LOS ANGELES—With voters set to decide who will lead California’s largest city for the next four years, some residents who live on the streets of Los Angeles, or have been affected by homelessness, spoke out against the current leadership, calling for change. Angelenos have less than a week to decide who their next mayor will be. The top three candidates are incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, LA City Councilmember Nithya Raman, and Pacific Palisades fire survivor Spencer Pratt. Recent polls have shown that Bass remains under the 50% needed to win outright, while Pratt and Raman are running neck-and-neck for second. For years, local residents have watched what was supposed to be a contained area for the homeless grow throughout the city. During her 2022 campaign for mayor, then-candidate Bass ran on solving the crisis. “Our city is facing an unprecedented emergency, and we need to treat it as such,” she wrote in 2022.  While Bass has touted decreases in unsheltered homelessness and expanded housing and services, questions about where the city’s millions in taxpayer dollars are actually going have become a major issue. Throughout Bass’ term, the city has allocated well over $2 billion to homeless services and programs. In her first partial fiscal year, several hundred million dollars were directed toward the issue.  By fiscal year 2023-24, that number jumped to $1.3 billion, covering programs like Inside Safe, permanent and interim housing, and outreach and prevention services. However, only an estimated $599 million was spent by the end of that fiscal year. During that time, Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia released a report in 2024 showing how little of the allocated funds had been spent.  As Mejia sought answers from the Bass administration and the City Council about where the rest of the money went, officials failed to provide clear explanations. Questions about the lack of transparency grew, with public criticism at the time calling for better tracking and accountability. What the People Say in Skid Row “The whole city of LA is now Skid Row. That’s the reality. I think everybody’s sick of it. Even the people on the street are sick of it. Even the people living in low-income housing are sick of it. They’re not doing anything,” Don Garza, a U.S. military veteran who has been in Skid Row for 26 years, told the Daily Signal.  “Where’s the money going?” he continued. “I already told you where the money’s going—it’s going in their pockets. We know, we’ve seen it. But the question is, why do they fight so hard to not be accountable for that money? That’s the question.” Crackdowns on the city’s nonprofit organizations have ramped up under the leadership of First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli. In January, officials arrested and charged 42-year-old Alexander Soofer of fraudulently obtaining $23 million in taxpayer funds through his organization and keeping at least $10 million of it. “[Pratt has] got a point. I want to know what nonprofits get the money, how much they get, where it goes, and what the results are. And from what I’ve seen, there’s no results,” Garza said. “Karen does not deserve another [term]. She doesn’t deserve to be the mayor again.” “As far as Spencer Pratt, he’s absolutely correct. There’s no reason why we can’t do these things. I agree with him that laws should be enforced,” he added.  Another Skid Row resident, Rick, who provided only his first name, called the money scandal regarding homelessness the “biggest rip-off in history.” “I don’t give a f— about the money. I want to see them locked up. And that’s what is the most important part to me,” he continued. “I like to see them suffer. Because they did a lot of wrong s— to people of all color and poor people. And they get mad when somebody like me is talking because I’m telling the truth.” When asked about Bass’ leadership, Rick stated that he was confident the incumbent mayor would not win again. Along with call outs of the nonprofit organizations down in Skid Row, many on the ground have been vocally against health services that have provided things like needles and pipes to drug users, also known as harm-reduction services. With part of Pratt’s campaign honing-in on wanting to cut the drug abuse and get proper mental services to those on the streets, an ex-psychiatric nurse by the name of Fred, who has lived in Skid Row for more than four years, told the Daily Signal that he agreed with wanting policy to change if Pratt were to win.  “What I’d like to see is, when they have somebody that’s wigging out and it’s obviously [a] mental [issue] … to go ahead and talk them down instead of the police going in and having to tackle them, and all this other stuff,” Rick said. However, even if new leadership comes to the city, not all in Skid Row say real change is likely. A resident by the name of Jake told the Daily Signal that even if Pratt were to get in, he believed the crisis would stay the same, as it has already hit “the ceiling.” “It’s going to stay the same. It’s at its worst, you know. … You can’t go any further than hitting the ceiling,” Jake said. “Look at all the mayors we’ve had in the past. What’s another person going to do to try to fix this whole situation?” With just days until the June 2 primary, a Cygnal poll conducted May 15–18 showed Bass at 25%, well short of the majority needed to win outright. Pratt sat at 22% and Raman at 18%, with 25% of likely voters still undecided.

Several musical artists scheduled to perform at the Great American State Fair in honor of America’s 250th birthday have withdrawn from the event after SPIN magazine highlighted President Donald Trump’s connection to the fair. The Great American State Fair will showcase all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. It is slated to run on the National Mall from June 25 through July 10. On Wednesday, Freedom 250, a new private-public partnership helping organize and coordinate America 250 events, announced a lineup of artists booked to perform at the fair. The list included well-known acts such as Martina McBride, Vanilla Ice, Bret Michaels, Flo Rida, Milli Vanilli’s Fab Morvan, C+C Music Factory, the Commodores, and Young MC. However, several artists quickly dropped out after SPIN mocked the lineup for “Donald Trump’s Freedom 250.” Rapper Young MC specifically cited the SPIN report and the Trump connection in a post announcing his withdrawal. “I HAVE INFORMED MY AGENTS THAT I WILL NOT BE PERFORMING AT THE FREEDOM 250 EVENT,” the “Bust a Move” artist said. “The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, SPIN magazine describes it as Trump-backed. I hope to perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.” Veteran country star Martina McBride also withdrew from the fair, saying the event was presented to her as “non-partisan,” but “yesterday things started changing,” and what she was told is “not what is happening.” pic.twitter.com/Ono3zPi54Z— Martina McBride (@martinamcbride) May 29, 2026 The Commodores also seem to believe celebrating America’s birthday and its 50 states is a Republican-only concept. “Our music has always been our voice and we choose not to publicly affiliate with any single political party,” the group said in a statement. “We support the betterment of all Americans.” Also pulling out is Fab Morvan, the surviving member of the disgraced 1990s duo Milli Vanilli. A replacement act has already been lined up. Marco Rubio just found out he has to perform for Milli Vanilli at the Great American State Fair. pic.twitter.com/qF6q3gyLFx— The Great Gats (@Gardyloo_Alert) May 29, 2026 Rocker Bret Michaels of the band Poison also pulled out, citing threats to his safety. “Unfortunately, what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive than what I agreed to be a part of,” he wrote in a lengthy Instagram post. “Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety of my fans, band, crew, family and myself, including threats that are completely unfounded and unforgivable.” Michaels, perhaps not coincidentally, famously won Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” reality show. Freedom 250 rejected the notion that the Great American State Fair is partisan. In a statement to USA Today, spokeswoman Rachel Reisner said the organization is “dedicated to uniting Americans around the nation’s 250th anniversary.” “Freedom 250 is focused on our signature celebrations and events that honor our history and engage all Americans—welcoming all who share our goal of commemorating this milestone in a way that uplifts and unites America,” Reisner added. The Great American State Fair will be free and open to the public. Although advance tickets are not necessary for entry, attendees can register for free tickets on the Freedom 250 website.

News broke earlier this week that a sitting federal judge in the Southeastern United States committed a host of outrageous acts, for which the judge received the ridiculously light punishment of a private reprimand. (Bloomberg Law reports that the judge is Eleanor Ross who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Ross has not yet commented.). But after reviewing the details of confirmed misconduct, it becomes even more evident that a private reprimand (where the judge’s name isn’t even publicly released) is not an appropriate punishment considering that this federal judge likely committed a federal felony. The details of the misconduct are salacious. The judge had an extramarital affair and engaged in repeated loud sexual encounters with a high-ranking police official in the judge’s chambers (courthouse office) within earshot of the judge’s employees. The investigative report and its findings go into (unfortunately necessary) graphic detail. But here’s where the judge likely committed a crime: When confronted with the allegations, she lied—even going so far as to “specifically [deny] each” factual allegation. After receiving a referral for potential misconduct, Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Bill Pryor, following relevant statutory and Judicial-Conduct Rules, notified the judge of the allegations and “requested that the judge respond to the factual allegations.” That same day, the judge responded to Chief Judge Pryor by characterizing “the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically [denying] each one.” Moreover, the judge sought to undermine the credibility of the employee who first alerted others to her misconduct by intimating that the employee “might have made the allegations as a means of retaliating against” the judge for criticizing the employee’s performance. Not content with these denials, the judge sent two other emails that same day to her own court’s chief judge denying the allegations and impugning the character of the employee. And the next day, the judge emailed Chief Judge Pryor to further deny the charges and impugn the character and conduct of the employee. After receiving the judge’s denial, Chief Judge Pryor empaneled a special committee to investigate the allegations. And the special committee retained “experienced counsel in conducting its investigation.” According to the Special Committee’s written report, almost two weeks after first denying the salacious allegations, “the Subject Judge, through an attorney, submitted to Chief Judge Pryor a supplemental response … [where] the Subject Judge: (1) admitted to having had an extramarital affair with the Officer; [and] (2) admitted that, in the course of the affair, the judge had sexual intercourse in the judge’s office.” The special committee appointed by Chief Judge Pryor found that the judge committed judicial misconduct by, among other actions, “making false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge that were material to the investigation of misconduct allegations and to the administration of the district court.” Why does that matter? It matters because 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a felony offense for anyone “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, [to] knowingly and willfully … make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” The special committee investigating the judge made clear that “the judge’s false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge constituted attempts to prevent the chief judge from learning of the Subject Judge’s misconduct.” And they were clearly material because, as the committee explained, by the time the judge confessed, “the judiciary had devoted considerable time and resources to investigating the allegations at issue … Most of these efforts would have been rendered unnecessary had the Subject Judge been honest from the beginning. The Subject Judge’s falsity undoubtedly altered the course of the proceedings.” The committee concluded that “there is no excuse for the egregious falsities the Subject Judge submitted to fellow judges.” Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” And Article II of the Constitution allows for “all civil Officers of the United States”—including federal judges—to “be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” remains undefined in the Constitution itself, committing a federal felony likely suffices. (And there’s a strong case to be made that this judge’s other conduct independently qualifies as well). If this federal judge doesn’t do the right thing by resigning from office, Congress must act. The House of Representatives should impeach the judge. The Senate should hold a trial and convict the judge (given the overwhelming evidence). And the judge should be removed from office to face the consequences of her actions. The American people—and justice itself—demands no less.

As Democrats continue to hemorrhage support among white voters, legislation passed by Virginia’s Democratic-controlled Legislature offers a revealing glimpse into the party’s increasingly comfortable embrace of anti-white policymaking. HB61, known as the Small, Women-owned, and Minority-owned Business (SWaM) certification program, sought to expand preferential treatment for women or minority-owned small businesses in state contracting and would have increased discretionary state spending directed toward such businesses by 3% annually until agencies reached a 42% target. It also proposed reserving funds between $10,000 and $200,000 for qualifying businesses and granting them a “price preference” of up to 5%. In practice, this meant women or minority-owned businesses could charge more than white or male competitors and still receive no-contest government contracts on the sole basis of the owners’ race or sex. The bill was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, though not because she objected to race-focused contracting. Instead, Spanberger argued the proposal didn’t go far enough. “House Bill 61 would fundamentally change the SWaM program by altering the definition to limit participation to small SWaM businesses,” the governor wrote in her veto message. “These changes would limit state contract opportunities for nearly 800 women-owned and minority-owned businesses that currently participate in the program and would reduce Virginia’s current SWaM spending by at least $340 million dollars.” The governor’s objection was not to racially biased state funding itself, but to limiting access to the existing system. Lest you assume Spanberger is unique in her view that non-minorities are less deserving of government largesse than their minority counterparts, Democrats across the nation are just as bad. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani openly defended “shifting the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods,” as part of a “Racial Equity Plan.” Democrat-run Portland, Oregon, has likewise adopted policies tying public services and housing outcomes to race. Some homelessness and housing initiatives explicitly seek to place minority residents “at rates equal to or greater than their white peers.” The Washington Free Beacon reported that nearly $50 million in Portland spending appears directed toward programs excluding whites entirely, with hundreds of millions more tied to explicitly race oriented goals. Things aren’t much better for whites where Democrat voters and activists hold the reins of power. The New York Times is currently facing litigation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over claims a white, male employee was denied a promotion because of his race and sex. According to the EEOC, finalists advancing through the hiring process were exclusively non-white and the paper ultimately selected an outside minority candidate despite the fact she had limited experience in the required industry and internal reports flagged her as a weak option. In this broader context, Virginia’s HB61 was not an aberration, but part of a wider political trend. Democrat lawmakers and institutions are willing to actively worsen the lives of whites in a misguided attempt at putting their thumb on the racial scales. And that applies to Democrats across the spectrum, from the radical leftists of Portland to the so-called moderates of Virginia. Thus, Virginians should not dismiss HB61 as a one-off. The bill reflects a larger and more insidious trend in the modern Democratic Party. To them, whites are a privileged group that must be torn down with the force of government. But government picking winners and losers based on race is so wildly antithetical to the vision of America, it beggars belief. Democrats may claim Republicans are the racists, but perhaps they should look in the mirror. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Last fall, Clemson University officials announced the end of a sordid list of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) “commissions.” But news of DEI’s death at the college may be premature: The school’s board of trustees hired a new president with a checkered past of applying racial preferences. Are the trustees and administrators serious about civil rights and abolishing DEI’s racism? Or are they going to ignore examples of progressive racial bias? This week, Clemson’s board named Kevin Guskiewicz as president despite Guskiewicz’s history of on-again, off-again support of DEI. Lawmakers and taxpayers should follow Guskiewicz’s policies carefully. Investigative reporting from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal found that Guskiewicz advanced DEI-focused programs when he was hired as the University of North Carolina’s Chancellor in 2019. Through a Freedom of Information Act filing, Martin Center researchers found that Guskiewicz asked UNC provosts and department officials to “submit measurable deliverables” on DEI prior to a meeting in summer 2020.  Palmetto State lawmakers and taxpayers should hope college officials are aware of the civil rights violations from this racist dogma. In 2025, Heritage Foundation research documented that Clemson administrators continued to allow DEI programs on campus. School officials responded with a statement in September that they were sunsetting a slate of committees based on racial preferences. Clemson was one of nearly 50 universities the U.S. Department of Education cited that year for “race-exclusionary practices.” And yet, the school’s board of trustees selected a president who, as UNC chancellor, supported the hiring of Nikole Hannah-Jones, the editor of the New York Times Magazine’s“1619 Project.” The project was a revisionist history of the U.S. that centered America’s story on slavery and racism, with no redemption in sight. After its publication, historians and intellectuals including Allen Guelzo, Sean Wilentz, and the late civil rights leader Robert Woodson criticized the project for inaccuracies. When Guskiewicz moved to Michigan State University in 2024, though, school personnel closed several DEI programs during his tenure. In July 2025, school officials announced that job candidates would no longer be required to submit DEI statements, and school administrators would not require DEI statements as a condition of promotion for existing faculty and staff. Regardless of Guskiewicz’s prior approvals of racial preferences, university officials abandoned the practices. Still, a quick review of MSU’s website finds that the Spartans operate a DEI office. DEI materials are readily available from the school library system, and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources has a video statement in favor of DEI. College administrators around the country are struggling to rid campuses of radical racial dogma. For every school that announces the end of DEI—such as the University of Michigan’s closure of its DEI office last spring—others are renaming their activities to avoid detection. The Heritage Foundation report that reviewed Clemson’s DEI work provides a list of other schools, including George Mason University and Princeton University, where school personnel are either subtly or not-so-subtly continuing DEI initiatives. The Education Department’s ongoing examinations of colleges that allow antisemitic activities on campus and that post DEI statements are a warning to universities. Critics claim federal lawmakers are micromanaging schools, but evidence from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard(which was combined with a case against the University of North Carolina) shows how colleges engage in discrimination. The violent riots and encampments at other schools in recent years are still more examples of DEI run amok. If school trustees and state lawmakers will not enforce civil rights laws, federal policymakers are next in line. Just before and after the Students for Fair Admissionsdecision, state lawmakers began adopting provisions that reject racial preferences. Legislators in states such as Texas, Florida, and West Virginia prohibit the use of taxpayer spending on DEI offices and staff positions. South Carolina lawmakers have considered statewide prohibitions, but the proposals have stalled. In 2024, Coastal Carolina University adopted a policy statement that rejects the use of DEI statements as a condition of hiring or promotion, offering lawmakers a roadmap to draft proposals. Students and taxpayers weary of the abuse of civil rights—and wary of Clemson’s new president—will thank them.