博客

What to know about America.gov, the Trump administration’s new AI-driven services website

2026-09-29T17:29:34.575Z / CNN

The Trump administration thinks the federal bureaucracy is way too complex for Americans to navigate — and it believes that artificial intelligence can help.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled America.gov, a government website meant to serve as a one-stop shop for people trying to accomplish basic tasks like renewing a passport, enrolling in Medicare or applying for disaster relief.

The site, which launched with some basic functions ahead of a full rollout next year, is designed to serve as an AI-powered guide through the thicket of government agencies that Trump officials pledged would ultimately save people a whole lot of frustration.

“You’ll now have one front door for every single question,” Trump said during a speech at the America.gov launch event. “A digital home built around your time, your life.”

In a slew of presentations on Tuesday, Cabinet secretaries showed off hypothetical ways to use the site, touting its ability to accomplish tasks — which traditionally required hours of navigating multiple federal websites — in a few clicks.

But the real test will come when Americans begin using the site en masse, especially as the administration races to hit its early 2027 deadline for delivering on its loftiest promises.

Here’s what we know about America.gov so far:

The administration’s new initiative aims to allow Americans to access dozens of federal websites through a single point, making America.gov akin to a search tool that pulls information from across the government.

And in the same way that people increasingly use AI models like ChatGPT or Google Gemini to compile information and provide customized answers, Trump officials claimed that America.gov would be able to do the same for people’s interactions with the federal government.

Enrolling in Medicare, for example, will become a matter of typing the request into the America.gov AI tool and following its step-by-step instructions. The same goes for applying to a government job — the new tool will now let people upload their resume directly to the site — or answering questions about federal benefits, publicly available documents or other necessities that fall under the federal government’s vast umbrella.

“Our vision is that one day, this type of convenience and simplicity will be across every government service,” said Joseph Gebbia, who leads the government’s National Design Studio.

What Americans can do and when

Trump and his top officials on Tuesday stressed some of the more ambitious capabilities tied to America.gov, such as applying for a passport in a few easy steps.

But the reality is that the most advanced actions won’t be available until some point in 2027, raising questions about how long it will take for the administration to revamp the way the people interact with the government’s websites.

The current version of America.gov can only do “answers,” Gebbia said, essentially serving as a sleek version of a traditional search engine that returns only information available across the federal ecosystem. So while it can lay out the steps required to renew a passport, or change your last name after getting married, it can’t do those tasks for you.

Trump officials say that will change in the first months of 2027, when they roll out more advanced features that enable AI to effectively complete complex actions on your behalf. That will be the case with renewing a passport, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in his presentation, as he walked through a simulation of a future America.gov site that allows an applicant to submit their personal information, upload a photo and then track the passport’s approval and shipment.

Across the rollout, Trump and his aides repeatedly marveled that prior administrations had not sought to simplify Americans’ main source of interaction with their government — one widely seen as irritating and time-consuming.

Trump during his speech said officials had been building America.gov since the beginning of his term. But the timing of the rollout just before the midterms also serves a political purpose, attempting to show how Trump is improving Americans’ lives at a time when polls show most voters believe his agenda hasn’t delivered for them.

“Somebody said it’s going to be the single biggest thing you’ve done in government,” Trump said. “I said, ‘I don’t think so, but it’s damn good.’”

The initiative also represents an effort to demonstrate tangible benefits of AI at a time when most Americans are deeply skeptical of the technology — and by extension, questioning the administration’s close embrace of the fast-growing AI industry.

The America.gov rollout came just hours before Trump was due to meet with top tech executives to discuss some of those concerns, including the slew of recent security breaches caused by AI that have prompted even some of the top tech companies to float the need to slow down development of their models.

Trump again brushed off those concerns during his presentation, pointing to the new federal site as evidence that AI is capable of delivering far more benefits compared with its potential drawbacks — and making the case for continuing to press the accelerator regardless of the growing calls for caution.

“We have to constantly improve. We don’t improve, then everyone’s going to catch us,” Trump said. “We do not surrender to fears about what technology will do to us. We decide that those technologies will do for us some very, very incredible things.”

Supreme Court allows Trump to restart controversial deportations to countries they have no connection to

2026-09-29T19:08:26.079Z / CNN

By John Fritze

Updated 2 min ago

Updated Sep 29, 2026, 3:31 PM ET

PUBLISHED Sep 29, 2026, 3:08 PM ET

Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to restart its program of removing migrants to countries other than their homeland without giving them an opportunity to raise human rights concerns, and said it would hear arguments in the case later this year.

The decision marked the third time the high court has allowed the Trump administration to enforce that effort on a temporary basis.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented from that decision.

But while the Trump administration can continue the program now, the court also said it would hear merits arguments in the case this December, adding a high profile immigration appeal involving the Trump administration to its docket. A decision is expected by July.

The administration launched the policy last year as part of its crackdown on immigration. The United States has at times faced difficulty attempting to deport migrants to their home countries if the leadership in those countries declines to receive them. President Donald Trump’s answer to that problem was to deport those migrants to some other country, even if the migrant had no ties to the destination.

An estimated 25,000 migrants have already been removed under the policy.

It drew scrutiny last year after immigrant rights groups revealed that one group of migrants, initially bound for South Sudan, were being detained in Djibouti. Those migrants were held in a converted Conex shipping container.

The Supreme Court set three defined questions to decide on the merits, including whether the district court that ruled against Trump had jurisdiction to resolve the case, whether it had authority to decide it for the entire class of people affected and whether the Trump administration’s policy is lawful. It also said the Trump administration could propose “other questions” it deemed appropriate.

The court did not explain its reasoning in a brief, unsigned order. And the three liberal justices who would have blocked the policy also did not write to explain their position.

Trump filed an emergency appeal on September 24 seeking to pause a decision from the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals that effectively blocked the removals. The administration had argued that time was of the essence because the appeals court decision had “created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations.”

The Supreme Court had already reviewed the policy at an earlier stage of the case last year and allowed it to continue over the dissent of the three liberals – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court then sided again with the administration in a case involving a specific group of migrants that had been held for several weeks on a military base in Djibouti.

The Justice Department, in its appeal, complained that lower courts had “tripled down” with rulings against the policy despite the repeated Supreme Court decisions allowing it. The administration said the latest decision had caused “chaos” and “required a new round of diplomatic engagement” after it was required by the court order to cancel flights carrying dozens of migrants.

But the groups representing the migrants noted that the lower courts had entered a final judgment in the case, which is different from the earlier preliminary decisions that reached the Supreme Court before. The high court’s decisions on its emergency docket are not final decisions on the merits of the case, even if they offer an indication about which way the court is leaning.

The legal question at the center of the case revolves around the Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1994, that generally bars deportation or extradition to countries where there is a possibility that the migrant might be tortured. The law is vague about how an administration is supposed to make that determination and what process rights are due to the migrant at issue.

Lower courts have found the law requires notice to the migrant and demands that officials give the person an opportunity to raise a credible claim of fear that they might be tortured. The Department of Homeland Security said it is enough that officials have received blanket assurances from the country that no one deported there will be tortured.

“Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals,” attorneys for the migrants told the Supreme Court. “Rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

Drug cartel kingpin among targets in sweeping Trump crackdown on alleged Mexican corruption network

September 29, 2026 12:29pm EDT / Fox News

Treasury Dept targets powerful Sinaloa cartel leader, network accused of funneling fentanyl through the US-Mexico border

By Morgan Phillips Fox News

SOUTHCOM video shows a strike killing 4 suspected narco-terrorists in the Caribbean

SOUTHCOM carried out a lethal strike on a go-fast boat along a known trafficking route. Chief Gen. Francis L. Donovan says Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere will

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/drug-cartel-kingpin-targets-sweeping-trump-crackdown-alleged-mexican-corruption-network

Listen to this article

5 min

FIRST ON FOX: The Trump administration is seeking to disrupt with a sweeping set of sanctions a sprawling Sinaloa cartel network accused of corrupting Mexican officials just across the U.S. border.

Los Mayos, a powerful faction of the Sinaloa cartel, and its U.S.-born leader are accused of funneling fentanyl and drug money through California and hiring hitmen to kill rivals on American soil.

The Treasury Department, according to material exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital ahead of their public release on Tuesday, will sanction 21 individuals and 25 entities in a crackdown against Los Mayos and their alleged illegal activity within U.S. borders.

The targets of the sanctions include Ismael Zambada Sicairos, known as “Mayito Flaco,” a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen born in Anaheim, California, whom Treasury describes as the “undisputed head” of Los Mayos.

MEXICAN GOVERNOR FACING US DRUG CHARGES SEEKS LEAVE JUST ONE DAY AFTER RETURNING TO OFFICE

The Treasury describes U.S.-born Ismael “Mayito Flaco” Zambada Sicairos as the “undisputed head” of the Sinaloa cartel’s Los Mayos faction following the arrest of his father, longtime kingpin Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia.(U.S. Department of the Treasury)

The action lays out how one of Mexico’s most powerful cartel factions allegedly maintains its grip on two critical trafficking corridors along the U.S. border — through political and police corruption, money laundering and violence that Treasury says has extended into Southern California.

It also exposes what Treasury describes as deep cartel penetration of government and law enforcement in Baja California, the Mexican state bordering California.

The Treasury says Sinaloa-linked “narco-corruption has reached the highest levels” of the state government, alleging that the ex-husband of Gov. Marina del Pilar Ávila Olmeda used his political influence to protect cartel operations and that a former Mexicali public security chief accepted bribes to allow the cartel to exert control over municipal police.

The allegations shed new light on a controversy that erupted last year when the U.S. revoked the visas of both Ávila and her then-husband, Carlos Torres Torres.

The State Department revoked Torres’ U.S. visa in May 2025 over what Treasury now describes as his “cartel affiliation and work on behalf of the Sinaloa cartel.” Olmeda’s U.S. visa was also revoked around the same time, though U.S. officials did not publicly disclose a reason for the action against her.

The Department of War also played a role in the effort through Joint Interagency Task Force-Counter Cartel, which works with federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies and Treasury to identify cartel financial and facilitation networks.

“These sanctions reflect the impact of sustained interagency collaboration and intelligence fusion in identifying and disrupting the networks that enable violent transnational cartels,” Brig. Gen. Maurizio Calabrese, director of JIATF-Counter Cartel, told Fox News Digital.

Calabrese said the task force contributed analysis and operational insight on cartel-linked financial and facilitation networks to support the broader effort behind the sanctions.

POTENTIAL SECURITY THREAT PROMPTS US TRAVEL SUSPENSION FOR BORDER CITY ON ALERT

Treasury also alleges the cartel’s reach extended directly into California.

Lorenzo Castillo Maldonado, an associate in Mayito Flaco’s network, allegedly hired hitmen on the cartel leader’s orders to kill rival cartel members in Southern California. Another part of the network allegedly worked with complicit Southern California money exchanges to collect bulk cash from U.S. drug sales and move the proceeds back to Mexico.

The sanctions are aimed in part at disrupting Los Mayos’ grip on the Tijuana and Mexicali “plazas,” strategic corridors Treasury says the cartel uses to move fentanyl and other narcotics into the U.S.

A Treasury Department chart maps the leadership and financial network surrounding Ismael “Mayito Flaco” Zambada Sicairos, whom Treasury describes as the “undisputed head” of the Sinaloa Cartel’s Los Mayos faction.(US Treasury Department)

“Today’s action underscores that no cartel kingpin, corrupt Mexican government official, or financial facilitator is beyond the reach of Treasury’s authorities,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. “Our message is clear: the Trump administration will identify and disrupt any cartel actor who threatens our security or the integrity of our financial system.”

The designations effectively cut the targets off from the U.S. financial system, blocking property and assets under U.S. jurisdiction and generally barring Americans from doing business with them. Foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions for sanctioned individuals could also face U.S. sanctions.

At the center of Tuesday’s action is Mayito Flaco, who Treasury says has emerged as the undisputed leader of Los Mayos following the July 2024 arrest of his father, longtime Sinaloa cartel kingpin Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia.

SINALOA CARTEL BOSS ‘EL MAYO’ SENTENCED TO LIFE, ORDERED TO PAY $15B IN DRUG TRAFFICKING PROFITS

El Mayo’s arrest set off a violent struggle between Los Mayos and Los Chapitos, the Sinaloa faction led by sons of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. Treasury says the two factions remain locked in a costly internal war that has forced both sides to rebuild their leadership and alliances.

Baja California Governor Marina del Pilar Avila Olmeda displays a banner with the phrase ”Hasta Siempre Presidente” as she leaves the inauguration ceremony of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum at the San Lazaro Legislative Palace in Mexico City, Mexico, on October 1, 2024.(Jose Luis Torales/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Mayito Flaco, 44, was born in Anaheim in 1982 and later filed a U.S. name change to Fernando Sicairos Aispuro, according to Treasury. He was federally indicted in California in 2014 on drug trafficking and money laundering charges and remains a fugitive in Mexico.

The Treasury says he now commands Los Mayos’ drug trafficking, murder, extortion, corruption and kidnapping operations.

The sanctions also target Torres’ brother, Luis Alfonso Torres Torres, whom Treasury accuses of collecting bribes and laundering illicit funds through companies and political campaigns.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Former Mexicali Public Security Director Pedro Ariel Mendivil Garcia is also being sanctioned. The Treasury alleges Mendivil accepted bribes from Los Rusos leader Juan Jose Ponce Felix, known as “El Ruso,” in exchange for allowing the cartel to exert control over municipal police, facilitate drug trafficking and carry out enforcement operations.

Thune to ramp up midterm campaign stops as Senate Republicans push to hold on to majority

2026-09-29T14:57:00-0400 / CBS News

Washington — Senate Majority Leader John Thune is set to travel to several states with key Senate races in the coming weeks as the GOP fights to hold on to its majority in the upper chamber.

Thune will travel to North Carolina on Thursday, with stops to follow in Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, Ohio and two visits to Iowa, he told CBS News in an interview. He also said he would be making some fundraising swings. Politico first reported on Thune’s travel plans.

“I’ve told all our candidates if it’s useful, if I can come in and help you in any way, I will,” Thune said in his office near the Senate floor. “If it’s not, I won’t, and I’m fine with that.”

The majority leader traveled to Georgia last week to campaign with Rep. Mike Collins, who’s looking to unseat Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in the Peach State. And he cited fundraising events he attended in New York earlier this week, as he gears up for a heavier travel schedule after the Senate leaves town later this week.

“If it’s a fundraising event, sometimes if that’s helpful, if it’s a media event — we did both down in Georgia with Mike Collins,” he said. “I said, I’ll do whatever I can to help the team, and if that’s just staying out of the way, I’m fine with that.”

Thune has taken criticism from the party’s right flank and, at times, President Trump, over his assessment of the chamber’s ability to pass the SAVE America Act, an elections-related bill that the president and his allies have pushed in recent months. The South Dakota Republican told reporters during the primaries that his endorsement might not be helpful to certain GOP Senate candidates.

“Is it useful or not? Probably in most cases, not in primaries,” Thune said Tuesday. “But now we’re in a general election setting.”

Senate Republicans have been sitting on a massive war chest to blanket the airwaves in the weeks before the midterms. The Senate Leadership Fund and affiliated groups announced in August more than $500 million raised to support their candidates. The fundraising efforts come as Senate Republicans are trying to defend their majority, with 53 seats in the chamber. And despite a map that appeared favorable to the GOP heading into the cycle, a number of states that were not previously in play for Democrats have grown increasingly competitive as the unpopular war with Iran drags on and affordability issues remain top of mind for voters.

At the moment, Thune sees the outlook for Senate Republicans as a “jump ball.”

“I think we’re in position to preserve our majority, depending on how some of these close races break. And sometimes you don’t know that for sure, but I think we’re as well positioned as we can be because we’ve got, these are all margin-of-error races, and historically we’ve outperformed polls,” Thune said. “It’s 35 days out or thereabouts. Right now, it could go either way, and I just think it’s going to come down to how we execute on the homestretch.”

Lone GOP senator blocks bipartisan effort to prevent Trump from demolishing Kennedy Center

2026-09-29T18:37:38.616Z / CNN

By Morgan Rimmer

PUBLISHED Sep 29, 2026, 2:37 PM ET

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on September 19, in Washington, DC.

Graeme Sloan/Getty Images

A bipartisan effort aimed at protecting the Kennedy Center from demolition was blocked on the Senate floor Monday night by a lone Republican senator.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah objected to passage of a bill stipulating that any presidential memorial designated by an act of Congress — including the Kennedy Center — could not be demolished without congressional approval.

Supporters of the bill attempted to pass it via a fast-track process known as a unanimous consent request. But any single senator can object to such a request.

Sen. Mike Lee speaks during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in on September 29 in Washington, DC.

Win McNamee/Getty Images/File

The move comes after President Donald Trump was photographed earlier this month reviewing a poster that appeared to read “Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED,” hours before his administration told a judge the Washington arts institution had to be closed due to “structural deterioration.”

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced the bill. GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Sens. Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse and Chris Van Hollen also sponsored the measure.

“Trump believes that if he can’t take over and name it after himself and wipe Kennedy’s name off of it, no one can go to perform and no one can go to listen to someone perform. In fact, the building must not remain standing,” Merkley said on the Senate floor Monday.

He added that the bill is “standing up for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the fact that we are a republic, and standing up for the fact that our nation wept at the assassination of John Kennedy, and this is a memorial that we go to to remember him.”

Lee objected to the measure and to further debate on the bill, without giving a statement on his opposition. CNN has reached out to Lee’s office for comment.

Supreme Court lets Trump resume third-country deportations

2026-09-29T19:09:22.378Z / Reuters

Summary

Policy is key tool in Trump’s immigration crackdown
Migrants are deported to countries where they have no ties
Rights groups say 25,000 migrants sent to 29 “third countries”
Lower courts ruled Homeland Security policy is unlawful

Sept 29 (Reuters) – The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump’s administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to ​show the harms they may face, bolstering a tool his administration has used for rapid expulsions as part of his immigration crackdown.

The justices granted the ‌Justice Department’s request to put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy’s ruling that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy to remove migrants to so-called third countries is unlawful, while the administration appeals the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Misinformation Monitor newsletter rounds up international misinformation narratives, with a “Real or Fake?” quiz in every edition. Sign up here.

More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy implemented last year, according to a tally by human rights groups, with the vast majority going to Mexico.

The ​policy is one of a number of measures the administration has taken in its pursuit of Trump’s goal of mass deportation. The Republican president has enforced a ​sweeping crackdown on immigration — among his top priorities — since returning to office last year.

The administration has carried out third-country deportations to politically unstable ⁠South Sudan, which the US State Department urges Americans to avoid due to the risks of crime, kidnapping and armed conflict, as well as Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic, and ​other nations.

The Supreme Court previously sided with the administration in the legal challenge, suspending a preliminary order that Murphy issued earlier in the case halting the removals. In another win for the ​administration, the Supreme Court subsequently lifted limits the judge had imposed to protect a group of men from being sent to South Sudan.

The case began in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security moved to step up deportations of migrants who cannot be returned to any country listed on their deportation orders.

The policy provided that migrants could be swiftly removed without notice to third countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurance ​that they will not persecute or torture the individuals. For countries that have not provided such assurance, deportees would be notified of their destination and US authorities would assess ​the likelihood of persecution or torture only if the individual raises such fear on their own.

Immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal ‌to third ⁠countries without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.

In February, Murphy ruled that the policy violates immigration law procedures and due process protections under the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.

In an emergency filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said third-country deportations are “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.”

But both Murphy and critics of the administration said the policy is also ​targeting migrants who had been granted legal protection ​from being sent back to their ⁠home countries.

The policy has resulted in deportees being unlawfully transferred by third countries back to their home countries from which the US had already granted them protection, while others have been beaten, sexually assaulted, detained or have disappeared, the plaintiffs said in a court filing.

The administration ​is ignoring “the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime US residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard ​to the persecution or ⁠torture they face there,” the plaintiffs said.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the judge’s ruling on September 18.

The case has been hotly contested since it began, and included findings by Murphy that the administration “repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate” his orders. Murphy in 2025 found that the administration had violated another order he issued requiring additional steps before attempting to ⁠send a group ​of migrants to South Sudan.

More than a dozen UN human rights experts have written to the US government urging ​a halt to policies that they said on Monday were putting migrants at heightened risk of abuse, including torture and persecution, by deporting them to third countries.

“At gravest risk are children, women, persons with disabilities, victims of ​trafficking, LGBT persons, human rights defenders, stateless persons and other people in extremely vulnerable situations,” they said, without documenting individual cases.

Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

A Google co-founder is spending $100 million to defeat California’s wealth tax. It could become one of his best investments

2026-09-29T16:00:41.567Z / CNN

Google co-founder Sergey Brin has funneled just over $100 million to a group trying to defeat a one-time state tax on California’s billionaires this November.

That seems like a lot of money, except Brin’s net worth – estimated around $270 billion, top five globally, according to Bloomberg’s billionaires index – means he’d face a nearly $14 billion hit under the tax, which proposes a 5% charge on the total assets of state residents with a net worth over $1 billion.

In those terms, $102 million for a chance to avoid the trouble seems like a decent investment ahead of California voters heading to the polls in November.

The battle over Proposition 40 has become one of the most expensive political fights in the country. Groups opposed to the measure have spent nearly $100 million on ads to reach voters, with most of their funding coming from Brin and other billionaires who oppose the tax.

The efforts from Brin and other Silicon Valley leaders are just the latest sign of escalating political activity from a new generation of megadonors, who have begun to deploy fortunes minted over the tech boom of the last two decades in attempts to shape public policy.

The wealth tax’s ultimate fate could affect the political fortunes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is widely expected to launch a 2028 presidential bid and has publicly said he’ll vote no on Prop 40, and whoever succeeds him – with the two candidates in the race, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, scheduled to participate in CNN’s gubernatorial debate Wednesday night, also having expressed opposition.

Tech and corporate leaders have threatened to move their residences, and even their businesses, out of California if the measure passes – potentially depriving the state of crucial jobs. Proponents, however, say the tax would be a critical counter to federal funding cuts to public programs.

The outcome of the referendum could also ripple across the remaining 49 states. There’s growing bipartisan backlash to tech and billionaires from an American public concerned about data centers, AI job losses and wealth inequality, who could see the tax as a model to try elsewhere. But red and blue states alike could also be interested in making a pitch for industry titans to relocate there if the measure passes, despite that growing tech animus.

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, did not respond to a request for comment from Brin, who sits on Alphabet’s board and has become central to the company’s AI efforts.

If approved, Prop 40 would allow the state to collect a one-time 5% tax on taxpayers and trusts valued at $1 billion or above. It would affect anyone living in the state as of the start of this year to prevent the wealthiest Californians from moving to avoid the tax.

“It’s too late to leave now,” said Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a key architect of the tax. “Because the ballot was announced in late November 2025, it left only one month for billionaires to leave. And we chose that design because we believe, based on the tax experts, that it’s basically impossible to sever residency with California within one month.”

Proponents say it’s a necessary response to federal health care spending cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which they estimate leaves a shortfall of about $20 billion per year for California moving forward, threatening the state’s Medi-Cal program. They estimate the wealth tax could raise $100 billion, enough to cover the shortfall for about five years.

“Providers in places with vulnerable populations that depend a lot on Medicaid are going to be hit especially hard,” said Brian Galle, another professor at UC Berkeley who helped draft the language for Prop 40.

Polling on the tax suggests a potentially close vote. A UC Berkeley IGS poll last month found 48% of likely voters in favor, and 41% opposed. Another poll from the Public Policy Institute of California this month found that 52% of likely voters would vote yes on Prop 40 after reading the ballot title and label.

While labor unions and progressive organizers push for the measure – which advocates note would target a total of just over 250 individuals with net worths over $1 billion – there are some powerful opponents.

Newsom explained his opposition in a Substack post after the initiative made the ballot, sympathizing with its creators but advocating instead for “a true minimum tax on billionaires” at the national level. He also noted that Prop 40 would not address other state budget needs like housing, childcare or education.

“We can’t let a single advocacy organization, however well-intentioned, write the state’s tax code on its own terms,” he wrote.

Opponents of the measure argue it could harm the state where they built their businesses and fortunes. Brin, who was born in Moscow, compared the tax in a rare comment to The New York Times to the society he fled as a child.

“I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating, oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union,” he said. “I don’t want California to end up in the same place.”

He has emerged as one of the largest financial backers of the effort to block the tax.

According to state campaign finance records, he donated $102 million over the last year to the group Building a Better California, which has booked more than $50 million in ad time per AdImpact data.

The group is supporting a pair of rival initiatives, Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, that would limit the scope of new state taxes. If either measure passes and receives more votes than Prop 40, it could supersede the wealth tax. Building a Better California also says it supports measures to expand access to affordable housing in the state — at a time when the AI boom has contributed to surging housing costs in the San Francisco area.

Building a Better California is also among the top funders of the main “No” committee opposing Prop 40.

A cohort of other wealthy Californians also shelled out millions in the effort to block the tax, including venture capitalist Peter Thiel; John Doerr, chairman of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins; and Patrick Collison, CEO of the digital financial services company Stripe, according to campaign finance records.

That financial firepower has enabled the coalition against the wealth tax to reserve nearly $100 million worth of ad time this year, according to AdImpact data, against only about $100,000 in ad support in favor of the tax. Proponents have also spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars on get-out-the-vote efforts and campaign literature, according to Meghan Finegan, a representative for the “Yes” campaign.

With their airtime, opponents are running waves of ads urging voters to reject the tax, using a variety of arguments. Some ads, appealing to blue California’s broadly liberal electorate, note that Planned Parenthood and several non-healthcare unions oppose the wealth tax.

The bill targets California’s billionaires’ assets (with some exceptions) rather than just their incomes, given that many in Silicon Valley opt to take minimal salaries and maintain most of their wealth in the form of stocks, property and other assets. That could subject them to intrusive probing of their assets and encourage wealthy business leaders to leave the state, said Robert Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable.

“We already have all the highest taxes in the country — gas taxes, income taxes,” Lapsley said. “To create and implement an asset tax on top of that is going to drive, and is driving, the job creators that we have in this state out of here.”

Brin’s spending on the wealth tax marks the latest example of his rightward shift in both political engagement and spending — a move that other prominent tech leaders have also made in recent years as Republicans largely champion a more hands-off approach to tech regulation.

During Trump’s first administration, Brin protested the president’s travel ban on immigrants from several Muslim-majority countries, noting his own experience as an immigrant.

But there’s been a notable pivot since Trump’s reelection: Brin attended Trump’s second inauguration, dined with other tech leaders at the White House during the current administration and last year donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican National Committee. While he initially backed a pro-tech Democratic candidate in California’s gubernatorial primary this year, he also threw his financial support behind Hilton, a Trump-backed Republican.

Leaders like Brin “continue to see themselves as outsiders, young guns who aren’t part of the system,” who hope they can convince Californians that they’re all on the same side building for the future and to oppose the wealth tax, said University of Washington historian Margaret O’Mara, who tracks the tech industry. But Silicon Valley leaders’ longtime techno-optimist values are running up against an American public that is increasingly skeptical of tech’s influence on their lives.

Saez, one of the architects of the tax, also sees the fight having a broad impact.

“Prop 40 is going to be, if it passes, I see it as this historical turning point,” he said, adding that the tax could become a model for other states, “the first time when democracy succeeds in fighting back against billionaires.”

Supreme Court revives Trump’s third-country deportation policy for now

2026-09-29 3:34 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily allowed the Trump administration to resume its policy of sending some deportees to countries where they have no ties, while agreeing to hold arguments over the controversial practice.

The high court agreed to pause a February order from a federal district judge that said immigration authorities must give deportees more due process before removing them to so-called third countries. That decision was largely upheld by a federal appeals court earlier this month.

The lower courts said migrants are entitled to notice and the opportunity to challenge their removals before immigration officers attempt to send them to countries that are not their own. But the Trump administration has argued those decisions have prevented the Department of Homeland Security from “efficiently removing aliens,” including those with criminal records.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the government’s request for emergency relief.

The high court’s decision paves the way for the Trump administration to continue relying on a March 2025 policy that allows officials to send deportees to third countries, without notifying them of the destination, if such nations provide the U.S. government blanket assurances that they will not persecute or torture the deported migrants.

In addition to granting the Trump administration’s request for emergency relief, the Supreme Court said it will hold arguments in the case in December. It asked lawyers for the Justice Department and migrants challenging the third-country-removal policy to be prepared to address several questions, including whether it violates federal law, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause or regulations.

A decision from the court would likely come by the summer of 2027.

blob:https://www.cbsnews.com/d722250a-28f3-4340-b1fa-fc84e7ba60b0

James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, cheered the decision and urged people in the U.S. illegally to self-deport.

“In our second Supreme Court victory in less than a week, DHS’s third country removal policy is back in effect,” he wrote on X. “A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike. It’s not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home.”

Over the past year and a half, the Trump administration has persuaded several dozen countries — mainly in Africa and Latin America — to accept groups of deportees from the U.S. who are citizens of other nations. The arrangements, which have been largely shrouded in secrecy, have allowed U.S. officials to send deportees from countries like Cuba, Colombia and Venezuela to African countries, as well as migrants from Asia and other parts of the globe to Latin American nations.

Some third-country deportees have been sent to notoriously dangerous nations like the Central African Republic and South Sudan. In Liberia, deported men and women from Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela told CBS News they only learned they were getting deported to Africa hours before the deportation plane took off — or in the middle of the flight.

The Trump administration’s efforts to remove migrants to third countries are part of a broader immigration crackdown pursued by President Trump in his second term. The Justice Department told the Supreme Court last week that as a result of the lower court decision blocking the third-country removals, the Department of Homeland Security had to cancel a flight to three countries for 70 migrants, some of whom have criminal records.

The administration estimates that the policy has led to the deportations of “thousands” of individuals in recent months, with “thousands more” eligible to be removed to third countries.

与阿斯顿马丁续约延长F1生涯 阿隆索：还不是退役时候

2026年9月29日 22:34 / 新明日报

阿隆索放弃退役的想法与阿斯顿马丁续约，意味着明年7月年满46岁的他将继续征战F1。 （路透社）

（路透电）世界一级方程式赛车（F1）车队阿斯顿马丁于星期二（9月29日）正式宣布，与45岁的两届世界冠军阿隆索（Alonso）完成续约。这名F1现役年纪最大的车手将与同样延长合同的队友兰斯·斯特罗尔（Lance Stroll），连续第五个赛季搭档出赛。

阿隆索此前曾公开坦言，自己正在考虑在当前赛季结束后离开F1，并可能转战其他赛车系列赛。尽管阿斯顿马丁始终劝说阿隆索在2027年继续留队，但这名西班牙车手直到星期二才正式确认，他将在2027年继续征战F1。

阿隆索在阿斯顿马丁发布的一段视频中说：“我拥有一段不可思议的职业生涯，走遍了世界各地，征战了超过23年，参加了超过400场大奖赛，而我所取得的成就，甚至超过了我曾经的梦想。我花了一些时间才做出这个决定，但现在我的想法已经非常清楚了。

“我会从一级方程式赛车中退役——但不是现在。我依然觉得自己很快，依然充满动力，也依然对F1和赛车运动充满热情。所以，我非常高兴还能继续征战赛车运动的最高舞台，继续做这件已经成为我生命一部分的事情。”

阿隆索曾于2005年和2006年效力雷诺车队（现已更名为阿尔卑）期间两度夺得世界冠军，他于2023年加入阿斯顿马丁车队，迄今已为车队八次登上领奖台。然而，车队本赛季在已进行的15站比赛中仅拿到由阿隆索贡献的三个积分，在11支车队中排名第10。

阿斯顿马丁锁定双车手阵容

在宣布阿隆索将留队至2027年的同时，阿斯顿马丁也确认了车队老板劳伦斯·斯特罗尔（Lawrence Stroll）之子兰斯，将继续留在车队效力。

劳伦斯说：“兰斯和阿隆索一直是我们发展历程中至关重要的一部分，我们很高兴确认他们将继续与我们携手开启车队的下一个篇章。拥有两名具备如此丰富经验、敬业精神和专业知识的车手，为整个团队带来了巨大的价值。

“我们的目标是赢得胜利。尽管短期内我们仍专注于提升赛车性能，但我相信我们拥有实现长期目标所需的世界级人才。”

兰斯将在2027年迎来个人第11个F1赛季，自2019年首次加入车队以来，这名加拿大车手已完成超过200场F1正赛，拥有三次领奖台完赛记录。

美证交会前主席：中国模型对美AI企业构成重大挑战

2026年9月29日 23:35 / 联合早报

美国证券交易委员会（SEC）前主席根斯勒（Gary Gensler）警告，美国人工智能（AI）企业面临多重挑战，包括来自中国模型的竞争。 （彭博社档案照片）

美国证券交易委员会（SEC）前主席根斯勒（Gary Gensler）警告，美国人工智能（AI）企业面临多重挑战，包括来自中国模型的竞争，以及可能出台的安全限制措施。

据彭博社报道，根斯勒星期二（9月29日）受访时，以OpenAI模型今年较早时攻破科技公司Hugging Face安全防线的事件为例，指出AI存在安全风险。他认为，尽管可以设置安全防护措施，但与中国的竞争使应对这些风险变得更加复杂。

AI业界领袖本月较早时曾呼吁放缓最先进模型的开发，但这一提议很快遭美国总统特朗普否决。特朗普随后也反对通过国际协议为AI设置安全防护措施的倡议。

谈及特朗普将外界对AI的担忧斥为骗局，根斯勒说：“这确实是一项挑战，我知道总统称它为骗局。在这一点上，我与总统意见不同。”

根斯勒也质疑美国AI企业的营收是否与庞大投入相称。他指出，尽管美国在AI领域处于领先地位，美国企业仍有可能采用中国企业的模型。