How did California’s gerrymander work out? Better than Texas’

To win control of the U.S. House, Democrats needed to secure at least 218 seats. By Wednesday night, the party won at least 240 — picking up more than two dozen additional seats, and flipping the Senate too.

A year ago Democrats were far less confident they could pull off the blue wave. Back then, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — at the urging of the Trump administration — carried a gerrymander to create five more Republican districts in his state. It threatened to stack the deck against Democratic gains.

Gov. Gavin Newsom counter-punched with his own bid to draw five more seats for California Democrats, Proposition 50.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

In the end, however, it wasn’t necessary — and some Prop. 50 critics say it did a disservice for democracy in general.

As CalMatters’ Maya C. Miller and Nadia Lathan explain, at least five of California’s nine-member Republican delegation suffered losses. It’s not clear yet whether California Democrats could have gained those seats anyway without the gerrymandering, but the party would have had enough to flip the House regardless.

Meanwhile, the partisan redistricting didn’t work out so well for Texas: GOP lawmakers drew five Republican-leaning seats and lost all but one of them.

Click here to read the full article at Cal Matters

What we’re watching today: 14 props, Congress in the balance

Election Day is here and it’s an exciting one. Tonight we’ll start to learn which party controls Congress in the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term, whether Californians want to tax billionaires and if Democrats will continue a run that dates to 2010 of winning every statewide office.

We have reporters all over the state and we’ll be posting updates all day and night. Here are a few stories we’re watching:

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

  • How is voting going? As of Monday, more than a quarter of all ballots, or 26.44%, have been returned, according to the voter data firm Political Data Inc. That’s 3 percentage points higher than the November 2022 midterm election, when 23.34% of ballots were returned a day before Election Day.
  • Will contested ballots count? The Trump administration for weeks has been trying to set aside about 20,000 California ballots, alleging that some of them went to noncitizens. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied the administration’s request to sequester the ballots. That’s a win for California officials who found flaws in the administration’s data and argued the Constitution grants to states the power to oversee elections.
  • What are Newsom’s poll watchers up to? Gov. Gavin Newsom will deploy 134 election attorneys to five congressional districts to preempt what the Democrat describes as potential election interference by federal monitors. The attorneys will be in the Sacramento area, the Central Valley, Orange County and San Diego and will stay “as long as necessary,” reported The Sacramento Bee. “We’re not screwing around, nor is (Trump),” said Newsom last week on a late-night show when he announced the plan.
  • What’s going on in the East Coast and Midwest?: House Republicans’ narrow lead could flip this election, and it could happen before Californians are done voting. Eighteen races in Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and other states are considered tossups, and Democrats would need to secure 218 seats to eke out a slim majority. Flipping the Senate would be a taller order, and the party would need to nab four more seats for a majority.
  • Will there be a ‘red mirage?’: For close races in almost every major election, early returns show Republicans winning or faring better than expected. Then as more votes are tabulated, Democrats pull ahead. It happens in California too, reports CalMatters’ Ryan Sabalow, like during the June Los Angeles mayoral race. But that so-called red mirage wasn’t because California Democrats were rigging the election, but rather Republicans were turning in their ballots earlier and the state, like usual, took a long time to tally votes. This election might be a little different though, as Democrats have been returning their ballots earlier both in California and in other states.

We’ll be posting live updates all day so come to CalMatters for the latest news.

One more thing, if you haven’t voted — or know someone who is still making up their mind — there’s still time to check out our voter guide.

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters

California 2026 Midterms: Key races to follow

California’s midterm elections, held under new district lines from Proposition 50, could shift the House balance. Key races include the gubernatorial contest.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Key races across the state could shift the balance of power in the House, as these are the first Midterm elections held under the newly drawn congressional district lines approved under Proposition 50.

 The top-of-the-ticket race in California is for the next governor, as Democrat Xavier Becerra faces off against Republican Steve Hilton.

Becerra told ABC10 he wants to make housing more affordable so working families can buy homes and retire in California. His top priorities would be building more housing, protecting access to healthcare, and expanding education, including preschool programs.

Becerra represented Los Angeles in Congress for two decades before being appointed California attorney general in 2017. During that time, Becerra led several California lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s first administration and Republican states. Becerra was also the U.S. Health Secretary under President Joe Biden.

Hilton told ABC10 he’s running because California has become too expensive and hard for small businesses. His first-year priorities include lowering vehicle registration costs, gas prices, electric bills, and making people’s first $150,000 tax-free.

Hilton, a British American, served as senior adviser to former conservative U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron from 2010 to 2012 before moving to California, where he co-founded a Silicon Valley political crowdfunding platform.

Beyond the statewide races, several Congressional races are up for grabs as the voter-approved Proposition 50 lines could lead to several seats switching party affiliation.

Major Races

  • Governor: Xavier Becerra (D) vs. Steve Hilton (R)

Becerra and Hilton advanced to the general election after finishing in the top two of a heavily contested primary in June. A main ideological sticking point between them is how to navigate the state’s relationship with the Trump Administration.

Read more on the Governor’s Race here.

  • Lieutenant Governor: Fiona Ma (D) vs. Gloria Romero (R) 

Ma and Romero are running to replace outgoing Eleni Kounalikis, who’s now seeking the State Treasurer seat.

The Lt. Governor’s main duties are to serve as acting governor when the governor leaves the state and to take over the role if there is a vacancy. The role also includes serving as President of the State Senate and breaking tie votes, which is rare in California given the Democratic supermajority.

Click here to read the full article at ABC News

14 California lawmakers are posting not-so-secret instructions on how to attack their opponents

Some candidates for the California Legislature are increasingly using a controversial tactic that experts and watchdog organizations say appears to flout the state’s campaign finance laws.

A CalMatters’ survey of legislative race websites found at least 14 candidates have detailed campaign messaging packaged on their websites in ways that make it easy for independent expenditure committees to use in advertisements.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The technique, known as “red boxing,” is being increasingly used in the absence of oversight from state regulators.

CalMatters found at least three instances in which outside groups made digital campaign ads that mirrored the packaged messaging on candidate websites. Under state campaign rules, ads made “at the behest” of official campaigns are presumed to be “coordinated” spending — not independent expenditures — and may illegally exceed campaign finance contribution limits.

In one example, a section in a red box on Assembly candidate Jessie Lopez’s website says “Democratic and (No Party Preference) voters should know” that her competitor, fellow Santa Ana city councilmember David Penaloza, voted to approve a city contract with the surveillance camera company Flock, that he is funded by special interests, and that Jessie Lopez will “fight for working people.”

On Oct. 14, a 15-second ad popped up on the Facebook and Instagram feeds of Santa Ana residents highlighting Penaloza’s approval of the Flock contract, his funding from “big tech billionaires,” and nurses’ and educators’ support for Lopez. It was paid for by an outside group, Working People United sponsored by SEIU California State Council, which has spent at least $1.4 million in support of Lopez since April.

Lopez did not respond to a text message requesting comment, and her campaign did not respond to emailed inquiries about whether the information was intended for an independent expenditure committee. Working People United also did not respond to a request for comment.

But campaign strategists and watchdog groups agree the practice is becoming widespread in competitive California races.

“After Citizens United and all of that, and big money getting into politics, it’s gotten crazy, right? Things have just gotten unwieldy,” said Jorge Contreras, California Director of the Working Families Party, which supports Lopez.

“Because of that, the candidates are using red boxes to try to communicate.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Jane Kim and Ben Allen squabble over state-run wildfire insurance

How do you distinguish between the two Democrats running for insurance commissioner? Well, one of them wants state-backed public insurance. We have more on that, as well as details on a move campaigns are using to dodge spending limits this fall.

But we have more than election news in your inbox today. California employers scored a big win in federal court against a new state law that would limit anti-union messaging in workplaces. More on that below.

Insurance commissioner candidates Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen have attacked each other over their main plans to improve California’s property insurance market: A public option and broad wildfire mitigation, respectively.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Their latest back-and-forth is around what Kim’s plan to create a public wildfire insurer — a proposal that critics say would shift big risks to the state — might cost homeowners.

Kim recently released a policy brief that lays out how such a plan could work. Funding the program would involve having a two-part wildfire premium, collected by private insurers and diverted to the state, which would be based on each home’s wildfire risk, plus a “small, capped share that every home in the state contributes to cover the bad wildfire seasons.”

Her brief cited a proposal included in a California Earthquake Authority report that could serve as a model. It estimated that such a program would need about $25 billion for a very bad wildfire year. The program would buy reinsurance for that risk, which would cost $2 billion to $3 billion a year, or about $150 to $230 a policy. Without reinsurance, a “once-in-a-century fire” would mean a charge of $1,900 to $2,000 per policy over several years, the report said.

On social media and elsewhere, Allen’s campaign is using Kim’s brief to say her plan would cost policyholders “$230 a year added to every homeowner’s policy” and “$2,000 or more in assessments on every policyholder.”

That’s not the case, Kim told reporters this week.

  • Kim: “Either he is being intellectually disingenuous, or he doesn’t know how to read a policy brief … we were referring to a study that if we do not buy reinsurance that it would cost homeowners, on average, $2,000 more.”

CalMatters contacted Allen’s campaign about Kim’s pushback. Allen spokesperson Joe Arellano repeated his campaign’s claim.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Get up to speed fast on the California election with our guide for the still undecided

It’s time to lock in on Election Day if you haven’t already mailed in your ballot.

California voters are making some big decisions, including choosing the next leader of the state, who will serve in the U.S. House (and potentially what party controls Congress) and whether California becomes the first state to impose a billionaire tax.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Plus we have a dizzying 14 propositions on our statewide ballots, including ones on complicated topics like environmental and healthcare spending.

On top of that, President Donald Trump and his administration have been contesting the mechanics of California elections for months. It began with an executive order that was meant to limit mail-in voting, which California uses. That effort failed in court but fueled worries that ballots would not be delivered.

Now, the administration is suing California to force elections officials to set aside up to 20,000 ballots that the feds claim could have been mailed to noncitizens. It also charged 28 immigrants with illegally voting or registering to vote. Democratic congressional leaders and allied groups have sued the administration in return.

Here’s what you need to know to get up to speed and make sure your vote counts.

How to vote

Early voting has already begun in some locations across all counties, and you can look up nearby voting centers here where you can vote in person or drop off your ballot.

You can also mail your ballot, which must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by election offices within seven days after Election Day. Officials are urging voters to mail ballots early in case there’s any post office delays.

After you submit your ballot, you can track its status here. County elections officials must begin reporting results to the secretary of state on Election night, no more than two hours after they begin counting votes. The officials have 30 days to count ballots and finalize their results to the state. The secretary of state then has 38 days to certify the results. More information about California’s vote-counting process can be found here.

California governor’s race

In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one, Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra is the likeliest to win. Unlike his opponent, Republican Steve Hilton, Becerra has remained mum during the race about specific policies he’d enact as governor.

The son of working-class Mexican immigrants, Becerra has had a long history of public service: He served a dozen terms in Congress, became California’s first Latino attorney general and went on to become the first Latino U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services.

Becerra urges voters to look at his record to see where he stands, like when he sued the first Trump administration to preserve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program or filed a lawsuit with Texas to preserve the Affordable Care Act. He was also an early supporter of LGBTQ+ rights and universal public healthcare.

Hilton, meanwhile, hopes to be the first Republican to hold statewide office in 20 years and is endorsed by Trump. Born in the U.K. to Hungarian immigrants, Hilton doesn’t fall neatly into one singular political ideology. While working in London to refresh the British Conservative Party’s image, he pushed to slash welfare, cut government employment and privatize government services. But he’s also endorsed a higher national living wage in the U.K. and is critical of the right for oftentimes blaming China and immigration for inequality in the U.S.

He’s run a cheeky campaign while touting lofty pledges such as abolishing the California DMV, lowering gas to $3 a gallon and halving electricity bills.

The two only debated each other once, in September, in which Becerra linked Hilton repeatedly to Trump and Hilton accused Becerra of dodging California’s real problems.

For more, see where the candidates stand on climate, healthcare, artificial intelligence regulation, water management and homelessness.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

A last-minute voter guide to all 14 propositions on the California ballot

Yes, the much talked-about billionaire tax is on the ballot this November, but it’s just one of 14 statewide propositions.

If you’re not a policy wonk who knows the ins and outs of state election, tax or environmental law, don’t worry — you’re not alone, and we’re here to help. The CalMatters voter guide has full explainers, videos and even quizzes to help you decide how these measures line up with your values and priorities.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Taxes: Props. 2, 3, 40, 41, 42 and 43

If it seems like this year’s ballot has an unusually high number of tax-related ballot propositions, well, you’re right. It does.

Prop. 2 would allow the state to deposit more money into its reserves, otherwise known as the rainy day fund. The state has strict rules about how much money it can save for lean times in part because of limits imposed during the state’s 1970s taxpayer revolt. But California also has a fairly volatile tax system that rises and falls with the incomes of its highest earners. Democrats want more flexibility to sock money away for downturns. Many Republicans say leftover money should go to taxpayers, rather than sit in state coffers.

Prop. 3 would turn a temporary income tax for high earners into a permanent law. The tax, which hits those with individual income over $360,000, was enacted as a quick fix in 2012, with most of the money going to support K-12 education and community colleges. Now the state’s largest teachers union wants to make the tax permanent, but opponents say California already has some of the highest taxes in the country.

Prop. 40, otherwise known as the billionaire tax, is hands-down the highest profile and the most expensive proposition campaign this year. It would enact a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ net worth, raising roughly $100 billion over five years, according to the healthcare workers union that put the measure on the ballot. Proponents argue that these ultra-wealthy Californians are already getting federal tax cuts and that the money will help healthcare programs that face state and federal funding cuts. But business leaders point out that California relies on these billionaires for tax revenue, and if they leave, the state could suffer. Even some healthcare organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, oppose Prop. 40, because they are concerned the money won’t actually help stave off state and federal funding cuts.

Prop. 40 is so controversial that its opponents have two rival ballot measures, Prop. 41 and Prop. 42, which, if approved, would thwart the billionaire tax. A yes vote for either of these two ballot measures would invalidate the billionaire tax.

Prop. 43 would make it harder for local citizen-driven tax referenda to pass. Currently, these local tax measures only need a majority to win. If Prop. 43 passes, they would need two-thirds of the vote. Proponents say Prop. 43 closes a loophole in election tax law. Opponents say it’s anti-democratic.

Should California borrow money for housing and medical research?

The state can quickly raise lots of cash by selling bonds to investors, but selling too many bonds risks saddling the state with debt.

Prop. 1 would authorize the state to borrow up to $11.25 billion toward housing construction and renovations, mostly for rental units. Many developers and local governments that receive the money would have to reserve a portion of it for affordable housing for low-income renters or for specialized housing that serves the homeless. Some money would also be earmarked to support first-time homebuyers, veterans, farmworkers, students and California’s tribal communities.

Prop. 37 would create a loan fund that helps middle-class homebuyers with their down payment. It’s technically a $25 billion bond, though the money would get paid back slowly by homebuyers rather than from taxpayers. If passed, most California renters would qualify. Proponents, including unions, real estate developers and the Democratic Party, say the proposition could make homebuying accessible, but opponents say it has a number of problems that could prevent the program from actually happening, or worse, that it could put homebuyers in greater debt.

Prop. 38 would pump $8.4 billion in state funding to immunology research — but with a catch. About half the money would go to one nonprofit organization, most likely the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. Gary K. Michelson, the institute’s co-founder, put this proposition on the ballot.

Changing election laws

These ballot propositions could shape how the candidates raise money and how recall elections operate. Voters will also weigh in on a voter ID proposal.

Prop. 4 would allow the state and local governments to create public financing for political campaigns. Proponents, including the California Democratic Party, argue it could help cap political spending because candidates usually have to accept certain spending limits in exchange for access to public money. Opponents say the proposal could force taxpayers to chip in money for candidates they don’t support. Research on the effectiveness of public financing for political campaigns is mixed.

Prop. 5 would modify the rules surrounding California’s recall elections. Currently, a recall election asks voters whether they want to oust the officeholder and who they want instead. A yes vote on Prop. 5 would make it so that recall elections only ask whether voters want to remove the elected official from office. If recalled, another election would determine who should replace the officeholder. The Democratic Party supports this proposition. Republicans oppose it.

Prop. 39 would increase identification requirements for California voters. To register, voters are already required to declare in writing that they are U.S citizens. This proposition would require voters to show proof of citizenship before casting their vote. Republicans argue the proposition would put California in line with many other states and that it will crack down on voter fraud, which is rare. They’ve spent over $36 million supporting the proposition, almost half of it from Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein. Democrats say Prop. 39 could create “unnecessary barriers,” especially for immigrants and low-income Californians who lack a driver’s license.

Other stuff: Healthcare and the environment

Anyone can place a proposition on California ballots if they follow the right procedures and get enough signatures, but special interest groups, such as unions and pro-business organizations, do it more often than most.

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters

Top Democrats battle over California’s proposed billionaire tax

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna are heading to California to rally Saturday in support of an initiative that would place a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth of billionaires in the state.

Their efforts to barnstorm the state come as early voting begins, and millions of dollars have been spent to kill the initiative.

The measure would affect roughly 200 of California’s billionaires, with the money going to cover federal Medi-Cal cuts. Gov. Gavin Newsom has become its most prominent opponent, arguing that the tax could be dodged by billionaires who could leave the state for another.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Prior to arriving in San Francisco, Khanna told ABC News that he and Newsom are “polar opposites” on the issue. Both have openly discussed that they are weighing a presidential bid in 2028.

“He [Newsom] doesn’t want to offend some of the billionaires who he wants to finance his campaigns, and that’s the question: Are we going to be a party for the working class? Are we going to be beholden to our donors?” Khanna said.

Click here to read the full article at ABC News

Billionaire tax could cost California $39 billion, Stanford economists say

Californians are already voting on a proposed billionaire wealth tax, but the debate over the policy among experts — including some Bay Area economists — is only ramping up.

One of the latest salvos is a new report by two economists at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. Not only do they think that the one-time levy won’t raise the advertised amount — it might actually cost the state billions in the long run.

The first piece of the argument is about the takings of the wealth tax itself. The economists’ working paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, argues that the tax would collect only about $36 billion, about a third of the $100 billion projected by its supporters.

The second piece at issue is a different set of taxes altogether — the income taxes the ultra-wealthy already pay. The paper’s authors, Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh, estimate the one-time billionaire tax would drive away many of the state’s wealthiest residents — and the income taxes the state collects from them, resulting an average of $30 billion to $40 billion in lost revenue.

For opponents of the tax proposal, which is on the ballot as Proposition 40, the economists’ findings are evidence that the policy would do more harm than good. Prop 40 would levy a one-time 5% wealth tax on people with a net worth of at least $1 billion who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026. The threat of that loss, and the possibility of similar taxes in the future, has reportedly already caused some billionaires to leave California even before the start of this year.

A political action committee funded by some of those billionaires, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, has poured more than $300 million into efforts to defeat the tax, including by supporting ballot measures that would counter it.

But for supporters of the wealth tax, among whom are some Nobel Prize-winning economists, the Hoover researchers go too far. The assumption that the wealthy have (or will) leave California to avoid losing a twentieth of their net worth is just too gloomy, the proposal’s authors argue. Just this week, Meta revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that Mark Zuckerberg was considering leaving California, but agreed to stay after the company gave him a new stock deal. The authors also say the tax is needed more than ever to cover massive federal cuts to healthcare funding.

It’s worth considering how the Hoover economists got to their estimates. The pair, who also co-authored a recent paper arguing state overspending is to blame for California’s health care funding gap, critiqued the pro-tax side’s $100 billion revenue estimate in a few ways. First, the Hoover experts reckoned that seven billionaires, including Brin, Google co-founder Larry Page and Palantir founder Peter Thiel, would vanish from the potential tax base, citing news reports suggesting they moved out of the state before the Jan. 1 cutoff.

Removing just those seven people from the data reduces the tax’s potential revenue to roughly $72 billion, the authors said. The exclusion of others would knock it down even more. If Zuckerberg successfully fought his projected tax liability, for example, the revenue would decrease by another $6 billion.

Finally, they argued that because the tax is likely to face legal challenges if it passes the ballot, it should only be estimated to receive half of its potential revenue: about $30 billion.

“Depending on what litigation risk (a) taxpayer faces … the state of California is gonna bat .500 on these,” said Jaros, one of the paper’s authors. “It started to make a lot of sense. Half the tax base is a function of five people.”

As that handful of billionaires departs, Jaros and Rauh said, so too would the income tax they already pay — the value of which would probably exceed the value of the wealth tax paid by those who stayed, at least over the long term. If even more billionaires leave, the balance sheet could fall even deeper into the red, with the authors estimating a net loss of $39 billion in the average scenario in the long run (although that includes Zuckerberg, who’s apparently staying).

That’s the critique. The tax’s authors — UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, UC Berkeley tax law professor Brian Galle, UC Davis tax law professor Darien Shanske and University of Missouri tax law professor David Gamage — had their own critique of the critique. They pointed to their own research, which indicated the wealthiest households pay far less income tax than the Hoover economists believe. They also took issue with the Hoover economists’ calculation of the tax’s legal risk, with Saez calling the estimated 50% cut “somewhat arbitrary.”

Power struggle erupts in Trump’s White House as midterm losses loom

Top personnel are jockeying for position as some expect Chief of Staff Susie Wiles to step down after the elections.

White House aides, who have kept clashes muted during President Donald Trump’s second term, have begun jostling more openly for power as they brace for widespread midterm election losses and internal upheaval, according to interviews with 20 staffers, advisers and people close to the president.
The interviews, most of which were conducted on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel machinations, paint a picture of infighting that has started to resemble the pitched battles of Trump’s first term.
Believing that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles might step down after the election, a handful of Trump aides, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, top housing official Bill Pulte and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, have begun angling for the position should it become available.
Wiles has given no indication to aides or allies that she plans to leave. Still, high-level White House staffers frequently cycle out of their stressful jobs after 18 months to two years, and Trump had four chiefs of staff, including an acting one, during his first term.
The past week in the White House has been “the new Wild Wild West,” one Trump ally said.
The jockeying started in earnest last week after Trump first reached out to Katie Zacharia about joining the administration as the new White House press secretary, a move he made without consulting Wiles, according to four people familiar with the decision. The unilateral action by the president was viewed internally as undermining Wiles, creating the impression of a less-disciplined operation and an unsettled center of power inside the West Wing.
For longtime observers of Trump’s inner circle, the friction this week harks back to his first term, when shifting factions of aides and family members vied for power and undermined one another in the process — a pattern this White House has mostly avoided, until now.
Compounding the uncertainty is the president, who has told allies he feels frustrated that no one is publicly defending him as vociferously as he would like 18 days before the midterm elections. Trump has embarked on a frenzied schedule of campaign rallies in the final stretch to juice enthusiasm among the Republican faithful, but with a historically low approval rating and growing voter frustration about high prices, he and the Republican Party face major political headwinds.
The president has been calling friends, White House aides and outside advisers because he appears worried that information is not reaching him, according to an adviser who received one of the calls. In these conversations, he has also vented about the midterms and the two outside advisers quarterbacking his political strategy, James Blair and Chris LaCivita, who are close allies of Wiles.
Among those who have been in contact with Trump is former aide Corey Lewandowski, a fierce rival of Wiles’s, who is supportive of Pulte, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.
Reached for comment, Lewandowski said: “I have never spoken with the president about Bill Pulte being the chief of staff.”