THE NEWS

The beat comes on lowered expectations, after the company gave disappointing guidance in February that fell short of analyst estimates.

The new Fed chair has made his first hires. One wrote the Fed chapter in conservative policy blueprint “Project 2025.”

The United States spends far more on healthcare, on a per capita basis, than any other country in the world. There are many reasons why, including health insurance companies. But one reason has been largely overlooked: foreign governments maintain pricing systems that limit what they pay for drugs. The difference has been absorbed in the United States, with the result that Americans cover a disproportionate share of the world’s drug costs.These pharmaceutical pricing systems need to be called out for what they are: trade distortions. And the Trump administration should treat these distortions just as it would treat any other trade distortion: with the remedies that are available under U.S. trade law, starting with an investigation of discriminatory measures.  Countries such as Germany, France, and Japan impose government pricing mandates, mandatory rebates, and strict market controls that cap what they pay for medicines well below U.S. market prices. That puts manufacturers in a bind. They can either accept the punitive terms these countries have established or find their products shut out of these countries. HHS SEC ROBERT F KENNEDY JR: AMERICAN PATIENTS PAY MORE SO OTHERS CAN PAY LESS — THAT STOPS NOWPredictably, the manufacturers have accepted the terms, with the result that the United States has had to cover a greater share of global research and development costs. Those costs are embedded in the prices American patients pay.Recent developments in Germany show how quickly this dynamic is accelerating. In April, the German government advanced a sweeping cost-containment proposal. The plan would expand mandatory rebates tied to public insurance growth, tighten price-volume rules with automatic increases triggered by sales, and allow selective contracting across entire classes of patented drugs. The practical effect is to compress pricing further and limit reimbursement to the lowest-cost option within a category. Now France, Japan, and Switzerland are pursuing similar approaches. This is a broader trend across major U.S. trading partners, and Americans will once again be getting the shaft.The countries maintaining these distorted pricing systems typically characterize them as nothing more than domestic healthcare policy, designed to limit costs and foster budget discipline. But when governments impose controls on prices that are below levels that would prevail in a market-based system, they reduce global revenues that support innovation. They also shift cost recovery onto markets that do not impose those constraints. The United States has become that market.These policies amount to non-tariff trade barriers, and they can be addressed through U.S. trade law. There is one measure in particular.Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act authorizes the United States to investigate and respond to foreign government practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. It has been applied to a wide range of non-tariff barriers, including intellectual property regimes and digital services taxes. Pharmaceutical pricing systems that suppress global revenues, and shift costs onto American consumers, clearly fit within that framework and warrant formal examination.It’s time for pharmaceutical pricing to be treated as a core issue in trade negotiations. And the Trump administration has been moving in that direction. Voluntary Most Favored Nation pricing arrangements aim to rebalance what American patients pay without imposing domestic price controls. The administration is reportedly considering Section 301 action, which suggests a growing willingness to move beyond just domestic enforcement. That can’t happen soon enough. America’s trading partners should be pressed to adopt more balanced approaches that reflect a fairer distribution of pharmaceutical development costs. A Section 301 investigation would establish the evidentiary foundation needed to pursue that outcome and signal that the status quo is no longer acceptable.There is also broad public support for action. Recent polling shows that a large majority of Americans believe other countries should pay a fairer share for medicines. That sentiment reflects a basic principle. A system in which one country consistently subsidizes global innovation is not sustainable.For decades, the United States has been a leader in drug innovation, improving lives for millions of people throughout the world. But there’s no guarantee this will continue. And it might not if U.S. companies are forced to subsidize innovation. It’s time for the Trump administration to use the tools available to remedy the balance and help ensure that pharmaceutical innovation continues. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM STEPHEN MOORE

Last week, my organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of 17 of Maryland’s 24 sheriffs challenging the state’s newly enacted “Community Trust Act.”This so-called “trust” legislation is nothing less than a dangerous sanctuary mandate that deliberately obstructs cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. We decided to represent these sheriffs because they are on the front lines of public safety, sworn to uphold both the state and federal constitutions, yet they have now been placed in an impossible constitutional bind by Annapolis politicians.These 17 plaintiffs represent 70 percent of Maryland’s county sheriffs. They came to us not seeking political gain but relief from a law that handcuffs their ability to protect their communities. As executive director and general counsel of FAIR, an organization dedicated to immigration policies that serve America’s national interest, I could not stand by while dedicated officers are ordered to release criminal illegal aliens back into neighborhoods where they pose ongoing threats.The ironically named “Community Trust Act” prohibits or severely restricts local correctional facilities from honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers, sharing critical information with federal authorities, or detaining removable criminal aliens beyond their scheduled release — except in the narrowest of circumstances. This is not “community trust.” The law demands judicial warrants for routine cooperation that federal law already authorizes. It is state-mandated obstruction that turns Maryland into what the sheriffs rightly call an “ultra-sanctuary” state.MARYLAND LAWMAKERS CLOSER TO PASSING ROADBLOCK TO ICE DEPORTATION EFFORTI decided to take this case because the human cost of sanctuary policies is no longer abstract; it is measured in the shattered lives of American families. At our press conference, we stood alongside Angel parents Patty Morin, Jim Walden and Tammy Nobles. Patty’s daughter Rachel was brutally raped, beaten, and murdered in 2023, and her body was stuffed into a drainpipe by an illegal alien who had evaded removal thanks in part to lax enforcement and sanctuary protections. Lance Cpl. James (Jimmie) Walden III was killed in 2017 when the motorcycle he was riding was struck by a speeding Mexican national. Tammy lost her daughter Kayla to similar preventable violence. These tragedies were not inevitable. They resulted from policies that prioritize illegal aliens over law-abiding citizens.Sanctuary laws have failed repeatedly across the country. From New York to California to Chicago, jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE have seen surges in crimes committed by individuals who should have been deported long ago. Repeat offenders — convicted of assault, drug trafficking, sexual abuse, and homicide — are released back into communities because local police are prohibited from notifying or assisting what should be federal partners. The data is clear: When cooperation ends, lawlessness increases. Innocent Americans pay with their lives. Maryland is now doubling down on this failed experiment despite the evidence and despite the pleas of its own sheriffs.This lawsuit is about more than Maryland. It is important for all Americans to oppose sanctuary laws because immigration enforcement is a national responsibility, not a local option. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law prevails in areas of national authority like immigration. States cannot nullify federal statutes or commandeer local officers to undermine them. When one state creates safe havens for criminal aliens, it affects every American through increased crime, strained resources, higher taxes, and an eroded rule of law. Criminals cross state lines, and we cannot allow a patchwork of resistance that renders federal immigration policy meaningless.ANGEL PARENTS SLAM ILLINOIS SANCTUARY LAWS AFTER ‘PREVENTABLE’ TRAGEDY IN STUDENT’S DEATHOur sheriffs are not asking for new powers. They simply want to do their jobs without fear of state punishment for complying with federal law. The act forces them to choose between violating their oaths or facing state penalties. By interfering, Maryland is not only endangering its residents but inviting federal preemption challenges.FAIR has long documented the failures of sanctuary policies. Law-abiding, legal immigrants and citizens alike suffer when criminals are shielded. Police cannot effectively combat gangs, drugs, or human trafficking without full access to immigration databases and detainer authority. The notion that restricting cooperation somehow makes communities safer defies both logic and experience.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONGov. Wes Moore allowed the bill to become law without his signature, citing implementation concerns yet refusing to veto it. Sheriffs and citizens deserve better than half-measures and virtue signaling. Public safety demands full enforcement of immigration laws, secure borders, and cooperation at every level of government.This fight transcends partisan lines. It is about whether we remain a nation of laws or descend into selective enforcement that favors lawbreakers. FAIR stands shoulder-to-shoulder with these Maryland sheriffs because their battle is America’s battle. We will pursue every legal avenue to strike down this dangerous law and restore the ability of law enforcement to keep criminal illegal aliens off our streets.Americans everywhere should watch Maryland closely. If sanctuary ideology prevails here, it will spread. The stakes are innocent lives — daughters, sons, neighbors — who deserve protection, not political experiments. We filed this suit to defend the rule of law, honor the lives of innocent victims like Rachel, Jimmie and Kayla, and ensure that sheriffs can fulfill their sacred duty. For Maryland and for the nation, this reckless policy must be stopped.

As summer approaches, millions of Americans are bracing for higher electric bills. For many families already stretched by rising costs, that’s simply not sustainable.This isn’t just about hotter weather. It’s about a fundamental imbalance in our energy system that is driving costs higher.Electricity demand is rising fast, driven by data centers, new manufacturing, population growth and the electrification of everything from vehicles to home heating. The United States is using more power in more ways than ever before, but we’re not building enough new generation to keep up. Simply put, we need more supply.Across Exelon’s utilities, about 75% of recent bill increases are tied to the cost of generating electricity — the supply side of the equation — not delivering it. Those costs are set in wholesale markets and passed directly to customers.WHY AI IS CAUSING SUMMER ELECTRICITY BILLS TO SOARExelon’s utilities don’t benefit when those prices spike. But customers still have to pay them.And when supply falls behind demand, the result is predictable: prices go up, volatility increases and American families pay the difference.At Exelon, we see firsthand the pressure customers are under.We serve nearly 11 million Americans. We hear from them when bills rise and share their frustrations. That’s why we launched the Exelon Promise, which includes a $60 million Customer Relief Fund and protections to help ensure large energy users don’t unfairly shift costs onto families and small businesses. We’re also investing billions to strengthen the grid, improve reliability and prepare for continued growth in demand.But if we want to meaningfully lower energy bills across the country, we don’t need a less capable grid; we need to start with a simple, common-sense solution: produce more electricity and do it faster.In many regions, power supply isn’t just tight, it’s shrinking, as older plants retire faster than new ones come online. At the same time, demand continues to climb. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has warned that more than half the country faces elevated risks of electricity shortfalls during peak summer conditions, which could mean brownouts or blackouts.AI NEEDS MORE POWER: OFFICES COULD BE THE ANSWERThat’s not just a reliability concern. It’s a cost problem that shows up on monthly bills.The average monthly electric bill has increased significantly in recent years, rising by nearly 30% between 2021 and 2025, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. Families and small businesses are feeling it.What many don’t realize is where those increases are coming from. Too often, we’re having the wrong debate, focused on symptoms instead of solutions.AI COMES WITH A HEFTY CHARGE. ARE YOU THE ONE WHO GETS STUCK WITH THE BILL?America needs an all-of-the-above energy strategy that brings more power online quickly and responsibly. That means investing in energy storage, nuclear power, natural gas, renewables, new technology, energy efficiency and the transmission infrastructure needed to deliver it all.We also need to confront the barriers slowing progress. Lengthy permitting timelines, insufficient supply chains and outdated regulatory structures can delay new generation for years. We simply don’t have that kind of time.We should be open to solutions that can deliver results at scale. In certain cases, allowing regulated utilities to develop and own generation could help bring more power online more quickly and at lower cost. A recent Charles River Associates analysis found that allowing utilities to develop and own generation in certain cases could save Americans up to $20 billion a year while reducing outage risk.WALL STREET UTILITY TAKEOVERS MAY MEAN HIGHER BILLS AHEADThe goal shouldn’t be ideological. It should be practical: more supply, greater stability and lower prices over time.But no utility can solve a nationwide supply challenge alone.As our nation approaches its 250th anniversary, this is a moment to remember what has always set America apart: the ability not just to dream big, but to build the infrastructure that powers our freedom and prosperity. From the railroads that connected a continent to the electric grid that brought power to every home and business, American workers and energy providers have helped build the strongest, most dynamic economy in the world — meeting big challenges head-on.WE’RE DEMOCRATS. FROM FOOD TO HOUSING, COSTS KEEP RISING — HERE’S A SERIOUS FIXThis moment calls for that same mindset.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONEnergy is the backbone of our economy. It powers our homes, fuels innovation and supports everything from small businesses, schools and hospitals to advanced manufacturing and new technologies.If we want to keep that progress going — and if we want to ease the burden on American families — we need to act with urgency and clarity.That starts with a clear priority: build more power, bring more supply online and use every available tool to get it done.Because when America produces more energy, Americans pay less for it.

Welsh Police Officers Ordered To Log Anti-Islam Comments In Chilling Free Speech Crackdown

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Britain’s free speech traditions face fresh erosion as South Wales Police directs officers to record conversations and comments about Islam that stray beyond what the force deems “legitimate” discussion.

The policy, exposed in recent social media posts, risks logging lawful criticism as hostility incidents that could surface in future employment checks.

This move builds directly on the Labour government’s March definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” and exposes how public bodies are “gold-plating” safeguards meant to protect open debate.

Police force orders officers to keep record of Britons’ anti-Islam commentshttps://t.co/kQIa0v3VGz
– GB News (@GBNEWS) June 2, 2026
South Wales Police has told staff to log anything exceeding its view of ‘acceptable’ talk on Islam. The Free Speech Union immediately challenged the guidance, warning it hands officers unchecked power to decide acceptable speech and creates a chilling effect on expression.

The FSU post laid it out plainly, noting “South Wales Police are zealously enforcing their own definition of Islamophobia in a way that threatens free speech.”

? South Wales Police are zealously enforcing their own definition of Islamophobia in a way that threatens free speech.
The force has instructed staff to log anything that goes beyond what it considers a “legitimate” discussion of Islam.
This subjective definition gives… pic.twitter.com/cI6P188WOm
– The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) June 1, 2026
“This subjective definition gives officers the power to decide what constitutes acceptable speech and risks having a chilling effect on free expression,” the FSU adds.

The FSU has written to South Wales Police calling on them to withdraw the guidance. “If they fail to do so, we have threatened legal action by way of judicial review,” it further notes.

FSU General Secretary Lord Young said South Wales Police risked “penalising people for expressing misgivings about Islam”, contrary to free speech protections enshrined in law. Britain’s blasphemy laws were abolished by Parliament in 2008.

Lord Young added: “The Government was careful to include free speech safeguards in its official definition of anti-Muslim hostility, making clear that it was not intended to inhibit criticism of Islam or Islamic religious practices, such as ritual public prayer.”

“Our concern is that police forces and other public bodies adopting the definition will gold-plate it, ignoring those safeguards and penalising people for expressing misgivings about Islam, even when those views are rooted in evidence rather than prejudice,” Young further urged.

He continued, “In particular, we are concerned that the default police response to reports of anti-Muslim hostility – even where they clearly fall outside the definition – will be to record them as ‘anti-social behaviour incidents’, the new name for ‘non-crime hate incidents’. Those records may then be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.”

The Government announced its official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” in March, alongside plans to appoint an Islamophobia tsar.

South Wales Police’s interpretation adds an extra phrase to the Government’s definition that could have a chilling effect on free speech and potentially affect people’s daily lives, such as their employment prospects.

As a result of this policy, individuals may be unable to predict whether their lawful speech or beliefs will be recorded by the police, or how any resulting record may be used, retained or relied upon.

We understand that several other police forces have adopted their own definitions of Islamophobia.

In March, ministers unveiled the non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility in the “Protecting What Matters” report. The same package urged schools, councils and workplaces to monitor and report incidents, creating an atmosphere of institutional surveillance.

A leaked draft of the social cohesion strategy went further, branding the Union flag a “tool of hate” wielded by the “extreme right” to intimidate and exclude. National symbols of pride were reframed as potential weapons while the strategy allocated hundreds of millions toward “pressured areas.”

The definition itself was shaped by a working group where every member carried links to Islamist organisations previously shunned by governments since 2009, including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development. One member had publicly supported Hamas; another stood for the Respect Party.

Conservative MP Katie Lam warned the definition would “make it harder to talk about Islamist extremism, FGM, and the grooming gangs. They’d rather restrict our right to criticise than deal with these problems head-on. It’s putting us all in danger.”

The Free Speech Union briefing stated: “In a free society, no religion should enjoy greater protection than others – nor be shielded from legitimate criticism and challenge.” It added that the group’s makeup left “deep cause for concern.”

While institutions chase “anti-Muslim hostility” records, actual religious discrimination in the opposite direction has flourished. Landlords across London and the south-east openly advertise flats and rooms “only for Muslims,” “for two Muslim boys or two Muslim girls,” or “Muslims preferred” on platforms including Gumtree and Facebook. These listings breach the Equality Act 2010 yet continue with minimal enforcement.

The contrast is stark: criticism of Islamic doctrine or practices triggers police logging and potential DBS disclosures, while explicit religious exclusion in areas such as housing draws little institutional pushback. This is two-tier Britain in action.

Lord Young’s warning in the FSU statement remains the core issue. Officers are now empowered to decide what counts as “legitimate” discussion of Islam. Lawful misgivings rooted in evidence risk being recorded anyway. Blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008 for good reason; this approach revives their spirit for one religion alone.

Free speech protections exist precisely to cover expression that offends, shocks or disturbs. When police forces treat evidence-based concerns about Islamism as automatic hostility, they invert that principle and accelerate self-censorship across the country.

The Free Speech Union has made clear it will pursue judicial review if South Wales Police does not withdraw the guidance. Other forces reportedly adopting similar interpretations should take note. Britain’s tradition of open debate on all ideas, including religious ones, is not optional. It is the foundation that keeps a free society from sliding into managed speech and selective enforcement.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/03/2026 – 05:00

Opposite Of Drawdown: US Mulls Expanding Nuclear Weapons Deployments In Europe

The White House has been talking about reducing America’s military presence across the European continent, amid long-running Trump complaints over lack of NATO burden-sharing. There are even plans to draw down 5,000 US troops from Germany on a permanent basis (though for now it appears thousands are just being moved to Poland).

Such a military ‘reduction’ would be welcomed by Moscow, however, as is usual when Washington signals de-escalation in force posture, the result ends up being the opposite. Washington is reportedly preparing to scatter more nuclear tripwires across the European continent, all while claiming a draw down of forces and footprint.
DoD file image

According to a Financial Times report published Tuesday, the US is actively discussing whether to deploy nuclear weapons in more NATO states.

Citing three people briefed on the internal discussions, American officials have signaled distinct openness to additional deployments well beyond the six nations that currently host the Pentagon’s nuclear-capable bombers.

Under NATO’s legacy nuclear sharing program, only six allies including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom – are approved to host US supplied dual-capable aircraft and “forward-deployed” nuclear bombs.

And yet that exclusive club may be about to get a lot larger, and even closer to Moscow’s doorstep. Unsurprisingly, the nations highest on the list are located along NATO’s eastern flank, with Poland and various Baltic states already aggressively expressing interest in hosting the bases required to house the aircraft.

But as even Ukrainian media points out, this violates prior high level agreements between the Western alliance and Moscow:

The 1997 NATO-Russia agreement said NATO had no plans to place nuclear weapons in new member states. However, some countries that joined NATO later, including Poland, have since said they would be open to hosting US nuclear weapons, especially after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The FT report suggests that while an agreement to expand nuclear hosting is not imminent, high-level discussions are happening at the highest levels of NATO.

The proposal seems to be Washington’s carrot offered alongside the ‘stick’ of renewed financial arm-twisting over lack of European defense spending.
via London School of Economics and Political Science

As we featured last week, some recent reports have dubbed the new vision for European defense as “NATO 3.0” – wherein Washington would expect European allies to assume responsibility for the continent’s entire conventional defense, and the nuclear arsenal would be maintained by the United States. Lately France’s Macron has introduced the possibility of a French nuclear umbrella, apparently as an alterantive.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/03/2026 – 04:15

White Girls Raped By Dogs, Whisky Bottles, & 100s Of Men: Britain’s Migrant Grooming-Gang Scandal Exposed

Via Remix News,

Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe used a Westminster Hall debate on Monday to confront MPs with harrowing testimony from White girls and women who were raped, tortured, trafficked, and degraded by migrant grooming gangs, and abandoned by the very authorities that should have protected them.

The debate was secured after 260,974 Brits signed a petition calling for Parliament to address the rape gang scandal. Lowe opened by thanking the signatories and welcoming survivors who were sitting in the hall, saying the debate was not about politics, but about them.

“I want the world to hear what we heard during the two weeks of our independent rape gang inquiry hearings, an inquiry that should never have needed to happen,” Lowe said.

He then read out a series of graphic testimonies that exposed the scale of the abuse suffered by almost exclusively White girls.

One survivor said she was only “about 12, nearly 13” when a man raped her before forcing an empty Jack Daniel’s bottle inside her and breaking the glass. Another described being held down by groups of men as they took turns to rape her, before beating her and threatening to kill her and harm her loved ones if she ever spoke out.

I want the world to hear what we heard. pic.twitter.com/2DtCS0QztE
— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) June 1, 2026
Lowe told MPs that the evidence heard by his inquiry included repeated allegations that White British girls were deliberately targeted.

One survivor said abusers made constant references to “White girls” and “Christian girls,” claiming they had “fewer morals or lower values,” while Muslim girls were described as having “dignity and higher moral standing.”

Another alleged victim said race “did play a part” in the selection of victims, adding that the girls she encountered during her exploitation were “almost exclusively White.”

The testimony also included claims that children in care were effectively handed over to abusers. One survivor said men would sound a car horn outside a children’s home before a staff member brought a child to the front door. Another said, “It was all of the White girls in every home that I went to.”

In one of the most disturbing accounts read to MPs, a survivor recalled seeing the back of a van opened to reveal “15, 20 girls locked in dog cages.” Another said dogs were brought in during an attack while men stood around filming, laughing, and betting on what would happen. She said she had nowhere to move and was raped by a dog while a man held her face and stared into her eyes because “he wanted to see me break.”

Lowe also read testimony from a survivor who said she was raped by “probably about six or seven hundred different men” over three years after the abuse began when she was 13. Another said abuse escalated around Eid and holidays, when parties became “bigger, worse, and “more violent,” with more men and more girls involved.

The Restore Britain leader claimed that institutions had repeatedly failed victims. One girl said she went to hospital at 15, bleeding, swollen, and unable to sit down after an assault, but was given tablets and discharged after telling staff her drink had been spiked because she was too frightened to say what had really happened. “They did not ask any questions,” she said.

Another survivor alleged that she was raped by multiple police officers in different parts of the country. A further testimony claimed a man put a cigarette out on a baby’s face.

Lowe said the abuse was also used to attack the faith and identity of victims. One Christian survivor said her cross was used as a way to break her down, with abusers asking, “Where is your God now? Has your God forsaken you?”

The politician said he could have continued reading testimony “for hours and hours,” warning that Parliament no longer had any excuse for inaction.

“All of us in this building have a responsibility to finally act. Not to talk, but to act,” he said. “Our Rape Gang Inquiry report will be released in the coming days. It will change Britain for good.”

Lowe launched his own independent inquiry before the U.K. government announced a statutory national investigation into grooming gangs, a probe that identified evidence of child sexual exploitation across dozens of local authority areas.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/03/2026 – 03:30

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA – Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra were leading in unofficial early returns Wednesday morning and appeared positioned to advance to the November California gubernatorial election in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in steering the nation’s most populous state and one of the world’s largest economies.Hilton, a one-time British political strategist turned American conservative commentator and former Fox News Channel host who is backed by President Donald Trump, and Becerra, a former California attorney general who later served as a Cabinet secretary in former President Biden’s administration, were in the lead early Wednesday morning, with votes still being counted and results not yet certified.”Change is coming to California, and it’s long overdue,” Hilton told supporters at his primary night watch party in Orange County.Hilton, in an exclusive Fox News Digital interview following his speech, said speaking “honest, simple truths” to voters boosted his campaign. “Everything is too expensive in California. We’re going to cut people’s costs,” he pledged.CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST PRIMARY RESULTS FROM FOX NEWS Becerra, who, if elected in November, would make history as California’s first Latino governor since Romualdo Pacheco briefly served in 1875, told supporters that his campaign’s success is “more than a Hollywood ending. More than a milestone. That’s the everyday miracle of living in a state that makes the improbable seem inevitable. And I couldn’t have done it without you.”Democrat-dominated California holds what’s known as a jungle primary in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers advancing to the general election.Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental activist who unsuccessfully ran for his party’s 2020 presidential nomination and who has shelled out over $200 million of his own money in his bid for governor, was in third place as the results continued to be tabulated and as additional mail and provisional ballots remained to be counted.Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, as well as Democratic candidates former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, were also among the whopping 61 candidates on the ballot.Hilton is hoping to become the first California Republican to win a gubernatorial election since then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006 re-election.In his speech, Hilton showed off the lining of his blazer, with American and California flags, that he said Schwarzenegger a few years ago urged him to wear. “Arnold, I did that for you,” Hilton said.DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUBFormer Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla mulled launching Democratic bids for governor, but both last year announced they would take a pass. That resulted in the lack of a clear Golden State gubernatorial frontrunner for the first time in more than a quarter-century.And the race was overshadowed for much of last year, as the devastation from the Los Angeles-area wildfires and President Donald Trump’s immigration raids grabbed headlines in California.But the showdown for governor entered the spotlight earlier this year when one of the leading candidates, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, dropped out of the race and then resigned from Congress after facing multiple allegations of sexual assault and misconduct that he continues to deny.Swalwell’s exit from the race opened the door for first Steyer and then Becerra to rise in the polls.Steyer, who unsuccessfully ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, spent more than $200 million of his own money to blanket the airwaves and the internet with ads. Meanwhile, more than $80 million in outside money has also been spent on the race.Bianco, who launched his campaign for governor in April of last year, was among the top contenders in the race until Trump’s endorsement of Hilton in early April appeared to blunt his momentum.

President Trump hasn’t had a great week. I don’t think anyone can argue with that.The man who has so utterly dominated the Republican Party has been forced to backtrack or reverse himself, in part because of on-the-record outrage by GOP lawmakers.That involved his plan to create a $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund, with most of it going to Jan. 6 rioters, who he calls patriots. The idea of rewarding people who attacked police officers, took over members’ quarters and chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” touched a very deep nerve (among the public as well).When leaders of his own party, who usually roll over and play dead, started denouncing what some of them called a slush fund, Trump knew he had a loser on his hands and yesterday tried to cut his losses: He has officially killed the funding scheme. This, of course, grew out of his suit against the IRS, where Trump was definitely wronged by the leaking of his tax returns, but as president was “negotiating” with his subordinates.Then there are the courts, where even the Supreme Court has not escaped Trump’s wrath on decisions he dislikes, such as striking down his unilateral global tariffs. He called out justices by name, branding them “fools and lapdogs,” a “disgrace” and an “embarrassment.”Which brings us to the Kennedy Center fiasco.A federal judge ordered that Trump’s name be removed from the glittering marble portico overlooking the Potomac River that had just been the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The judge temporarily blocked the two-year shutdown planned to begin this summer.The president posted that unless he was in charge, he had “no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey,” suggesting he would turn it over to Congress.”Unfortunately, Judge Cooper and the Radical Left would rather see it DIE than have President Trump transform it into something that everyone could be proud of, much as I have done, in many cases, throughout my life,” he wrote.Judge Christopher Cooper, setting a two-week deadline, said Trump’s renaming violated a 1964 law that made it “crystal clear” the institution was to be named for the assassinated president and that only Congress can change it.I happen to think the center could remain open while partial refurbishing takes place, but of course no shows are booked at the moment.The larger pattern is that many judges no longer trust the administration’s lawyers.”Their missteps in court come as the department’s leadership takes an unusually combative tone with judges who rule against them,” The New York Times says.A Trump Justice Department spokesperson said: “Any attack on the professionalism or integrity of DOJ attorneys is outrageous and unjustified.”Finally, there is the court of public opinion for Trump, who turns 80 next month.A lot of folks are upset about the design of the $250 bill featuring Trump’s visage. I don’t worry about that because I don’t plan on buying anything with a $250 note, but it hasn’t gone down well.I don’t believe many people are wild about the surprise demolition of the East Wing, plans for a 250-foot arch, or the obsession with building a White House ballroom. That was originally going to be paid for by private donations, but now Congress wants to appropriate $1 billion in taxpayer dollars — kind of bait and switch.The Iran War, whose settlement “talks” have been blown up by mutual attacks, is increasingly unpopular. A PBS/Marist poll last month found that 60 percent of those questioned disapprove of the war and overall are frustrated by soaring food and gas costs.RELATED: TRUMP INSISTS IRAN TALKS ARE ON, SAYING DEAL IS ‘NOT A SIMPLE THING’As for the July 4 celebration, so many musicians, including Milli Vanilli, Flo Rida and Young MC, dropped out that the president canceled the concert and will turn it into a MAGA rally featuring … him.Look, Donald Trump has always been at the center of his own narrative. He’s a born performer, dating back to “The Apprentice” days.RELATED: TRUMP REVEALS NEW WHCA DINNER VENUE AFTER SHOOTING CHAOS DERAILED GALAI’ve interviewed Trump numerous times, and he can sit for an hour and rattle off answers on a vast array of subjects, including stuff from 40 years ago. So any talk that he’s on the verge of dementia is utter BS by uninformed critics. But he does seem less sure-footed right now.Physically, the worst you can say about Trump is that he’s got swollen ankles and sometimes closes his eyes in meetings.Trump is full speed ahead — that’s what he knows. Where he comes off as angry and overheated is in the barrage of late-night and early-morning Truth Social posts in which he rails against his opponents.Hey, you don’t really expect an 80-year-old man to change, do you?