most importantly belongs to the Minneapolis protesters who stood in the streets during single digit temperatures while federal agents fired pepper balls at them, as well as volunteering to follow and document ICE activities. I was fortunate enough to cover the story firsthand in January and February, watching everyone from suburban soccer moms to retired educators to young Uber drivers get assaulted, threatened with deadly weapons, and stalked just for gathering footage of what was happening. They created the public record that made this accountability thinkable.
Local activists, journalists, and organizers have never stopped demanding justice. That community has set the example in a way we should all emulate.
Special thanks as well to Minneapolis journalists at the Star Tribune, the Minnesota Reformer, Sahan Journal, MPR News, and KARE 11 for refusing to accept DHS press releases as fact and for publishing what the video actually showed.
This is how state prosecutors bring criminal charges against federal agents. Prosecutors need evidence they can touch. They need public support that covers their political flank. They need a community that does not go home when the news cycle moves on. Something is changing. Celebrate it and keep showing up. Louder, too.
The fight is not over, but the exits are narrower than the administration wants you to believe. Morgan’s lawyers will almost certainly succeed in moving the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Removal is routine, and the bar is low. Removal does not erase the charge. A federal judge still applies Minnesota’s second-degree assault statute to the same facts. Morgan walks free only if he also wins a Supremacy Clause immunity defense, and that doctrine is narrow. Under In re Neagle and the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Martin v. United States, the agent must prove he was performing an authorized federal duty, that his conduct was necessary and proper to that duty, and that he had an honest and reasonable belief it was necessary. Morgan fails every prong. Driving illegally on the shoulder of the Crosstown in an unmarked rental car during a road-rage dispute is not an ICE duty. Pointing a loaded weapon at two civilians to retaliate for being slowed down is not necessary or proper to enforcing immigration law. No reasonable federal officer could honestly believe it was.
The administration will still attack Moriarty personally, and the Department of Justice, which caved on its “investigation” into her office back in February,⁵ may try again.
But a wall just came down. For the first time since Operation Metro Surge began, a federal immigration agent is a named criminal defendant in a state court of law, with an active nationwide warrant for his arrest on felony assault charges. Every state prosecutor in America who has been told that a federal badge means automatic immunity just received a template for how to prove otherwise. Moriarty’s office has given them the roadmap and the case number. Sixteen more incidents remain under investigation in Hennepin County alone, and every state in the country now has a working example of how to do this.
We said from the beginning that state prosecution was the mechanism that worked. We said the federal immunity claims don’t hold up against openly criminal conduct. Today, Mary Moriarty proved it. Tomorrow, we build on it.
Feel free to thank Mary Moriarty for enforcing the law:
Office Email: Mary.Moriarty@hennepin.us
Office Phone: 612-348-5550
If you want to keep this activist community alive, you should know that we need 10 subscribers per article. We reached that number 19 of the last 30 days. This work only continues if we hit that number.
Don’t let it be the reason you miss a meal or rent!
If you can become a member, you’re one of the ten that are the reason millions of readers have 20-40 articles per month, live coverage, free books, free booklets, free training, discord activist community, and model legislation.
TheExistentialistRepublic.com to purchase my latest book Toppling Tyrants: A field guide to dismantling American Fascism
BuyMeACoffee.com/TheER to find that and everything else available as a free download listed in the shop for $0.00
Works Cited
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. (2026, April 16). Hennepin County Attorney’s Office charges ICE agent with two counts of second-degree assault for February incident on Hwy 62. https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2026/April/morgan-charges ¹
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. (2026, March 2). HCAO launches new evidence portal, establishes Transparency and Accountability Project. https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2026/March/tap-portal ³
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. (2026, March 24). Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension sue federal government for access to evidence related to Metro Surge shootings. https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2026/March/federal-lawsuit ⁴
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. (2026, February 27). HCAO statement on U.S. Department of Justice caving on “investigation” into office policy. https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2026/February/doj-response ⁵
Help Outreach Working Group lift the fog of corporate media. Donate to help us maintain this website and distribute literature on the street.
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 →
Community Coffee – Outer Sunset Sunday, April 19 | 1–3 PM Location: Java Beach Cafe, 1396 La Playa St Sign-up The San Francisco Democratic Party has been hosting community coffee events to connect with residents of our many different neighborhoods in SF every month. No speeches, just conversations and hearing... 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 →
Milk Club April General Membership Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 21 Time: 7-9 PM Location: SF LGBT Center, 1800 Market Street, San Francisco Zoom Link: Click here
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 →
Meeting Agenda April 22, 2026 The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee will meet on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 6:30 pm at Milton Marks Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 94102. A security screening will be required to enter the building. Members of the public can live... Continue reading →
SF Green Party Showing events after 3/27. Look for earlier events Wednesday, April 20 7:30pm SF Green Party Council Meeting WhenWed, April 20, 7:30pm – 9:00pm WhereEl CafeTazo, 3087 16th St, San Francisco, CA 94103 (map) Description: This elected group is the equivalent to other political parties Central Committee. The San Franciso... 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 →
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 →
by 
