Politics

The California Democrat who says he ‘won’t cheer FIFA’s capitulation to power’

Published

4 months ago

July 7, 2026

Sam Liccardo said he “groaned excessively” when the U.S. national team’s Folarin Balogun was given a red card.

Yet the Silicon Valley representative objected after President Donald Trump pressed FIFA to review the play at issue, before the world soccer organization suspended the penalty and allowed the U.S.’ lead scorer to play in today’s knockout round match against Belgium.

“We can’t win this way,” Liccardo, a Democrat, wrote on social media. “I won’t cheer FIFA’s capitulation to power.”

Few other American politicians have expressed a similar sentiment, perhaps wary that they’ll be viewed as rooting against their own country’s success. But Liccardo joined a chorus of international officials who took issue with the pressure campaign that culminated in Balogun’s return to the pitch, while stressing that the “right outcome” had been reached despite what he viewed as foul play by FIFA leadership.

“The fact that we should see this outcome after this corruption summit between FIFA and Donald Trump accentuates the distaste for many,” he told Blue Light News in an interview just over an hour before the U.S.-Belgium match.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Were you at the match where the red card was issued in Santa Clara?

I was not, I’m ashamed to say. It’s slightly outside my district, and a few thousand dollars outside my tax bracket. … I watched on television and cheered wildly for the U.S. team, and groaned excessively when Balogun got his red card.

Democrats have accused President Trump of a lot of instances of corruption throughout his second term, so why speak out on this particular incident?

Well, I think in your question there’s an implication, and it’s a fair one, which is: Far be it from me to suggest that FIFA could ever be corrupt. But at least we could say that for once it was Americans that benefited from the corruption, not the Qataris or the Russians.

Look, I root for the U.S. men’s team every time they take the field, and, like virtually everyone else watching that game, I felt Balogun was treated very unfairly. That being said, since 1962, FIFA has never allowed a player to appear at a World Cup game after receiving a red card in the game immediately following. The intervention of a head of state — in what should be an international celebration of sports that should be above politics and beyond it — is troubling. And the fact that we should see this outcome after this corruption summit between FIFA and Donald Trump accentuates the distaste for many. [FIFA has repeatedly asserted that Trump’s call for a review had no impact on its decision, and Trump said the same today, while confirming he had asked for another look at the play.]

Do you think your constituents feel the same way?

People feel all kinds of different ways, and I don’t blame anyone for saying, “Hey, this is the right outcome.” That’s fine. I’m simply saying it’s the right outcome for the wrong reasons. And it’s hard to blame you global fans of the sport for having hard feelings.

Like, you said, a lot of people probably feel that this was the right outcome. Has that made this at all a tricky situation for Democrats to address politically?

No, because politicians shouldn’t address this. It’s not my problem to solve, and it’s certainly not Donald Trump’s problem to solve. So, I don’t have any problems. I’m a spectator, like everybody else. I’m simply saying we all want an umpire that calls balls and strikes, and we know that umpires get it wrong plenty of times. We just don’t want somebody bribing the umpire to get us a ball rather than a strike.

You’re a bystander in some ways, but this is also not your first time encountering FIFA. In addition to being a co-chair of the World Cup Caucus, you were the mayor of San Jose when the city was participating in the bidding process to host that tournament. Didn’t you and some of the other Bay Area mayors even go on a tour with FIFA officials of Levi’s Stadium a few years ago?

Yeah, I think we were at the stadium, and then we went to San Francisco. That’s what you do when you’re the mayor of the largest city in the region and you want the World Cup to come to your region.

So, when you say that FIFA is a corrupt organization, has that always been your view, or did this particular incident kind of drive you there?

It’s the view of the Department of Justice that indicted them for more than $150 million in bribes in 2015, it’s the view of lots of other folks who are concerned about how the Qataris ended up with the World Cup. We can go on and on. It’s not my view that matters here. The point is this: Nobody wants to see the head of state of any country calling an international sports organization to get a better call. That’s not the way sports should work.

The Olympics are coming to California in 2028. Should Democrats be trying to guard against Trump exerting influence once again to aid the host country in that international competition?

No, elected officials should be refraining from getting engaged in international sports competitions, the area where people don’t want politics. So it’s not about what we do or don’t do. It’s not about us standing up to Trump or not standing up to Trump. It’s about the fact that we should want international sports competitions to be free of political influence.

Politics

Poll: Voters see Republicans as the party of Big Tech tax breaks

Published

2 hours ago

October 20, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans are fed up with data centers and Big Tech, and Republicans are poised to take more of the political blame in the Nov. 3 midterms.

The Blue Light News Poll found last week that Americans were far more likely to associate the GOP with giving tax incentives to tech companies at a time when the public’s concerns about artificial intelligence and data center sprawl are only deepening.

Nearly half of respondents — 47% — called Republicans the party of tech tax breaks, more than double the 21% who said the same for Democrats.

Voters are also far more likely to want candidates who propose stripping away tax incentives for the data centers needed to fuel the AI boom, according to the new poll, conducted by PF Global.

About a fifth of respondents said that ending those tax breaks would be among their most important tax issues in the midterms, while only 1 in 10 wanted to offer new preferences for data centers.

The top tax priorities for voters, according to the poll, are hiking taxes on billionaires and curbing breaks for big companies.

The findings come as lawmakers in both parties have scrambled to respond to the growing voter concerns over AI and data centers — and as Americans increasingly associate Silicon Valley titans with the Republican Party.

But in both Democratic and Republican-led states alike, governors have sought to put new limits on tax incentives that were already approved for data centers.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) rolled out a proposal last week that would take that a step further by imposing a 100% tax on any state or local incentive offered to AI data centers.

But it’s Democrats who have gone more on the offensive about the issue.

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, for instance, has made data center incentives a key issue as he tries to unseat Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), a former state lawmaker and lieutenant governor.

“Jon Husted’s ‘deals’ gave wealthy tech companies a windfall and left Ohioans footing the bill,” Brown recently posted on social media.

Democrats have specifically homed in on Meta, which has cut its tax liability in recent years by billions of dollars as it builds out its AI products. And they have sought to tie expanded tax breaks approved by Republicans in last year’s megabill to the increase in data center construction.

The GOP enacted incentives for companies in a broad array of industries as part of the 2025 tax cuts. But Big Tech has found those tax breaks particularly useful, helping to drive a big decrease in corporate tax payments as AI spending keeps trending upward.

Meanwhile, Democrats with 2028 ambitions have floated new taxes on AI companies, while Democratic lawmakers have teed up legislation that would keep data centers from taking advantage of incentives like Opportunity Zones and bonus depreciation, both of which Republicans expanded in 2025.

In fact, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) recently gave last year’s megabill another new name in a recent debate with his opponent, Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.).

“I want to know if you will commit to voting to repeal that data center tax scam that you voted for,” Ossoff said.

It’s not clear how much the current anti-AI energy will lead to new legislative limits in the coming months. But the new poll found Americans have a real fear of the unknown with artificial intelligence.

A majority of respondents said that tech chief executives had been secretive about the potential risks of AI, while a plurality of Americans believe both that the risks of artificial intelligence development outweigh the benefits and that the government should strictly regulate the emerging technology.

Politics

Two Dans, four choices, one big headache for GOP in Alaska Senate race

Published

4 hours ago

October 20, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

ANCHORAGE — Alaska Republicans have railed for years against ranked-choice voting. Now some worry it could cost them in a critical Senate race.

GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan is facing not only well-known former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola in the four-way general-election field, but a same-name challenger who Republicans think could siphon votes from him in the close contest.

Some GOP operatives fear the senator will lose first-choice votes to retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan Jr. — and that supporters of his longshot rival might not rank the incumbent at all in the state’s unusual election system where voters can pick backup options that get counted if no candidate clears 50% of the initial vote. Two recent polls that simulated ranked-choice tabulations showed Peltola as the victor.

Art Hackney, a Sullivan ally who runs a super PAC boosting the senator, said Dan J. Sullivan is “going to get a percent of the vote” and warned it could be “potentially” be “significant in terms of impacting” the result of the race.

“Sullivan can win … but it makes it a heck of a lot harder,” added a Republican operative working on other Alaska races. “It’s what the race is going to come down to: If he loses, it’ll for sure be because of that. And if he wins, it’ll be in spite of that.”

Republicans have for years bemoaned the system that allows voters to rank their preference and eliminates candidates until one reaches a majority as “costly” and “confusing,” and argue it has undercut their party. Top Republicans like outgoing GOP Gov. Mike Dunleavy and President Donald Trump have urged voters to repeal the system via a ballot measure this fall after a previous effort failed two years ago.

“Even if he gets a percent or 2% or 3% percent with the phony ranked choice stuff, you never know what they’re going to do with it,” Trump said of Dan J. Sullivan in a rally in Wasilla last week, adding that it “could be the difference.”

It’s happened before: Peltola benefitted in her House win from a split GOP field, while Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) warded off a Trump-backed challenger in 2022 partly because of ranked-choice voting. Alaska Republicans are also fretting about the governor’s race this year, where three GOP candidates are competing, urging voters to “rank the red.”

Dan J. Sullivan, Heikes and Peltola’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The similarly named Sullivans are separated on the ballot by their middle initials and party affiliation (the incumbent is listed as a Republican, the challenger without a party).

But the senator and his allies aren’t taking any chances.

They’re employing several of the tactics Murkowski used during her successful 2010 write-in campaign, including giving out rubber wristbands branded with the senator’s name and party affiliation, and airing a radio jingle with the NRSC.

“Dan S. is your No. 1,” the jingle goes. “If he’s not, rank him second, don’t throw your vote away. Dan S., Daniel, Gerry — just don’t rank Mary.”

“Dan S. Sullivan has two opponents in this race: Democrat Mary Peltola, and the ranked choice system she and her allies have deceptively manipulated to her advantage,” said Nate Adams, a spokesperson for the senator. “But our campaign is confident that Alaskans aren’t confused. They know the real Dan, and we’re making sure every voter can find him: ballot facsimiles on every mailer, voters reached at the door and on the phone, and even a jingle.”

Those pushing to keep ranked-choice voting in Alaska argue the system helps mitigate the so-called spoiler effect. The group behind this year’s repeal measure said in an email that it’s a nonpartisan effort focused solely on eliminating the system.

Outside GOP groups boosting Sullivan like Americans for Prosperity Action and Club for Growth Action have been urging voters at doors and via mailers to rank the incumbent first, a slightly different approach than Sullivan’s campaign. “Make Republican Incumbent DAN S. SULLIVAN your 1ST CHOICE and ONLY CHOICE,” read one Club for Growth Action mailer seen by Blue Light News, a slightly different approach than Sullivan’s campaign.

“In a tight election, it doesn’t take a ton of people to get confused to possibly change the trajectory and the outcome,” said Kevin Greene, senior adviser for AFP Action in Alaska.

A version of this article first appeared in Blue Light News Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to Blue Light News Pro.