logo
He Thinks His City Can Solve California's Biggest Problems. Even if the Public Says Otherwise.

He Thinks His City Can Solve California's Biggest Problems. Even if the Public Says Otherwise.

Yahoo21-03-2025

SOLANO COUNTY, California — It doesn't take long, driving north from San Francisco past bay and sea, to remember just how new, in the scheme of things, this place is.
Towns become infrequent and then disappear altogether, replaced by hills, fields and farms. The land opens up in green and yellow, a reminder of a time when California was defined in the national consciousness by verdant pastures and gold-flecked creeks, rather than by crime or unaffordability.
In the mind of Jan Sramek, 38, a 6'7"-ish, Czech, new-urbanism evangelist, change comes quickly. Not so long ago, San Francisco, too, was a collection of camps and houses on an improbable spit of land at the end of the continent; Oakland, a swampy peninsula surrounded by orchards. As we built great bridges and towers, the hilly port city became the world's center of technology and innovation. It would have seemed impossible, but then it happened.
Working from a generic office park 40 miles north of San Francisco, Sramek believes it can happen again. As a child growing up in the post-Soviet Eastern bloc, Sramek became enchanted with the sparkling promise of California. And now, as an adult real estate entrepreneur, he envisions a future in which the hayfields and sleepy towns that surround him transform into a new glittering city — one divorced from the problems facing the Golden State's older models. The name of the metropolis, California Forever, is itself an ode to what the state has achieved and could still.'The modern world was basically made in California over the last 100 years, and that meant it was built with Californian values,' Sramek said. 'I think we have a responsibility to keep it going.'
It is here, in an unheralded, 27 square mile swath of semi-rural Solano County, smack-dab between Sacramento and San Francisco, that Sramek intends to prove that California can still be bold. It is here, he says, where he will cut through the state's red tape, build a model 400,000-person sustainable community, and triumphantly reestablish a tradition of dense and walkable cities dating back to the dawn of human civilization.
If, at least, California lets him.
The path has not been easy since Sramek announced his plans for a new city backed by tech luminaries, including Marc Andreessen, Reid Hoffman, and Laurene Powell Jobs. If 2023 was the year in which Sramek unveiled California Forever to the world, 2024 was a forced humbling from a wary — and often downright hostile — public skeptical of billionaire outsiders. 2025 will now determine whether Sramek's sweeping, transformational, and some argue self-serving, visions for the future are compatible with the slow-moving gears of local government.
Just last year, he failed to get approval for his new city via referendum, pitching an updated urban center that was affordable and devoid of sprawl. But polling showed voters weren't convinced of the merits, and he pulled the referendum from the ballot before it could be shot down. Now, Sramek is working with the county government to hash out the details of the plan in hopes of quelling concerns, gritting his teeth while enduring the county's rolling demands for detailed paperwork. By year's end, he will have to decide whether to go back to voters in 2026 on the whole grand vision.
This is the new stage of Sramek's quest, as he's forced to build a new city by collaborating with the systems he seems to resent most. While Elon Musk and David Sacks, Trump's crypto czar, test their ability to control Washington's machinery, Sramek faces a choice: work methodically to win over a skeptical public — or bulldoze his way through local government, public opinion be damned.
Long before Sramek pulled his initiative from the 2024 ballot, there were signs that things might not go according to plan.
At a town hall in late November 2023, Sramek stood at a lectern wearing a casual button-down shirt and a bewildered look as he was dressed down by Solano County residents.
The event in Vallejo, a working-class city of 124,000, was the first of eight such townhalls California Forever planned over the year — an early attempt at voter outreach as California Forever organizers began campaigning for a ballot measure that would allow them to rezone thousands of acres from agricultural to 'new development' and begin building their city. Backed only by renderings of colorful neighborhood scenes, California Forever's CEO seemed somewhat wrongfooted by the level of hostility of the crowd.
'I'm sick and tired of developers coming in and we don't know nothing,' a woman shouted at Sramek, as he looked on, mouth agape, during a recording of the meeting produced by ABC7 News Bay Area.
'Honestly, I'm probably more skeptical now than I was when I walked in,' a man said just before walking out.
It was far from a friendly reception, and a harsh reality check for Sramek and his tech billionaire-funded team, who projected a sense of exceptionalism from the time they arrived in Solano County.
After moving to California in the 2010s, Sramek became fixated on the idea of solving the state's housing crisis. Growth in existing cities wouldn't be enough — he needed to do something big. After spending years researching the idea, he began quietly pitching big name funders to invest in the project, which he called California Forever.
Then in 2018, he set his sights on Solano County, a region with the highest unemployment and child poverty rates in the Bay Area region. There, he thought, it was possible California Forever might find a receptive audience. The land, too, was appealing — a stretch of grazing properties that had once been identified by the Army Corps of Engineers as a future location for development.
Sramek and California Forever started quietly buying up tens of thousands of acres of land, suing residents who chose not to sell — accusing them of price fixing — and becoming, almost overnight, the largest landowner in the county. Then, in August 2023, following a New York Times exposéouting their efforts, Sramek and California Forever announced themselves to the world in a burst of near-messianic fervor.
Within the next five years, company officials declared, they would build a new city, right there in Solano County. They promised to bring jobs and cheap homes for the financially struggling region. They pledged to build hospitals and schools and water parks and sports complexes. And they would be taking the project straight to voters. A ballot initiative would allow them to eschew traditional county planning procedures, build outside of existing jurisdictions, and rewrite the zoning code to reclassify 17,500 acres of agricultural land for a community of 400,000 residents — roughly the population of Tampa, Florida. The plan was funded by the co-founder of LinkedIn, run by the one-time chief strategist for John McCain, and featured leaders of Kamala Harris's presidential super PAC.
'They just walked in and said, 'Here's the plan,'' said former Solano County supervisor Duane Kromm.
Soon, California Forever embarked on a months-long, $100-million charm offensive with Sramek serving as its lead pitchman, cajoling residents of Solano County to back a ballot measure allowing him to bypass a decades-old orderly growth ordinance restricting development outside of existing cities. The initiative was written in a way that would give the county and the public minimal oversight over the future city.
'This would solve the housing situation in Solano County and regionally,' Sramek argued at the time. 'This would fix the lack of good-paying local jobs that we have been trying to fix in Solano County for 40 years.'
By June 2024, they'd gathered enough signatures to place the initiative on the local November 2024 ballot. But by then, voters had already made up their minds. Many residents were disturbed by the lawsuits against their neighbors. Others were concerned about what the new development would mean for traffic and congestion; still others about the financial impact it would have on existing cities as well as its effect on threatened species and seasonal wetland habitat. Broadly, opposition rose from the perception that wealthy outsiders were trying to manufacture a hostile takeover of their county.
In late July 2024, sensing imminent defeat, Sramek and his team pulled their measure from the ballot, an unceremonious end to what they'd seen as a can't-fail campaign. In a joint statement with the county board of supervisors, Sramek said he would instead do what the county had originally asked: study the project, come to an agreement with administrators on a detailed development plan — and then return to voters to change the zoning code.
But even that did little to mollify critics. The enemies of California Forever grew to be vast and varied, from farmers to climate advocates to the county Republican Party. (Sramek himself is not publicly affiliated with either party.) The quasi-utopian renderings of California Forever, ultimately, only aggravated voters.
Those onlookers argue Sramek should've seen this coming — as evidenced by that Vallejo town hall in November 2023, long before the ballot measure campaign screeched to a halt. But back then, although maybe taken aback by the level of vitriol from locals, Sramek quickly shrugged off residents' concerns.
'Certain people just hate development,' Sramek told reporters after that meeting.
According to two people who have worked with Sramek, he has always been guided by extreme self-confidence bordering on hubris. Sramek frequently left meetings with local elected officials positive that everything went swimmingly, according to those two people who have worked with him. He told reporters that most people in the county did, in fact, support the project. Polling indicated otherwise.
For months, during the ballot measure campaign, his team advised him to keep a lower profile, according to former staff who were granted anonymity to speak candidly. The various perks, like water parks and hospitals, that he promised to the county were doing more harm than good, they argued. As one former employee put it, it looked like 'you are just making shit up.'
Sramek's team disputes that narrative. In an emailed statement, a California Forever spokesperson said, 'This was clearly going to be a controversial project in the beginning, and while there's always room for improvement, by the end of July 2024, a poll of likely voters in Solano County conducted by Impact Research found that 65 percent supported development in east Solano County.
'This, and the continued progress since then, is a testament to the community work and relationship-building that Jan and the California Forever team have been doing,' the spokesperson said.
Catherine Moy, the mayor of a nearby town called Fairfield, framed things differently.
'They couldn't have done a worse job with PR to start their campaign,' Moy said. 'Suing farmers that a lot of us grew up with for a half billion dollars? And it just got worse and worse from there.'
The time between the town hall in November 2023 and the ballot measure's failure seven months later seemed to be Silicon Valley's education in local California politics, a fascinating case study in what happens when visionaries and deep-pocketed investors run up against the realities of regional land-use debates. That tension, of civil servants versus disruptors, is currently defining national politics. Elon Musk is trying to dismantle American bureaucracy from the inside out. Silicon Valley tech billionaires, some of whom are also funding California Forever, are flexing their muscles in Washington in an effort to see how deregulation can benefit them and their companies.
Many of those same instincts animate Sramek's quest, and he has earned comparisons to Musk in the county and from observers. He wants to move quickly, and he's frustrated that California's regulatory structure does not allow it. Although he submitted to the hard work of environmental impact reports, traffic studies, and emissions analyses after the referendum failed, he's still not willing to accept the decade-long horizon that has become the norm for California projects.
'If we can build a bridge spanning the Golden Gate, a 400-acre island in the middle of the Bay, and a brand-new jet that will revolutionizes aviation, all in under four years, then surely we can plan a new community in less than six,' Sramek wrote to county administrators in a heated letter in late October.
'It should be entirely reasonable to get local approvals done by 2026, and shovels in the ground in 2028.'
Except, of course, it's never that easy in California.
Last summer, on a now well-traveled tour of the future city, Sramek sipped a can of flavored carbonated water while driving a Rivian truck through the vast fields and farms of his future kingdom.
It was August 2024, a challenging time for California Forever. The ballot measure had been pulled a month earlier. There was no clear path to success before voters. It seemed like the whole project could be teetering on the precipice. During the drive, as he wound through the Solano County exurbs into open space, Sramek vacillated between acceptance and being downright perplexed by the challenges posed to his masterplan.
On one hand, land use debates in California, as he put it, are 'a bloodsport.' The secretive land purchases, the intense local vitriol, the dramatic, nationally televised courtship with the county — in his view, that's just the cost of doing business in California.
On the other hand, the state has a housing crisis recognized by all levels of government. As Sramek sees things, his project would build that housing in one of the best places to do so in the state. It sits at the center of the San Francisco Bay mega-region, connecting both San Francisco and Sacramento. He said the thousands of acres his company owns in the rolling hayfields near the Sacramento River Delta is a rare Western location with no risk of fires, earthquakes or floods (although some of the land now does fall within the state's newly updated wildfire hazard zones).
For almost every criticism leveled at the project, Sramek believes he has an answer — a product of good planning and a solid year under the microscope. Water supply? The development will use what is currently going to a somewhat unproductive almond orchard to meet the needs of initial residents. Environmental concerns? Sensitive habitats, like seasonal pools where certain rare species breed, will be protected and preserved. Congestion getting into and out of the city? We've never had a problem building highways — we'll just build more.
'If you look at every state bill that has passed in California in the last 10 years, they call for a simple zoning code, walkable neighborhoods, affordability by design, sustainability and low emissions,' Sramek said. 'Everything they are calling for is in our proposal. And the bottleneck to building it is widening seven miles of highway?'
Sramek approaches his dream city with an almost fanatical intensity. In his view, California Forever is a chance to revive the type of city that has been lost to time in America. For hundreds of years, we created vibrant metropolises that were based around human movement: Athens, Madrid, London, and New York. Then, during World War II, the American wartime government issued a moratorium on new development. In the United States at least, the chain was broken, and post-war housing was built to serve the automobile. Today, many of the most desirable, dense, walkable cities are also the most expensive — and they were all built before the war. (Arguably one exception: Los Angeles, which is reasonably dense but built entirely around the car.)
That pitch of the walkable city, underscored by the odd dynamic of Sramek selling his idea while driving a $60,000 electric truck down ranch roads, is what has attracted some of the richest people in the world to Sramek's project. And however unfeasible it sounds, it is true that California Forever is not the first time that someone has conceived of a master-planned community. Celebration, Florida, the Disney-built resort community drafted in the model of quaint small-town America, sprang into being from the longleaf pines south of Orlando nearly 30 years ago. Even before that, Irvine, California was developed to escape pollution and crime in Los Angeles' urban core.
Perhaps the closest analogue to California Forever is Columbia, Maryland, a community built by a man named James Rouse in the 1960s who touted the city as a 'garden for growing people,' where residents would live, work and respect the land. Like California Forever, the land was secretly bought up through dummy corporations, leading to local rumors that it was going to be turned into a sprawling municipal dump. Like California Forever, it was announced with salvational overtones, with plans to eliminate religious, racial and class discrimination. Like California Forever, it faced initial zoning concerns. Later, it became an extremely desirable place to live.
Beyond Sramek's obvious financial stake in the city (he's put a significant sum into the project personally, although he has declined to say how much, and would make a lot of money if the city comes to fruition), he is also deeply invested in the project emotionally. Raised by working-class parents in a small town in the Czech Republic, he ultimately went on to study at the University of Cambridge and the London School of Economics and Political Science. Soon after graduating, he worked as an investor at Goldman Sachs before moving to the United States to pursue a series of start-up ventures. During his apprenticeship in Silicon Valley, he began to think about how to solve California's housing crisis. Although he first considered infill (the process of building new developments within existing cities), he quickly decided that the scale of these projects was infeasible to meet the moment. Then, slowly, the idea of California Forever began to form. That was nearly 10 years ago.
'I spent eight years of my life buying this property without knowing that this would ever work,' Sramek said. 'There are so many easier ways to make money than trying to build a new city.'
The project, officially launched in 2017, is as much a real estate play as it is a chance to prove to himself that the California he imagined as a child still exists. As Sramek put it, the culture of post-communist Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall became enamored with all things American. California, with all its glamor and ambition and opportunity, was the outward projection of that.
'There's a really unique combination of people, natural beauty, climate, diversity, and openness to innovation that just happened in California,' Sramek said. 'It's extremely sad that we are destroying it, basically by an entirely unforced error.'
As we whizzed past orchards and a small ranch house, he emphasized that the experts who support his development 'weigh more heavily than a couple of angry voters who don't know the details of the project.' He lashed out at public meetings with fuming residents as 'undemocratic'; called the economic policy of California 'self-inflicted suicide'; and the state's environmental and planning regulations a 'layer cake of bad ideas.'
'Hollywood happened here, they found gold here in the hills, then Silicon Valley happened here, and then the countercultural revolution happened here,' Sramek said. 'And then we screw it up because we can't build enough housing?'
In Sramek's view, the state is at risk of becoming something like Florence, the ancient Italian city that was once Europe's center of art and innovation and is now essentially a large, open-air museum. The decades of regulation and development roadblocks erected by California, in his view, could easily tumble the state in the same direction. You could build California Forever, with its commitments to advanced manufacturing and $30-billion private investment, or you could watch all those opportunities go elsewhere — essentially because of regulations.
'When you take 50 good ideas and you lay them on top of each other, you don't get an idea that's 50 times as good as the 50 good ideas,' Sramek said. 'You might actually get a really, really, terrible system.'
And yet, it is that system that Sramek has pledged to work within, at least for the foreseeable future. He says working with the county doesn't bother him (although his angry letters about the county's pace indicate otherwise), and that pulling the ballot measure allowed his team of engineers and city planners to work out the details without the political pressure of a looming ballot measure. California Forever leaders have insisted that the decision to pull their measure was never an admission of defeat but rather a simple reorganization of steps. Voters, they said, rightfully had questions about the project.
They promised to answer all of them over the next two years.
Then they would return to the ballot.
Last December, the grand, world-historic ideas behind California Forever landed on the desk of Solano County administrator Bill Emlen, a longtime county staffer who has been tasked with coordinating how to build America's next great city.
Emlen, who has lived in the county and worked in local government for over 30 years, epitomizes the kind of roadblock that seems to most infuriate Sramek.
'Let's face it, it's not your average development proposal,' Emlen said. 'And I don't get the sense that governmental processes are something they particularly embrace.'
According to Emlen, California Forever's initiative never gave specific timelines for when development would occur, or how it would provide services to the community. Although he sympathized with the challenges to building new housing, he said there were always few details about how the highly touted affordable city would actually be created — no clear analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, no measurement system for tracking job creation, no nothing.
After California Forever pledged to work with the county, Emlen wanted to know the answer to all those questions. And he had others, too. What about the impact on the nearby Air Force base? How would stormwater, sewage and transportation be provided? What about the loss of agricultural lands?
In an October letter to Sramek, Emlen laid out the county's needs: Submit a general plan, a rezoning plan, an environmental impact report and a development agreement. If the county and California Forever can come to an agreement, the project would still have to go before voters (presumably after having addressed their concerns).
Developers usually have reams of material as they move through the permitting process. While California Forever blamed the county for its lack of motivation to move the project forward, Emlen said that even by the beginning of 2025, he had yet to receive those materials.
'We're kind of just waiting for them to file an application,' Emlen said in January. 'They still haven't done that yet.'
It was an exponential demand on information for a team that leaned heavily on sweeping promises. Although Emlen recently announced he would be retiring at the end of March, the next county administrator will likely have similar questions.
Sramek, meanwhile, says his team is in the process of submitting all the necessary paperwork to the county, and that he welcomes questions from elected officials and the community. He argues that he has no problem doing the regulatory work that makes a city better, safer, and more sustainable. But he refuses to accept delays that he believes will entrap his project in a bureaucratic death spiral that he argues is commonplace in California development.
Edwin Okamura, the mayor of Rio Vista, a quaint river town adjacent to the California Forever property, said his conversations with Sramek have always been civil, and that it's not so different from working with 'any other businesspeople.'
'You sit across from someone you may like or dislike, and when you leave the table you say, 'OK, he's really trying to push this project,'' Okamura said. 'But you're either at the table or you're being cooked in the kitchen.'
Okamura tries to avoid the emotional aspects of the California Forever debates, and he said that if Solano County rejected all investors simply because they were rich, no development would happen at all. That being said, there's no part of him that believes Sramek's city, as currently presented, is the best way forward for the county. California Forever's success, quite likely, could come at the expense of existing cities like Rio Vista. And like Emlen, Okamura has only ever seen a vague outline of a plan, always extremely light on details.
'I think many of the ideas that they have are great, better farming methods, better ranching methods, a sustainable community,' Okamura said. 'But nothing has been proven.'
At the end of January, after a month without rain, Northern California seemed to be held in a state of suspended animation. The familiar downpours were replaced by bluebird skies and warm days.
California Forever, too, appeared to be on pause. The media attention and public developments surrounding the plan slowed to a crawl. Opponents of the project were still meeting relatively regularly, but without the intensity as during the ballot measure campaign. Sramek seemed to be getting nowhere with the county. To detractors, it appeared like David had defeated Goliath.
Then, on Jan. 30, the leaders of Suisun City, a small, 28,000-person underdog city along the train tracks, dropped a bombshell in an agenda item during an otherwise routine city council meeting: They would be working with 'regional partners' to explore expanding their city, and annexing the land around them.
Notably, the only direction the city could expand was east, directly into the land owned by California Forever. Although Suisun City council voted only to explore the possibility of annexing the land, it shocked Solano County residents who for months viewed the project as dead in the water.
Suddenly, Sramek's plan was revived.
'At only four square miles, we are Solano County's smallest city,' Suisun City manager Bret Prebula said in a statement following the council meeting. 'Now is the time to consider what more we can do to creatively grow our community and deliver more economic opportunity.'
Even when they were failing to convince voters, California Forever was always trying to woo local leadership — with little to no success. For months on end, almost no elected officials had come out in support of the project. At an event for a local elected official in 2023, Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington said she was lobbied by a representative for California Forever who demanded to know if she would support the project. (She didn't.) Meanwhile, Moy, the mayor of the nearby town of Fairfield, said that California Forever would likely try to get their supporters into office if local officials didn't get on board.
But now, it seemed like all the California Forever team's efforts had finally paid dividends with financially struggling Suisun City. It was also a potential end-run around voters. They would no longer have to work with the county. A countywide ballot initiative would no longer be necessary. Instead, the process would resemble a traditional municipal land-use project, and the annexation would only need the approval of a regional planning agency to proceed. The land they've already bought up would be incorporated into Suisun City, and California Forever could start building. It would just have a different name.
'The project would stop being California Forever and it would start being the city of Suisun. That's what was a total mind trip,' said Washington, who is the only council member who voted against exploring the annexation.
'To do this was very cunning. It's diabolical.'
Sramek and California Forever, for their part, declined to confirm any agreement with the city, saying only they would be 'open to discussion.'
The power dynamic, again, appears to have shifted. Earlier this month, Rio Vista City Council announced that they too would be exploring a potential partnership with California Forever — formally claiming their seat at the dinner table.
After Suisun City's decision, even Moy, the mayor and a frequent critic, reached out to Sramek and California Forever to discuss ways in which her city, Fairfield, could collaborate with the project. In return, she received a from the company, shared with POLITICO Magazine, outlining the negative comments Moy had made in the press about Sramek and the team, accusing her of 'brand damage' and a 'persistent campaign of slander.'
'Ms. Moy has proven herself either unable or unwilling to deal with any facts or reality,' the letter read. 'Could you please let us know how the city plans to address the brand problems Ms. Moy has created?'
The letter was nameless, signed, simply, California Forever.
It is that spirit of vindictiveness, perhaps a natural counterpoint to Sramek's fervent belief that this project must come to fruition, that has now cast a shadow over elected leaders in Solano County. At one point, it seemed that California Forever's endless resources alone were not enough. Today, it seems that they are.
'They've forced our hand,' Okamura said. 'We need to be at the table, and we need to start being more forward thinking.'
On the tour of Sramek's hayfields, it's not impossible to see the outlines of his vision. The city limits would begin here, the advanced manufacturing district there, the ring of parks and open space now here. With a little imagination, you can picture the rolling golden hills as scenic backstops for a bustling community, trails leading to a lookout point for weekend hikers glancing back down at their neighborhood, kids biking around leafy streets like all those renderings presented at town hall meetings. After all, things can change quickly out here.
It's harder to imagine, if California Forever is ultimately built, that the people of Solano County will feel like it was their decision. Should the Suisun City annexation play out as some expect, they will have watched wealthy outsiders come in and remake their county as they see fit, without ever getting to vote on it. As in Washington, Silicon Valley does not seem to be in the mood to take 'no' for an answer.
In conversations with Sramek, he seems little concerned with that eventuality — that Solano County residents will always oppose this plan, regardless of how good of an idea he believes it is.
In February 2024, Sramek said he had a conversation with an elected official privately supportive of the project who described opposition in the county as something akin to stages of grief. First, people were angry. Then there was disappointment, then bargaining. Eventually, he said, there will come acceptance.
'I pitched what I wanted to build. That's what I pitched. I talked about what I thought California could become. I talked about what I thought Solano County could become,' Sramek said, driving the car out of the fields and back toward civilization.
'The process was controversial. But I think it ended in the right spot.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What's next for DOGE after Trump's alliance with Musk collapsed
What's next for DOGE after Trump's alliance with Musk collapsed

Yahoo

time11 hours ago

  • Yahoo

What's next for DOGE after Trump's alliance with Musk collapsed

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump says the work of the Department of Government Efficiency is "not finished at all" after his relationship Elon Musk blew up in spectacular fashion. Yet whether the government-slashing DOGE will pack the same punch now that the world's richest man not only left the White House, but turned on Trump in an epic public battle, is unclear. The future of DOGE was already in limbo after Musk's four-month run as the chainsaw-wielding DOGE leader ended, especially because several other top DOGE officials exited the Trump administration alongside Musk. But then came Musk's war of words last week with Trump that ended their political alliance. Here's what we know about DOGE's direction in a post-Musk White House: In the aftermath of their fallout, Trump signaled that he's ready to move on from the Musk fight but not DOGE itself. The president told reporters on June 6 he's "not thinking about Elon" and has no plans to ask him to return his honorary White House key. Trump added on June 9 that he's not getting rid of the red Tesla car he bought from Musk ‒ but "may move the Tesla around a little bit" ‒ and said he won't ditch Musk's Starlink internet service that was installed at the White House. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill Trump declined to take a shot at Musk when asked about the former White House adviser's alleged drug use and whether he believed Musk used drugs at the White House. "I really don't know. I don't think so. I hope not," Trump said. "We had a good relationship and I just wish him well ‒ very well actually." For his part, Musk appeared to take back some of his harshest attacks, deleting a post he made on X endorsing Trump's impeachment and another alleging Trump is mentioned in undisclosed classified files related to the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump reiterated that in the wake of recent departures, the work of DOGE, which has executed widespread cuts throughout the federal government, isn't over. "We saved hundreds of billions of dollars ‒ it's terrific. And it's going further," Trump told reporters on Air Force One on June 6. More: Elon Musk's rise and fall: From Trump's chainsaw-wielding sidekick to a swift exit For four months, DOGE rapidly fanned throughout the federal government, seizing control of information technology infrastructure, axing federal government contracts, gutting the U.S. Agency for International Development and pushing out or firing tens of thousands of federal employees. DOGE is set to continue operations until the summer of 2026 under an executive order Trump signed in January. But without Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, at the helm, it's unclear if DOGE will operate with the same slash-and-burn aggressiveness. At its peak, the quasi-official agency employed more than 100 computer engineers, budget analysts and other staffers ‒ some working at the group's offices at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus and others inside various agencies and departments. More: Elon Musk escalates feud with Trump: 'Time to drop the really big bomb' Among the other top DOGE employees to follow were Steve Davis, Musk's top lieutenant who oversaw DOGE's day-to-day operations, publicist Katie Miller and DOGE's top attorney James Burnham. Miller, the wife of top White House aide Stephen Miller, has continued to work for Musk. Musk's exit as the DOGE leader came as his designation as a "special government employee" ‒ which allowed him to stay on the job for 130 calendar days a year ‒ ended. Others in DOGE's top brass were working under the same structure. Before Musk began to criticize Trump's tax and policy megabill publicly, he asked for his special government employee status to be extended beyond 130 days to allow him to continue to lead DOGE, but the White House declined, a source told USA TODAY. The White House has said no individual person will replace Musk, noting that several DOGE employees have "onboarded" as political appointees at the various agencies they've worked to overhaul. 'The mission of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is a part of the DNA of the federal government," Harrison Fields, White House deputy press secretary, said in a statement to USA TODAY, "and will continue under the direction of the President, his Cabinet, and agency heads to enhance government efficiency and prioritize responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars." Russ Vought, Trump's director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, has started to fill Musk's void as the top Trump official carrying out DOGE's stated mission of cutting government "waste, fraud and abuse." Vought, who also led OMB in Trump's first term, wrote the chapter on executive power in Project 2025, the controversial policy blueprint created by the conservative Heritage Foundation that Trump distanced himself from during the 2024 campaign. Vought uses a lot of the same language as Musk, writing in Project 2025 that the goal should be to "bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will." Vought, however, isn't calling himself the DOGE leader. Appearing June 4 before the House Appropriations Committee, Vought said the "Cabinet agencies that are in charge of the DOGE consultants that work for them are fundamentally in control of DOGE." Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin, wasn't pleased with Vought's answer. "Oh, that's an answer only a mother could love," he said. Leading up to the Trump-Musk breakup, the business mogul started leveling criticism over the trillions of dollars that Trump's massive tax and spending bill is projected to add to the deficit. In an appeal to Republican fiscal hawks, the White House and House Speaker Mike Johnson have said they want to codify the DOGE cuts, beginning this week when they hope to formally claw back $9.4 billion in spending. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters The rescissions package, set for a House vote on June 12, will include $8.3 billion in cuts to foreign aid and $1.1 billion from public broadcasting funds, including for NPR and PBS. Republican leadership is bullish that they can get the package quickly passed. They have 45 days to approve it, and it only requires a majority vote in the Senate. But it may not be so simple: Several lawmakers have concerns with the rollback of a Bush-era program to support AIDS prevention and with the impact on rural communities that rely on public media for information. Vought has said future legislative packages to enact DOGE cuts could come later if the initial rescissions package passes. Musk left the White House after falling vastly short of his ambitious cost-savings goal for the federal government. Musk had set a goal for DOGE to cut $1 trillion from the federal government by the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. He had even talked about $2 trillion in cuts on the 2024 campaign trail when he stumped for Trump. More: 'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end But DOGE's savings total posted on its website currently stands at $180 billion, which doesn't amount to even 20% of $1 trillion. And this does not even factor in potential exaggerations or errors in DOGE's calculations, which have been a recurring theme in the group's declared savings. "I did not find the federal government to be rife with waste, fraud and abuse. I was expecting some more easy wins," Sahil Lavingia, a former DOGE engineer, said in an interview with National Public Radio. Lavingia added that he believed DOGE had produced many examples of government "waste" but disagreed that DOGE uncovered mountains of "fraud and abuse" as Musk claimed. "The government has been under sort of a magnifying glass for decades," Lavingia said. "And so I think, generally, I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was. This isn't to say that it can't be made more efficient." Before he left, Musk said DOGE's next focus will be on fixing the federal government's aging computer systems ‒ something far less controversial than taking a battering ram to the federal workforce. In the meantime, some federal agencies and departments are doing cleanup work to repatch holes left by the mass exodus of federal worker departures steered by DOGE. The National Science Foundation said it was reinstating several dozen employees following a May federal court ruling that found the mass cuts by DOGE were unlawfully forced by the Office of Personnel Management. The Washington Post reported that several agencies, including the IRS, Food and Drug Administration, and even USAID, are also scrambling to rehire many of the probationary employees fired under DOGE's direction and bring back longtime federal workers who accepted voluntary buyouts. Contributing: Riley Beggin Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What's next for DOGE after Trump-Musk alliance collapse

Democrats Newsom and Bass have destroyed America's Golden State
Democrats Newsom and Bass have destroyed America's Golden State

New York Post

time15 hours ago

  • New York Post

Democrats Newsom and Bass have destroyed America's Golden State

It is only five months since California last burned down. That happened while Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was away on a foreign jaunt, and Governor Newsom took the brilliant opportunity to have himself photographed as his state burned. You'd have thought that the complete destruction of the Palisades and the loss of billions of dollars of property in the most destructive wildfire in Los Angeles's history would have focused minds. Perhaps someone would even have taken responsibility for the water hydrants that had no water? But no — five months later both the mayor and governor are still in place. Advertisement And now their state is burning once again. This time the cause is even more man-made. If you're a politician seeking to avoid blame you can always blame wildfires as simply an act of God, lament the problem and move on. But when the fires are as man-made as these latest ones — and encouraged — well then it's different. Advertisement The fact is that the unrest, car-burnings, Apple-store lootings and more that have overtaken California in the past week can be placed firmly at the door of California's leadership. Newsom has been Governor of California since 2019 and since he came into office everything in his state has got worse. His attacks on the rich, insane lockdown policies and encouragement of lawlessness have meant that his state has seen a record exodus. In 2020 alone, some 725,000 people left California. The next year some 692,000 Californians called it a day. And in 2022 a staggering 818,000 people left his state. Advertisement Newsom inherited the most prosperous state in the Union. A state that is also one of the most beautiful in the country. But he has made sure that life in California has become increasingly less livable. Not least by chasing out the people who have been following the rules and welcoming in people who break them. Like Mayor Bass, he likes to talk about the importance of California being welcoming to immigrants. But in doing so they make sure that there is no difference between immigrants who have paid to follow the rules and come to this country legally and the millions of people just in recent years who have broken into the United States illegally. Advertisement Newsom and Bass insist that California is a welcoming state, and that to threaten the security of one Californian is to threaten all. But why should there be zero difference between someone who has made it to California by following all the rules and an illegal migrant who broke the law to come to the US and (in the case of at least half a million people here illegally) got a criminal record while being here? If I was a left-wing do-gooder on the make I think I'd try to draw the clearest possible line between those two things. But not Newsom and Co. For the nation's richest state it should be a source of shame that California has the highest rate of poverty of any state in the union. In 2021, California's poverty rate was 11%. After just one more year of Newsom the poverty rate rose to 16.4%. Another year of him and by 2023 the state's poverty rate was a disgraceful 18.9%. Meaning that almost a fifth of people living in California were living below the poverty line. And then there is the homelessness problem — the most visible example of California's deep sickness under Newsom and Bass. Today there are almost 200,000 people in California who are living homeless. You can call them 'unhoused.' you can say they have the 'right to rest' or any number of other get-outs, but if you escape from the language games the left loves to play that is a disgrace. Today the single state of California contains almost a quarter of the total homeless population of the USA. There are some 45,000 people in Mayor Bass' Los Angeles alone. Advertisement That is the result of California's Democrat leaders own choices. After all, if you declare yourself a sanctuary state, and welcoming to all — whatever the nature of their arrival in this country — you may make yourself look kind and welcoming. But you will also create exactly the conditions that now exist in Los Angeles. You'll see the routine lawlessness, lack of public safety, open drug use and the massive costs that ordinary taxpayers then have to pick up. In the past five years alone a modest estimate suggests that California has spent a staggering $24 billion on homelessness programs. Advertisement This means that ordinary Californians pay in every imaginable way for the policies of their state. In the same way that New Yorkers have to pay through increased crime, lawlessness and housing costs (among much else) for the policies that Kathy Hochul has brought to New York. Policies that Hochul proved utterly incapable of defending when she was questioned by Rep Elise Stefanik in Congress today. Like Newsom, Hochul hopes to dodge the consequences of her own policies. And so they double-down. Advertisement After federal agents, the National Guard and then the Marines were sent into Los Angeles to quell the rioting, Governor Newsom sent straight for his lawyers to get the troops out of his city. As if he had it so well under control until the National Guard came in. Today he again condemned the arrival of the troops who are stopping the lawlessness in his state. According to Newsom the arrival of troops is 'unconstitutional,' 'madness' and 'theater.' Apparently hitting a cop for the cameras isn't theater. Standing behind a podium and pretending that the detention of violent foreign criminals is an attack on every Californian is also apparently not theater. Advertisement But try to address the lawlessness and put it down? Apparently that is the real problem in the eyes of Newsom and Bass. Well everyone who isn't a deranged open-borders activist can see who the real actors are here. The National Guard and the Marines, like the beleaguered LA police, are trying to put out the fires. Perhaps the once-Golden State's political leaders could stop starting them?

Venezuela's opposition leader: Democratic transition would unlock billions in investment
Venezuela's opposition leader: Democratic transition would unlock billions in investment

Miami Herald

time15 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Venezuela's opposition leader: Democratic transition would unlock billions in investment

Unveiling a sweeping reconstruction plan for a post-Maduro Venezuela, opposition leader María Corina Machado told a group of international allies, investors, and civil society partners that the country stands on the brink of historic change — and called on the world to support its transition from dictatorship to democracy. 'This is very exciting,' Machado said during a video conference organized in New York by the Americas Society/Council of the Americas. 'The potential is huge, not just for the Venezuelan people, but for democratic governments across the hemisphere and investors who understand what's possible once we reach a democratic government.' Widely seen as the face of Venezuela's opposition, Machado delivered her remarks from an undisclosed location in the country. She went into hiding following the contested presidential election in July, amid a sweeping crackdown by the Nicolás Maduro regime that has led to more than 2,000 arrests of dissidents and opposition figures. Though the regime declared Maduro the winner, polls show that nine out of ten Venezuelans believe opposition candidate Edmundo González won the election by a 2-to-1 margin. Many countries, including the United States, have publicly rejected the official results, describing the election as fraudulent. Machado, a close ally and political mentor to González, said the Maduro regime is now more isolated than ever, noting diminishing support from traditional allies like Russia, Iran, and Syria. China, she added, has grown increasingly frustrated after being misled and financially harmed by the regime. 'China wants its debts repaid,' she said. 'But they're not taking new risks in Venezuela. They're investing in Guyana instead.' Machado also pointed to growing fractures within Venezuela's military and ruling elite. 'Nobody wants to go down with a sinking ship,' she said. 'And that's exactly what Maduro's regime is.' She described Maduro not merely as an autocrat, but as the head of a transnational criminal organization. As long as he remains in power, she warned, no meaningful economic or political progress is possible. 'Companies operating in Venezuela today are forced to partner with a criminal regime that offers no transparency, no legal protections, and no real opportunities,' Machado said. 'There is no way forward under Maduro.' Yet her message was ultimately one of hope framed around what she called a 'win-win' future: the collapse of a dictatorship, the rebirth of a nation, and a unique opportunity for shared prosperity across the Americas. Machado spoke of a country transformed by hardship. After years of repression, economic collapse, and mass migration, she said Venezuelans are now united not by ideology, but by shared values. 'There is no other society in the world today as united as the Venezuelan people,' she said. 'We've transcended religious, racial, and class divides. What unites us now are dignity, work, family, and freedom.' Rather than food or financial aid, she said, Venezuelans are asking for just three things: trust, dignity, and the chance to work. 'And that's what we are going to offer.' She also addressed the Venezuelan diaspora directly, calling them essential to the nation's reconstruction. 'Our diaspora is extraordinary,' she said. 'They've suffered, they've learned, they've built global networks—and they are desperate to come home.' Education, she added, will be central to the country's revival. 'It's my passion and my obsession,' she said. 'And soon, we will see our schools flourish again.' Machado praised recent U.S. sanctions — including the revocation of oil licenses — as vital in tightening the financial noose on Maduro's inner circle. She urged further action to cut off the regime's illicit income streams, including drug trafficking and gold smuggling. Addressing international investors and energy companies, Machado promised a new Venezuela grounded in the rule of law and open to serious, long-term partnerships. 'We want you here,' she said. 'Not producing a couple hundred thousand barrels a day—but millions. Venezuela will become the energy hub and the most reliable supplier in the hemisphere.' She pledged a transparent debt restructuring process and a return to international financial markets. 'Creditors know they won't be paid under Maduro,' she said. 'We will.' Her message was clear: A post-Maduro Venezuela is not only a moral cause—it is a historic economic opportunity. In closing, Machado returned to the theme of unity and the resilience of the Venezuelan people. 'We are a different society now,' she said. 'We've endured the worst—families torn apart, loved ones disappeared. But we've learned. We value freedom, justice, and dignity more than ever before.' 'This is the moment to act,' she added. 'We are ready to rebuild. We want to bring our children home. And we want to do it with you.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store