分类： 未分类

伯纳姆承诺改变治国方式 放权英国各地提高生活水平

2026年6月29日 20:51 / 联合早报

英国下任首相热门候选人伯纳姆星期一（6月29日）在曼彻斯特人民历史博物馆发表演讲，阐述他的国家愿景和施政路线。 （彭博社）

（伦敦综合电）英国新任首相热门候选人伯纳姆承诺改变国家治理方式，将权力从伦敦下放到各地，让地方政府掌控社会住房、福利和教育等方面的预算，从而提高全国人民的生活水平。

伯纳姆星期一（6月29日）在他曾任市长的曼彻斯特发表宣布竞选首相后的首份政策演讲，公布旨在提高人民生活水平的“10年计划”，以及关于青年就业的提案，誓要让英国重回正轨。

现任首相斯塔默上周一（22日）公布卸任计划后，伯纳姆成为炙手可热的继任候选人。若无其他工党议员加入竞争，伯纳姆预计会在7月20日就任首相。

伯纳姆说，英国是全球权力最集中的国家之一，而他将采取不同举措，下放权力给地方。

“北方唐宁街10号”协助各地资源重新分配 实现地区复兴

拥有“北方之王”标签的伯纳姆，早前提出将首相府部分职能迁至曼彻斯特，打造“北方唐宁街10号”。他说，这个机构会成为英国各地权力和资源重新分配的管道。

他强调，他的“10年使命”旨在提高全国各地的生活水平。为了实现这一目标，“北方唐宁街10号”会支持各地区完成三项任务：基本公共事业改革、再工业化，以及地区复兴。

斯塔默的工党政府未能解决民众担忧的住房问题，遭到诟病。伯纳姆直言，英国的“住房陷阱”对公共财政造成毁灭般的影响，而“唐宁街10号”会负责二战后最大规模的公屋建设项目。

他也表明会改革商业税率，以便扶持酒吧和商业街商户，让它们成为“英国复兴的象征”。

反对派此前敦促伯纳姆阐明执政计划，并澄清他的政策会否偏离工党2024年大选时的竞选宣言。

伯纳姆强调，他的承诺会建立在稳健的公共财政和现行财政规则约束基础上，将带来“英国政体在我们有生之年发生的最大变革”，但会与工党竞选纲领保持一致。

他也许诺，纳税人缴纳的每一英镑，都会更好地服务于纳税人自身，这也完全适用于国防投资计划。

朝无人作战转型 英国修改驱逐舰更换计划

英国正朝着无人机作战和精进前线作战能力进行更广泛转型。国防部长贾维斯星期天（28日）宣布取消更换老旧驱逐舰的计划，转而采购至少六艘通用作战舰，作为无人系统的控制中心。

国防部称，这些通用作战舰将协调空中、水面和水下的无人系统，由英国创新者共同研发，将在英国本土建造，既能支持全国就业，又能为皇家海军提供专为现代战争打造的作战能力。

想居家办公？研究：老板越自恋越难点头

2026年6月29日 21:08 / 联合早报

研究指出，有些领导反对远程办公，不只是因为担心协作或效率问题，也可能是出于自恋、控制欲，以及对地位感的需求。 （示意图／档案照片）

研究指出，有些领导反对远程办公，不只是因为担心协作或效率问题，也可能是出于自恋、控制欲，以及对地位感的需求。 （示意图／档案照片）

后疫情时代，企业要求员工重返办公室，常以促进创新、协作、企业文化和生产力为理由。一项新研究发现，部分领导反对远程办公，可能更多与自我意识、控制欲和对地位的需求有关，而不只是出于业务考量。

彭博社评论文章指出，这项名为《在办公室祭坛上崇拜我：为什么自恋型领导抗拒远程办公》的研究发现，在他们考察的各种特质中，只有“自恋倾向”能稳定预测领导者是否反对远程办公。也就是说，老板越自我膨胀、越想掌控权力和获得认可，就越希望员工回办公室上班。

在其中一项研究中，研究人员考察《财富》500强公司CEO，并以薪酬规模、年度报告中的签名大小和照片呈现方式等指标衡量他们的自我意识。

研究发现，得分越高的CEO，越可能兼任公司董事长或加入其他公司董事会，也更可能对远程办公发表负面评论。

研究人员认为，远程工作环境削弱了自恋型领导在办公室中惯用的权力符号。传统办公室里的打断发言、大声说话、强烈眼神接触、临时召集会议，以及办公室大小和座位安排等地位象征，在远程办公中都不再那么有效。员工也能通过关闭视频镜头、忽略聊天软件消息或删除电邮，掌握更多控制权。

论文指出，这会让自恋型领导觉得自己的权威受到威胁，因为权力天平似乎更偏向员工。比如在视频会议中，员工看到老板时，更可能表现出退缩、无聊或疲惫，而不是对老板感到敬畏。

彭博社评论员科维特（Beth Kowitt）指出，这项发现也呼应了过去一年半美国企业职场的变化。

在人工智能带来的焦虑和大规模裁员的背景下，职场权力又重新回到管理层手里，很多老板开始更强调“命令和控制”。这种变化体现在多个方面：压制员工不同意见、加强对员工的监控、削减福利，以及出台更多规定，要求员工回办公室上班，甚至限制员工如何表达个人观点、怎么穿、怎么表现。

文章也提醒，并不是所有要求员工每周五天回办公室上班的高管都是自恋者，有些要求确实有业务上的合理理由。

不过，这项研究有助于解释，为什么“重返办公室”命令已成为后疫情企业生活中的重要争议。表面上，争论的是员工在家还是在办公室工作；更深层看，它也关乎权力由谁掌握、谁失去了权力，以及管理层会如何试图重新取得主导权。

Supreme Court won’t hear Trump’s appeal of E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case

June 29, 2026 / 10:54 AM EDT / CBS News

By Graham Kates

Graham Kates is an investigative reporter covering criminal justice, privacy issues and information security for CBS News Digital. Contact Graham at KatesG@cbsnews.com or grahamkates@protonmail.com

Read Full Bio

The writer E. Jean Carroll triumphed over President Trump on Monday when the Supreme Court refused to consider overturning a jury’s verdict that he was liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

The unanimous federal jury found that a preponderance of evidence supported Carroll’s claim that Mr. Trump sexually abused her during a mid-1990s encounter in a New York City department store. Mr. Trump did not attend the 2023 civil trial, and his attorneys called no witnesses before the jury awarded Carroll $5 million.

The jury of six men and three women deliberated for less than three hours.

Mr. Trump has denied Carroll’s allegations since they first surfaced in 2019, when she went public with a book excerpt published in New York Magazine.

He has also appealed a separate federal jury’s January 2024 verdict finding him liable for making further defamatory statements against Carroll. That jury awarded her another $83 million. Mr. Trump indicated in court filings he wanted Supreme Court review of both cases.

Carroll’s attorney in the case, Roberta Kaplan, said the Supreme Court’s decision “affirms once and for all the jury’s unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll. His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today’s ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions.”

A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team called the case a “Democrat-funded” hoax. “President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again,” the spokesman said, in reply to a comment on the president’s legal defeat in the Carroll case.

blob:https://www.cbsnews.com/86160d82-a42e-4f1f-b50f-332e4015d50e

Mr. Trump claimed in his appeal of the sexual abuse case that Carroll’s claims were “implausible.” He argued testimony in the case stretched “credulity past the breaking point,” and railed against the trial judge’s decision to allow testimony from other women who alleged inappropriate sexual conduct at his hands.

Carroll urged the Supreme Court to decline to hear the appeal. She argued that Mr. Trump failed to raise any argument that would be grounds for the Court to overturn the jury’s verdict. She said the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that evidence from the other women was properly admitted at trial, and the outcome of the case would have been the same even without it.

Attorneys for Carroll said during the eight-day trial that her allegations fit a pattern, or “modus operandi,” for Mr. Trump. In addition to the two other women who described Mr. Trump suddenly turning casual confrontations into alleged sexual misconduct, the jury heard from witnesses who said Carroll confided in them after the incident. The jurors were also shown an “Access Hollywood” video clip in which Trump could be heard describing with vulgar language grabbing women’s genitals.

The Second Circuit denied Mr. Trump’s appeal in December 2024, and in June 2025 rejected a request for an en banc review, in which all the judges on the court would have considered the case.

The Supreme Court was Mr. Trump’s last hope of overturning the case.

The jury rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, though the trial judge, Lewis Kaplan, later wrote that the conclusion that Mr. Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll by forcefully inserting his fingers was an “implicit determination that Mr. Trump digitally raped her.”

想居家办公？研究：老板越自恋越难点头

2026年6月29日 21:08 / 联合早报

研究指出，有些领导反对远程办公，不只是因为担心协作或效率问题，也可能是出于自恋、控制欲，以及对地位感的需求。 （示意图／档案照片）

后疫情时代，企业要求员工重返办公室，常以促进创新、协作、企业文化和生产力为理由。一项新研究发现，部分领导反对远程办公，可能更多与自我意识、控制欲和对地位的需求有关，而不只是出于业务考量。

彭博社评论文章指出，这项名为《在办公室祭坛上崇拜我：为什么自恋型领导抗拒远程办公》的研究发现，在他们考察的各种特质中，只有“自恋倾向”能稳定预测领导者是否反对远程办公。也就是说，老板越自我膨胀、越想掌控权力和获得认可，就越希望员工回办公室上班。

在其中一项研究中，研究人员考察《财富》500强公司CEO，并以薪酬规模、年度报告中的签名大小和照片呈现方式等指标衡量他们的自我意识。

研究发现，得分越高的CEO，越可能兼任公司董事长或加入其他公司董事会，也更可能对远程办公发表负面评论。

研究人员认为，远程工作环境削弱了自恋型领导在办公室中惯用的权力符号。传统办公室里的打断发言、大声说话、强烈眼神接触、临时召集会议，以及办公室大小和座位安排等地位象征，在远程办公中都不再那么有效。员工也能通过关闭视频镜头、忽略聊天软件消息或删除电邮，掌握更多控制权。

论文指出，这会让自恋型领导觉得自己的权威受到威胁，因为权力天平似乎更偏向员工。比如在视频会议中，员工看到老板时，更可能表现出退缩、无聊或疲惫，而不是对老板感到敬畏。

彭博社评论员科维特（Beth Kowitt）指出，这项发现也呼应了过去一年半美国企业职场的变化。

在人工智能带来的焦虑和大规模裁员的背景下，职场权力又重新回到管理层手里，很多老板开始更强调“命令和控制”。这种变化体现在多个方面：压制员工不同意见、加强对员工的监控、削减福利，以及出台更多规定，要求员工回办公室上班，甚至限制员工如何表达个人观点、怎么穿、怎么表现。

文章也提醒，并不是所有要求员工每周五天回办公室上班的高管都是自恋者，有些要求确实有业务上的合理理由。

不过，这项研究有助于解释，为什么“重返办公室”命令已成为后疫情企业生活中的重要争议。表面上，争论的是员工在家还是在办公室工作；更深层看，它也关乎权力由谁掌握、谁失去了权力，以及管理层会如何试图重新取得主导权。

Supreme Court turns away Alan Dershowitz’s defamation case against CNN

2026-06-29T09:44:00-0400 / CBS News

By

Updated on: June 29, 2026 / 11:20 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz’s case alleging CNN defamed him with its coverage of remarks made during President Trump’s 2020 impeachment trial.

The dispute presented the high court with the chance to revisit its landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which set a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits against media companies. That case requires a public official claiming defamation to prove the defendant knew their statement was false at the time or demonstrated reckless disregard of its falsity, a standard known as actual malice.

Two of the justices, Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have criticized that decades-old decision, but no other member of the high court has shown an appetite to reconsider it. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case.

In rejecting Dershowitz’s appeal, the Supreme Court left untouched a lower court decision in favor of CNN.

Dershowitz’s lawsuit

In this March 6, 2019, file photo, attorney Alan Dershowitz leaves Manhattan Federal Court in New York. AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File

Dershowitz’s suit against CNN dates back to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial, which involved claims Mr. Trump abused his power and obstructed a congressional investigation. The proceedings involved the president’s alleged efforts during his first term to withhold military funds to Ukraine to pressure its government to pursue investigations that would benefit him politically.

Dershowitz served as a member of the president’s legal team during the Senate trial, and made remarks about the constitutional standards for impeachment on the Senate floor. In response to his comments, CNN published an online commentary criticizing Dershowitz’s argument, and others appearing on the network also condemned his statements.

Amid the backlash, Dershowitz appeared on CNN twice to explain and defend his argument, and the network aired his remarks in full.

Still, Dershowitz filed a $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, alleging that the network intentionally omitted a key portion of his remarks and engaged in “a deliberate scheme to defraud its own audience” at his expense.

A federal district court in Florida ruled in favor of CNN in 2023, finding that Dershowitz could not show that CNN had acted with actual malice. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed that ruling last year.

CNN, the court said, offered “unrefuted evidence” that its commentators believed their statements about Dershowitz were “fair and accurate,” while Dershowitz “provided no evidence that CNN’s commentators or producers acted with actual malice.”

Dershowitz appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing in a filing that in the six decades since New York Times v. Sullivan was decided, its protections have left the media nearly “untouchable.”

The precedent, he said, “has morphed into an impregnable fortress that protects media irresponsibility while denying public figures any remedy for egregious misrepresentations.”

Lawyers for CNN urged the Supreme Court to reject Dershowitz’s appeal. They told the justices that Dershowitz’s lawsuit targeted protected opinions or at least commentators’ interpretations of his arguments.

They also warned that New York Times v. Sullivan is a “cornerstone of modern constitutional law,” and overruling it would do lasting damage.

“The actual-malice standard is a pillar of modern First Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards the free speech necessary for self-determination in a democratic society while still ensuring effective recourse for public-official and public-figure plaintiffs,” CNN’s lawyers wrote.

英美烟草推AI降本计划 裁员5500人另转移3500岗位

2026年6月29日 21:47 / 联合早报

英美烟草宣布推进降本重组，合计影响9000个岗位。图为英美烟草公司位于伦敦的总部。 （路透社档案照片）

英美烟草公司宣布，计划通过裁员和岗位转移，将员工规模减少约20%。这家烟草巨头正继续推进一项由人工智能（AI）驱动的转型计划，以削减成本、提高利润，同时应对监管挑战和新品上市延迟。

路透社报道，英美烟草（British American Tobacco）星期一（6月29日）说，公司将裁减5500个岗位，并把另外3500个岗位转移给包括埃森哲（Accenture）在内的第三方公司，合计影响9000名员工。此次重组不包括英美烟草最大市场美国。

英美烟草生产好彩（Lucky Strike）和登喜路（Dunhill）等香烟品牌。公司预计，这项降本计划到2028年每年可新增节省6亿英镑（约10亿新元）；此前公司已设定到2027年节省5亿英镑的目标。

在英美烟草最大市场美国，新型尼古丁产品上市受到监管要求限制。包括Vuse电子烟和Velo尼古丁袋在内的新产品，须先取得监管机构许可才能销售，审批过程漫长，导致产品上市推迟，也限制了销售增长。

英美烟草今年2月曾说，新的生产力提升计划可能导致裁员。公司星期一说，多数岗位调整已向员工确认，其余协商工作将按照当地规定进行。

英美烟草推AI降本计划 裁员5500人另转移3500岗位

2026年6月29日 21:47 / 联合早报

英美烟草宣布推进降本重组，合计影响9000个岗位。图为英美烟草公司位于伦敦的总部。 （路透社档案照片）

英美烟草公司宣布，计划通过裁员和岗位转移，将员工规模减少约20%。这家烟草巨头正继续推进一项由人工智能（AI）驱动的转型计划，以削减成本、提高利润，同时应对监管挑战和新品上市延迟。

路透社报道，英美烟草（British American Tobacco）星期一（6月29日）说，公司将裁减5500个岗位，并把另外3500个岗位转移给包括埃森哲（Accenture）在内的第三方公司，合计影响9000名员工。此次重组不包括英美烟草最大市场美国。

英美烟草生产好彩（Lucky Strike）和登喜路（Dunhill）等香烟品牌。公司预计，这项降本计划到2028年每年可新增节省6亿英镑（约10亿新元）；此前公司已设定到2027年节省5亿英镑的目标。

在英美烟草最大市场美国，新型尼古丁产品上市受到监管要求限制。包括Vuse电子烟和Velo尼古丁袋在内的新产品，须先取得监管机构许可才能销售，审批过程漫长，导致产品上市推迟，也限制了销售增长。

英美烟草今年2月曾说，新的生产力提升计划可能导致裁员。公司星期一说，多数岗位调整已向员工确认，其余协商工作将按照当地规定进行。

What to know about the Newsom-linked charities reportedly caught in DOJ’s sights

2026-06-29T10:01:57-04:00 / Fox News

Both charities accepted donations from entities with business before California, including Kaiser Permanente and PG&E

By Robert Schmad Fox News

Published June 29, 2026 10:01am EDT

Newsom and wife under DOJ investigation, blames Trump

California Governor Gavin Newsom reveals he and his wife are under Department of Justice investigation, alleging political motivation by President Donald Trump.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/faaa794d-ffc8-48e9-b284-955d4dc062fb

Listen to this article

6 min

Federal investigators are probing nonprofits linked to California first lady Jennifer Siebel Newsom, putting renewed scrutiny on two organizations that conservative watchdogs and media reports have criticized over alleged conflicts of interest tied to their proximity to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political orbit.

Newsom has accused President Donald Trump’s Justice Department of launching a politically motivated “fishing expedition” against him and his wife, but the DOJ has not publicly confirmed any probe. The reported inquiries have revived questions about The Representation Project and California Partners Project, two nonprofits connected to Siebel Newsom that have received donations from corporations, tribes and other entities with interests before California state government.

While Newsom has cast the purported investigation as a political witch hunt, the DOJ has yet to publicly confirm that a probe is even taking place, though internal sources speaking to media outlets have confirmed as much. Most recently, a source speaking to the California Post claimed that the FBI was looking into Siebel Newsom’s taxes.

“The sheer amount of cash, combined with the nature and timing of government activity, is eye-catching — especially when unexpected windfalls are benefiting the contributors,” Americans for Public Trust executive director Caitlin Sutherland told the Washington Free Beacon in July 2025, around the time sources claim the probe into Newsom’s wife began. “It’s past time for this cash flow to fall under intense scrutiny.”

FEDERAL PROSECUTOR CALLS NEWSOM ‘KING OF FRAUD’ AS TRUMP LAUNCHES CALIFORNIA CORRUPTION PROBE

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, award-winning filmmaker and co-founder of California Partners Project, speaks on stage during the 2024 California Conference for Women at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, Calif., on Feb. 29, 2024.(Marla Aufmuth/Getty Images)

Siebel Newsom’s finances first came under major scrutiny in 2021 when the Sacramento Bee reported that TRP had received more than $800,000 from a dozen corporations that frequently lobby the state of California for policy concessions. The outlet also found that many of the companies that donated to TRP later received favorable treatment from Newsom.

Data analyzed by the Sacramento Bee showed that Siebel Newsom’s charity saw its revenue spike whenever her husband’s political career advanced between 2011 and 2019.

FORMER SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LEADER ACCUSED OF ‘SELF-DEALING,’ PUBLIC CORRUPTION

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and first partner Jennifer Siebel-Newsom embrace during a campaign event supporting Proposition 50 in San Francisco on Nov. 3, 2025.(Gabrielle Lurie/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Siebel Newsom pays herself directly from TRP, pulling a salary of over $160,000 a year.

TRP also cuts six-figure checks to a media production company owned by Siebel Newsom each year, tax documents show.

Newsom claims federal investigators have questioned people connected to his wife, including those affiliated with her nonprofits, as part of an inquiry involving their finances.

The California governor has called the investigation a politically motivated “fishing expedition” by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department and said he and his wife have “nothing to hide.” He said the inquiry is aimed at him because he is considering running for president and that “to get me, he’s coming after my wife.”

The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed the investigation and has declined to comment. Sources speaking to CNN on the condition of anonymity insist that the investigation was not requested by DOJ leadership in D.C. but was instigated by local officials after they received whistleblower reports.

NEWSOM’S FREE-PHONE GIVEAWAY TO STATE BUSINESS LEADERS PAID FOR BY NONPROFIT RUN BY EX-STAFFERS

Jennifer Siebel Newsom speaks at a Planned Parenthood funding bill signing ceremony.(Screenshot/Gavin Newsom’s YouTube Page)

Years after the Sacramento Bee report, the Washington Free Beacon released a follow-up investigation in 2025 that reportedly uncovered a similar pattern.

California has a unique system through which politicians can “behest,” basically request, that a given individual or organization make a contribution to a charity. Through this system, Newsom routed roughly $4.3 million to TCPP between February 2020 and March 2026.

Cross-referencing California state records and nonprofit tax documents shows that behests made by Newsom accounted for over 80% of the TCPP revenue between 2020 and 2024.

NEW EXPOSÉ CLAIMS CALIFORNIA LOST AT LEAST $180B TO FRAUD UNDER GAVIN NEWSOM

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, California’s first partner, speaks during a Gender Equity Summit in Sacramento, California, on Nov. 19, 2025.(David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Critics have pointed to several donors to Siebel Newsom-linked nonprofits that later benefited from actions by Newsom’s administration, though Newsom has denied any connection between the donations and state decisions.

Newsom made headlines in 2024 for opposing the construction of a casino project north of San Francisco, writing a letter to the Biden administration urging it to block the project, then suing the federal government when development was allowed to continue.

Just months before Newsom sent his letter to the Biden administration, however, he requested that an American Indian tribe give $500,000 to TCPP. He asked for another half a million dollars just before suing the federal government in April 2025. The American Indian tribe agreed to both requests.

EX-NONPROFIT BOSS ALLEGEDLY SWIPED $1.2M MEANT FOR HOMELESS PROGRAMS TO FUND LAVISH LIFESTYLE, DA SAYS

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks about the “Election Rigging Response Act” at a press conference at the Democracy Center, Japanese American National Museum, in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025. Newsom discussed a possible California referendum on redistricting to counter efforts to add five Republican House seats in Texas.(Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The payments are significant because the proposed casino project would have competed directly with a casino run by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria just 15 miles away.

Entities that have donated to Newsom’s family charities typically deny that their contribution had political strings attached, stating instead that they cut the checks because they genuinely believed in feminist mission statements of the groups. Multiple conservative media outlets, however, have characterized the arrangement as a “pay for play” scheme.

While, unlike TRP, Newsom’s wife doesn’t draw a salary from TCPP, the funds transferred to it at the request of her husband nonetheless provide her with resources to spend on activist causes she cares about.

JOURNALIST WHO EXPOSED ALLEGED MINNESOTA FRAUD SAYS NEWSOM, CALIFORNIA ARE HIS NEXT TARGETS

Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing GOP criticism for failing to repay a pandemic-era loan that has forced the state’s employers to pay higher taxes to help service the debt.(Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu)

The Newsoms have also been hit with allegations of self-dealing. Many of the films produced by Siebel Newsom’s enterprise are shown in California public schools, generating revenue for California’s first family by routing tax dollars to their personal enterprises.

Following the public scrutiny, Siebel Newsom’s charity appears to have become less transparent.

A TRP spokeswoman told the Sacramento Bee in 2021 that the charity discloses all donors over $5,000 on its website; however, as of publishing, no such webpage exists.

COMER TELLS NEWSOM TO ‘LAWYER UP’ AS HOUSE OVERSIGHT LAUNCHES CALIFORNIA FRAUD PROBE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom watch as Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives at San Francisco International Airport on Nov. 14, 2023, ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ week.(Frederic J. Brown/AFP)

Newsom has separately faced scrutiny over whether donors received state benefits after contributions.

After donating to Newsom, wealthy contributors have secured multimillion-dollar public contracts, access to large tax credits, favorable executive action and appointments to prestigious public posts, a 2025 Washington Examiner investigation found.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Newsom has denied any conflict of interest or quid pro quo involving donations to his wife’s nonprofits, saying of the donations in 2021, that “there’s no correlation, period, full stop. Absolutely none,” explaining that his decisions were made on the basis of policy judgement.

TRP, TCPP, Newsom’s office and the DOJ did not respond to requests for comment when reached by Fox News Digital.

Supreme Court rejects legal battle over New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers

June 29, 2026 / 11:19 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a legal battle involving New York’s now-repealed mandate for healthcare workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic.

The dispute arose after the New York Department of Health issued an emergency rule in 2021 that required all licensed healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to address the spread of the virus in medical facilities and nursing homes. State officials said the rule allowed healthcare employers to accommodate religious exemptions in certain ways, but did not permit blanket exemptions from the vaccine mandate.

The vaccine requirement was repealed as of October 2023 after the Biden administration ended the federal COVID-19 public health emergency.

A group of employees at New York healthcare facilities sought religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate, arguing that their sincerely held religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the COVID-19 shots. But their employers rejected the workers’ requests for religious accommodations and fired them.

They then filed a lawsuit against Gov. Kathy Hochul and other state officials, as well as their employers — New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Trinity Health and Westchester Medical Center Advanced Physician Services.

The workers, who are unnamed in court papers, argued that their employers’ refusal to grant exemptions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination because of religion and requires employers to make religious accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on their business.

They also said that Title VII trumps the state’s vaccination mandate.

A federal district court tossed out the case, and an appeals court upheld that decision.

The workers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allows state rules to supersede Title VII’s requirements that employers provide religious accommodations.

“State laws that are contrary to federal nondiscrimination laws must yield to the demands of federal law,” they wrote in a filing with the Supreme Court.

The former healthcare workers argued New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate sanctioned the “blanket rejection” of all requests for religious accommodations under Title VII regarding the shots, regardless of whether they were reasonable or whether the accommodations could be provided without undue hardship.

The 2nd Circuit, they said, “permitted compliance with contrary state laws to excuse noncompliance with Title VII. This cannot be the law, and the Nation’s Charter demands a different outcome.”

But the healthcare facilities argued that state law did not forbid employers from providing any religious accommodation, only “complete exemptions” on religious grounds.

The rule “did not prohibit the healthcare respondents from granting any accommodation whatsoever to petitioners. It merely prohibited the particular accommodation on which petitioners insisted: namely, a complete exemption,” they wrote in a Supreme Court filing.

Hochul and other state officials, meanwhile, told the high court that the state’s vaccine rule doesn’t prohibit all religious accommodations. Instead, it allowed employers to offer options that moved unvaccinated workers into roles that wouldn’t expose personnel, patients or nursing home residents to COVID-19 if they were infected.

“The rule thus allowed religious accommodations, albeit not petitioners’ preferred accommodation, in accordance with Title VII,” they argued in a filing. “When the rule’s scope is properly understood, this case does not present any question about the validity of a state law that, unlike the rule here, prohibits employers from providing any religious accommodations whatsoever.”

Housing bill that Trump refuses to sign heads to his desk

June 29, 2026 at 11:13 a.m. EDT / The Washington Post

House Speaker Mike Johnson is set to send a bipartisan housing bill to President Donald Trump’s desk Monday, but it is unclear whether he will sign it into law.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) speaks to the media June 11 on Capitol Hill. (Ken Cedeno/Reuters)

By Jarrell Dillard

House Speaker Mike Johnson is set to send a major housing bill to President Donald Trump’s desk Monday, starting a 10-day window during which he will have to decide either to sign or veto it.

If Trump does not take action within 10 days after the White House receives the bill, it will automatically become law, as long as Congress is in session.

The bill, aimed at boosting housing supply and lowering costs, passed both chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. But Trump said last week that he would not sign it until lawmakers take up a measure to impose new elections rules, which does not currently have enough support to pass the Senate.

Johnson said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he wants Trump to sign the bill once he sends it Monday, but the president has not publicly committed to doing so.

Trump’s boycott has complicated getting a measure into law that could bolster both Republicans’ and Democrats’ midterm messages as they seek to show voters they are addressing affordability concerns.

_Catch up quickly every weekday morning with a rundown of the 7 most important and interesting stories.Sign up for The 7 newsletter.