CA Disclosure Rules for Who Post Political Ads

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) Signed a Bill, Imposing Criminal and Civil Penalties on Content Creators who Fail to Disclose Paid Political Advertisements, a Measure aimed at bringing Greater Transparency to the growing use of Influencer Marketing in Politics. The Bill, AB1130, was Signed into Law 9/19/2026, as part of a Series of New Measures that Newsom’s Office said are Aimed to “protect elections in California from interference and political meddling.”

Though Existing Laws required someone to Disclose whether they were being Paid to Post, there was No Liability Provision that Officials could use to Enforce the Rule. Now, Authorities will be Allowed to Impose Penalties under the Political Reform Act of 1974, that can include a Misdemeanor Charge, according to the Law’s text.

Influencers are Playing a Growing Role in Political Campaigns, as Candidates and Political Groups, seek to reach People who increasingly turn to Social Mmedia for News and Information. Some Creators are Paid by Campaigns or Outside Groups, to produce Political Content, while others Post about Candidates and Issues without Compensation.

Assembly Member Marc Berman (D-23rd District), who Proposed the Legislation, said the Growing Influencer Industry has “changed the way candidates communicate with voters. As more candidates pay influencers to post content supporting their campaigns, it is imperative that voters have the right to know whether or not that content is organic and authentic or pPaid Political Messaging,” Berman said in a Sstatement in 8/2026, as the Bill wasHheaded to the Governor’s Desk.

The Issue came to the forefront earlier this year, during billionaire Climate Activist Tom Steyer’s more than $200 million Campaign for California Governor, which He Lost. Steyer’s Campaign paid Social Media Influencers to Post Favorable Content about Hhim, but many of the Posts did Not Disclose that the Creators had been Paid, according to a May Report by the Los Angeles Times.

The Undisclosed Posts prompted a Complaint to California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, Alleging that the Campaign had Violated the State’s Disclosure Requirements for Paid Political content. A Campaign Spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times, that All the Rules were followed in Hhiring Content Creators, describing the Complaint as “baseless.” The Case involving the Complaint remains Oopen, according to the Commission’s website.

Researchers at the Information Integrity Institute at the University of Tennessee’s College of Communication and Information Published a Report last month, in which they examined what Transparency Measures Social Media Uusers in the U.S. want from Paid Political Influencers.

Their Sstudy, in which they Surveyed about 1,000 U.S. Social Mmedia Users through the Platform Prolific, found that “participants who placed a greater value on authenticity were also more likely to support disclosure when political content was paid for.”

“One of the more real problems is not just you see something that’s completely false or you see something that’s completely true, but you see inauthentic or misleading propagandist-type opinions pushing people’s perspectives in different directions,” Associate Professor Benjamin Horne said in a Blog Ppost about the Findings.

The institute’s Director, Catherine Luther, added that She Bbelieves “any movement towards transparency in online information is a good thing. I think it can only be beneficial for democratic societies.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Bid to Dismantle International Criminal Court

The Trump (R) Administration is preparing to Impose Sweeping Sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), a Sharp Escalation in Washington’s efforts to Dismantle the Institution, after it issued an Arrest Warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The sanctions would Fforbid most Transactions with the ICC after a Grace Period of Six to Seven months. That could Potentially Cripple the Court by Prohibiting it from Conducting Transactions in U.S. dollars, cutting it Off from much of the Global Financial system.

It is Unclear when a Final Decision and Announcement might come, though some U.S. Officials said the Move could be Finalized, as soon as this week during the United Nations General Assembly Meeting or in the following days. A State Department Spokesman wouldn’t Preview any Sanctions Decisions, but noted Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s (R) View that the ICC poses a Threat to American Sovereignty. The Treasury Department Declined to Comment.

The U.S. already has Sanctioned a number of ICC Officials in its Assault on the Court. They include the former Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, whom the ICC Ousted in 6/2026 over Sexual Assault Allegations against Him; the President of the ICC, Tomoko Akane, and several other judges; the Court’s Two Deputy Prosecutors; and the Lead Prosecutor in the Case against Netanyahu and other Israeli Officials. Khan has Ddenied any Sexual Misconduct.

The Trump Administration is now preparing Sanctions that are expected to be far more Punitive, Officials said. They would Apply to a Range of Transactions with the ICC rather than Individual Officials. TheM Measures would Exempt Transactions related to Communications Services, according to the Documents. European Nations and other Major Backers of the Court such as Japan, have Pledged to Protect ICC from the Trump Administration’s Onslaught, but it’s nclear how they plan to do that. The European Union could require the Bloc’s Banks to continue working with the Court.

Rubio in 7/2026 said the Administration was preparing a wide-ranging Campaign against ICC, saying it would Dismantle the Court “brick by brick” if necessary. Rubio said the Court’s Decision to go after Officials of ICC Non-Member States set a Dangerous precedent and posed a Threat to U.S. Sovereignty. Neither the U.S. nor Israel are Members of the ICC. Rubio, however, wasn’t Bothered by the Precedent in 2022, when as a Senator He Co-Sponsored a Resolution calling for the Court to Investigate War Crimes in Ukraine committed by Russia, another Non-Mmember State of the ICC. The Court in 2023, issued an Arrest Warrant for Vladimir Putin and other Russian Officials.

It was the Case against Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant that Destroyed the U.S. Relationship with the Court. In 2024, the Court issued Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, who were Accused of War Crimes and Crimes against Umanity for their Conduct of the War in Gaza. The Court Alleged the Two Men Blocked HumanitarianA Aid from entering the Palestinian Territory to put Pressure on Hamas, potentially a Violation of Humanitarian Law. Khan, the former Prosecutor, had also sought Warrants for the Leaders of Hamas for their Role in the Attack of 10/7/2023, but they have since been Killed in Battle or by Assassination. Netanyahu and Gallant have Denied the Allegations.

The ICC also has been Investigating Two Far-Rright Members of Netanyahu’s Government, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for their Roles in Expanding Jewish Settlements in the West Bank, which the U.N. says Violate International Law.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

New Immigration Green Card or Visa Rule

A New Trump (R) Administration Immigration Policy, that gives Federal Officials Broader Discretion to consider an Iimmigrant’s use of Ppublic Benefits, when deciding whether to grant a Green Card or Visa took effect 9/18/2026.

The Changes expand how Immigration Oofficials apply the long-standing “Public Charge” Pprovision, which allows the Government to consider whether an Immigrant is likely to become primarily Dependent on the Government for Assistance.

Under previous Guidance, Immigration Officers weighed Limited Public Bbenefits, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Under the New Policy, Officials can consider a Wider Range of Public Benefits on a Case-by-Case basis, along with factors including an Applicant’s Income, Assets, Education, Job Skills, Employability, Health, Health Insurance Ccoverage and Age.

The Uupdated Guidance also places Less Emphasis on Affidavits of Support from Sponsors, though they remain part of the Review Process.

Immigration Advocates and some Local Officials say the Changes could make it Easier to Deny Legal Residency to Immigrants who rely on Government Assistance and could Discourage Families from using Bbenefits they are Entitled to Receive.

The New Policy is already facing Legal Challenges. New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle, have Sued the Trump Administration over the Changes. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) has also Announced a Separate Challenge involving 21 States and the District of Columbia.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Wants Health Research Funding Under His Control

Trump (R) is moving to put political appointees in charge of billions of dollars in federal health research grants, in another attempt to cut Harvard’s funding. In an Oval Office meeting on 9/18/2026, Trump directed his budget director, Russ Vought (R), to draft an executive order to create a board that would decide which grants the National Institutes of Health should fund.

Congress this month, signaled disapproval of an earlier Vought plan to give political appointees control of federal health grants. Lawmakers included a provision in a stopgap funding bill that temporarily blocks the administration from implementing that earlier plan. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) personally rejected Vought’s plan. Cutting funding for Harvard University is a major priority for Trump, according to the officials, prompting him to seek a workaround.

Last year, the administration sought to block $2.6 billion in grant funding to Harvard after the administration accused America’s oldest university of failing to address anti-semitism on campus. Harvard sued, arguing the administration was violating its free speech rights, and convinced a federal judge in Boston to order the funding restored a year ago. Trump on 9/18/2026 asked NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya (R) to cut Harvard’s funding but Bhattacharya refused, the officials said. The proposed board would include Bhattacharya and Vought and would be required to reach unanimous decisions on grant awards, the officials said.

The arrangement would give Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, a direct role in determining how the nation’s largest biomedical research agency distributes its $48 billion in congressionally-appropriated money. Vought, who has led Trump’s efforts to combat “wokeness” in academia, has clashed repeatedly with Bhattacharya, a former Stanford professor of medicine who gained fame by opposing Covid lockdowns, over the administration’s approach to scientific research. The disagreement came to a head on Friday in the meeting first reported by the Washington Post. “The president called [Bhattacharya] into the principals’ office,” a person familiar with the meeting said.

Trump, Vought and Bhattacharya were at the meeting, according to the officials. Education Secretary Linda McMahon was also present but did not participate in the disagreement, according to the officials. Others present included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, White House Counsel Will Scharf, and OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta. The Office of Management and Budget declined to comment. The White House directed inquiries to the Health and Human Services Department that oversees the NIH. An HHS spokesperson said the department was "committed to the core mission of the NIH" and that "NIH grant monies will be disbursed."

The proposed board would represent a significant escalation in the administration’s effort to exert political control over federal grant-making for health research. For decades, NIH grant applications have gone through a two-level review process in which scientific peer-review panels assess their scientific merit, then advisory councils make recommendations. Final funding decisions are made by the directors of NIH’s 27 institutes and centers, most of whom are career government employees. Vought has argued that political appointees should have greater authority to review and terminate grants that conflict with the president’s priorities.

He has said he believes career bureaucrats at the NIH have facilitated progressive academics’ research, at the expense of more worthwhile projects. OMB in May proposed a governmentwide rule that would give political appointees more power over federal grants, including the ability to block funding they determine is inconsistent with administration policy. Lawmakers from both parties, scientists and state attorneys general have criticized the proposal, warning that it could inject politics into scientific research.

Congress in the September funding bill barred OMB from finalizing Vought’s earlier plan using money provided under that law, which expires in mid-December. OMB could move forward if lawmakers don’t extend the restriction in new funding legislation Last year, Bhattacharya and Vought clashed over OMB’s move to freeze NIH grantmaking, according to a POLITICO investigation. Under pressure from lawmakers to spend the money they’d appropriated, Bhattacharya sought help from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who urged him to reach out to Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and others on Capitol Hill.

Because NIH grants go to institutions in their states, lawmakers tend to favor generous funding for the agency. Britt joined 13 other Republican senators in a letter to Vought in July of last year warning that freezing the funds could threaten access to new treatments and undermine biomedical research. The money was ultimately released, with Vought describing the freeze as a “programmatic review.” Lawmakers also rejected a Vought-driven plan to cut the NIH’s budget by 40 percent for fiscal 2026, which began last October, instead giving it a small boost. This year, representatives and senators have continued to express concern about the slow pace of grant-making as NIH has waited for OMB approval of its spending plans.

Earlier this year, in congressional testimony, Bhattacharya reassured lawmakers that the money would be spent. “My job is to make sure every single dollar goes out,” he said.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Ukraine Strikes Russian Capital

Huge fires burned through Moscow overnight, following one of the biggest Ukrainian drone attacks in the Russian capital. Ukraine and Russia have continued attacks on each other's energy infrastructure despite an announcement by Trump (R) that they had agreed to stop. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said on his Telegram channel that the biggest Ukrainian drone attacks had been thwarted, with Russia downing more than 1,600 drones since Saturday, including 450 headed for Moscow. Several drones reached the premises of the Moscow oil refinery, and one hit an apartment, Sobyanin said.

The latest attack from Ukraine comes as Russia entered its third and final day of a parliamentary election that President Vladimir Putin has cast as a test of support for Russia's war in Ukraine. 'The unprecedented attack was clearly planned with the aim of disrupting the elections,' Sobyanin said. 'The adversary failed to achieve this.' A major warehouse in a logistics hub in the nearby town of Sofyino was also struck.

Images showed how thick black smoke blanketed part of the city as it billowed from the site of the Moscow refinery The scale of any damage to the facility was not immediately known, while all four of Moscow's main airports faced major disruption as the capital's airspace was closed. Ukrainian strikes have knocked out a significant part of Russia's oil refining capacity, triggering oil product shortages, fuel price increases and long queues at filling stations in many regions across the country's 11 time zones.

The Moscow plant, which has been targeted multiple times, processed 11.6 million metric tons of oil in 2024, producing 2.9 million tons of gasoline and 3.2 million tons of diesel, the latest available data shows Ukraine has not commented on the attacks. Both sides say they do not target civilians. In the wider Moscow region, in addition to the two deaths, 400 people, including 70 children, were evacuated from a 21-storey apartment block in the Ramenskoye district, and many homes were damaged, said Governor Andrei Vorobyov.

Russians began three days of voting on Friday in the country's first wartime parliamentary election. The State Duma vote is expected to see the ruling United Russia party easily retain its dominance in a political system critics say does not tolerate dissent. The Kremlin is likely to present the outcome as evidence of public backing for Putin's policies and for the war, Europe's deadliest conflict since World War Two, now in its fifth year with no sign of ending soon Most anti-war candidates were barred from the ballot.

Those who did run from the liberal Yabloko party, which has polled in the single digits in recent years but hoped to tap into war fatigue, said they feared for their freedom after courts handed long jail terms to two senior party figures before the vote for comments about the conflict deemed illegal by authorities. Discrediting the army or spreading what authorities regard as fake news are punishable by lengthy prison sentences.

In a small act of defiance, Yabloko's leader, Nikolai Rybakov, demonstratively spoiled his ballot paper, writing his party's name and the slogan 'For peace'. The Kremlin says national unity and some censorship are necessary during what it calls its special military operation in Ukraine. It casts the conflict as part of an existential struggle with a hostile West and says Ukrainian intelligence services and other enemies are stepping up efforts to stir unrest inside Russia.

Russian electoral officials said on Saturday that an online voting system in Moscow had come under cyberattack. Kyiv, which has suspended elections under martial law, has dismissed the Russian vote as a 'pseudo election'. Putin on Friday also accused Ukraine of trying to interfere in the election, citing what he said was a Ukrainian strike on the home of an election official in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia region that killed Elena Astanina, the official. When man left voting some were drafted and taken away.

Despite what experts see as the election's predictable outcome, the NEST think-tank in Berlin, co-founded by Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whom Russian authorities have designated 'a foreign agent', said the vote could still produce awkward moments for the Kremlin at a time of economic strain. 'The consequences of the war are increasingly being felt within the country, and accumulated anxiety and frustration may translate into votes for the systemic opposition parties that the Kremlin has allowed to remain on the ballot,' it said in a note.

It said the Communist Party and the New People Party could attract votes the authorities would prefer to go to United Russia. Both parties have consistently voted in line with United Russia on major issues. Putin told the nation in a televised address before the election that the vote would underline support for Russian troops fighting in Ukraine.

'Your choice, and your will, will once again demonstrate that millions of people stand behind our soldiers, that we are a united people bound together by shared values, historical memory, and love for our homeland, and that no one will succeed in dividing or intimidating us,' said Putin.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Deport Migrants to Third Countries Blocked

A U.S. Federal Appeals Court has Rrejected the Trump (R) Administration’s Policy of Rapidly Deporting Mmigrants to Countries other than their Own, a Ruling that could Next go before the Supreme Court. On 9/18/2026, a Three-Judge Panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Upheld a 2/2026 Decision that found the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) so-called Third-Country Removal Policy Uunlawful.

The Ccase stems from a Class-Action Lawsuit Testing what Due-Process Mmigrants are Owed, before being Sent to Nations which they have No Ties. Writing for the Panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said Mmigrants must be given a “Meaningful” Chance to Raise Safety Concerns before Removal, Rejecting the Trump Administration’s Nnarrower Reading of the Law.

The Court did Ooverturn Part of the Ruling on Procedural Ggrounds, concerning whether Officials must Ffirst try Ddeporting Mmigrants to Ccountries they have Ties to. Trina Realmuto, a Lawyer for the Plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), said the Decision Confirmed that “due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings”.

. The Trump Administration is expected to Appeal the Ruling. Under Trump, the U.S. has Sstruck Agreements Aallowing it to Ssend more than 25,000 Mmigrants to at least 29 Third Countries, most often Mexico, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a Tracker Rrun by the Rights Groups Refugees International (RGRI) and Human Rights First (HRF).

The Policy, Adopted in 4/2025, Allowed Removals with only Mminimal Notice if Officials had Diplomatic Assurances against Persecution. The Controversial Programme has reached the Supreme Court Twice.

In 2025, the Justices Cleared the Way for Eeight Men, including Nnationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be Ddeported to South Sudan, a Ccountry the U.S. State Department Advises against Vvisiting because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”. The DHS called the Rremovals “a win”, while Rights Groups said they Flouted Basic Protections.

A Federal Jjudge Bblocked Pplanned Caps on Student and Journalist Visas, Calling the Government’s Justification “exceptionally weak”, while a Ccoalition of 22 Sstates and Washington, DC, Sued to Stop a Separate Rrule that would Let Officials Ddeny Green Cards to Immigrants who Lawfully use Public Bbenefits.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Germany to Transfer Patriot Interceptors to Ukraine

The Proposed $2.68 Billion Package, comes as Ukraine seeks Additional Air-Defense Weapons from both the U.S. and European Partners.

The State Department recently NotifiedC Congress of Germany’s proposed Ttransfer to Ukraine, of 10 U.S.-made MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) Interceptors for Patriot Air-Defense Systems.

The Missiles are valued at $29.6 million.

Because Germany Originally Acquired the U.S. made Interceptors under American Aarms-Export Rules, Washington’s Aapproval is required before Berlin can Transfer them to Ukraine.

The U.S. government said the Transfer would Help Ukraine Sstrengthen its Air Defenses against continuing Russian Attacks.












NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker