Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — Stacy Keach, released from an English prison after serving six months for cocaine possession, told a House committee today how he started using the drug that eventually took over his life and landed him in jail.

“There is no greater imprisonment than that of being dependent on a chemical substance for one’s existence,” the actor said.

“Freedom from dependency on drugs is one of the most precious freedoms we have, and it must be a loving legacy for our children and their children as well,” Keach testified.

Keach, 44, was arrested in April, 1984, at London’s Heathrow Airport, where authorities discovered 1.3 ounces of cocaine in his luggage.

The star of the CBS-TV series “Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer” told the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control that he first experimented with the drug on social occasions and believed that he would be immune to its seductiveness.

“I felt euphoric, self-confident, alert and even creative,” Keach said of his initial experience.

But within a few months, Keach said, cocaine had become an integral part of his life.

“And this is one of the hallmarks of cocaine’s destructive power,” he said. “It always deludes the user into feeling that he or she is in complete control until it is too late.”

Keach said it took an arrest to make him face up to the fact that he was dependent on cocaine. “I can only thank God that I now have an opportunity to speak out to others –in the hope that they will not have to travel down the same road as I did.”

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit demanding California turn over its voter rolls, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal” and accusing the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.”

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee based in Santa Ana, questioned the Justice Department’s motivations and called its lawsuit demanding voter data from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber not just an overreach into state-run elections, but a threat to American democracy.

“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” Carter wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

Carter wrote that the “taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left,” and that the Justice Department’s lawsuit was “one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

In a video she posted to the social media platform X earlier Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said she was proud of her office’s efforts to “clean up the voter rolls nationally,” including by suing states for their data.

“We are going to touch every single state and finish this project,” she said.

Weber, who is California’s top elections official, said in a written statement that she is “entrusted with ensuring that California’s state election laws are enforced — including state laws that protect the privacy of California’s data.”

“I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote,” Weber said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the decision another example of “Trump and his administration losing to California” — one day after another court upheld California’s congressional redistricting plan under Proposition 50, which the Trump administration also challenged in court after state voters passed it overwhelmingly in November.

The Justice Department sued Weber in September after she refused to hand over detailed voter information for some 23 million Californians, alleging that she was unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

It separately sued Weber’s counterparts in various other states who also declined the department’s requests for their states’ voter rolls.

The lawsuit followed an executive order by President Trump in March that purported to require voters to provide proof of citizenship and ordered states to disregard mail ballots not received by election day. It also followed years of allegations by Trump, made without evidence, that voting in California has been hampered by widespread fraud and voting by noncitizens — part of his broader and equally unsupported claim that the 2020 presidental election was stolen from him.

In announcing the lawsuit, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in September that “clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” and that the Justice Department was going to ensure that they exist nationwide.

Weber denounced the lawsuit at the time as a “fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” and as “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list”; and the dates of their removals.

It also demanded a list of all registrations that had been canceled due to voter deaths; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in California; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were canceled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

Carter, in his ruling Thursday, took particular issue with the Justice Department’s reliance on federal civil rights laws to make its case.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation,” Carter wrote.

Carter wrote that the legislation in question — including Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 — was passed to defend Black Americans’ voting rights in the face of “persistent voter suppression” and to “combat the effects of discriminatory and unfair registration laws that cheapened the right to vote.”

Carter found that the Justice Department provided “no explanation for why unredacted voter files for millions of Californians, an unprecedented request, was necessary” for the Justice Department to investigate the alleged problems it claims, and that the executive branch simply has no power to demand such data all at once without explanation.

WASHINGTON — Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said Thursday that she “presented” her Nobel Peace Prize medal to President Trump during a private meeting at the White House, but he has not changed his view that she does not have the support to lead her country.

Machado, who won the prize last year for her work to promote democracy in Venezuela, said she presented the 18-carat gold medal to Trump as a “recognition of his unique commitment to our freedom.” It is unclear whether the president, who has been fixated on getting the prize in recent year, accepted it. The Nobel Peace Center has maintained the award cannot be transferred.

The gesture was made on the day the two leaders met for the first time at the White House. The highly anticipated get-together came as the United States has allowed top deputies of deposed president Nicolás Maduro’s regime to remain in charge as Trump oversees the transition of power.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump went into the meeting without any expectations, other than to have a “frank and positive discussion about what’s taking place in Venezuela.”

Leavitt added that Trump continues to assert that Machado does not have the “support” or “respect” to lead Venezuela, an assessment he first made on the day of Maduro’s capture to the surprise of many Venezuelans.

“At this moment in time, his opinion on that matter has not changed,” Leavitt said at a news briefing.

While Leavitt described Machado as a “remarkable and brave voice for many of the people in Venezuela,” she also said the United States had found an “extremely cooperative” partner in Maduro’s handpicked vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who is serving as acting president of Venezuela.

“They have met all of the demands and requests of the United States and the president,” Leavitt said, noting that the Venezuelan government already agreed to release political prisoners and reached a $100-billion deal to rebuild Venezuela’s energy sector.

As Machado left the White House, the scope of the discussions between her and the president remained unclear. She did not take questions from the reporters, but a few of them were able to capture a moment on video when she was greeted by supporters outside the White House. She told them: “Know that we can count on President Trump for Venezuela’s freedom.”

She then left to meet with a bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Capitol Hill. It was after this meeting that Machado told reporters she had presented the medal to the president.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was one of 14 senators who met with Machado. After the meeting Scott said Machado was “very appreciative of the U.S. military” capturing Maduro and was pushing for “free and fair elections and free press.”

“We have got to continue to understand that Delcy Rodriguez is not the leader, she was never elected as a president, she is still the leader of drug cartels,” Scott said. “We need to make sure we hold her accountable.”

It appears unlikely that much will change for Machado after meeting with Trump, who largely has sidelined her and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was stolen by Maduro.

Days after Maduro was captured, Machado told CBS News the people of Venezuela had “already chosen” González Urrutia as the rightful leader of the country and that they were “ready and willing to serve our people, as we have been mandated.”

Trump, however, has maintained that before elections can take place in Venezuela, the United States needs to “fix” the country.

Asked if the president was committed to holding elections in Venezuela, Leavitt said Trump hopes to see “elections in Venezuela one day” but did not have a timeline for them yet.

Trump says he is happy with his administration’s working relationship with Rodríguez. At a White House event Wednesday, Trump called Rodríguez a “terrific person.”

The praise came after Trump said he had a “very good call” with her that morning that left him feeling hopeful that the United States and Venezuela could have a “spectacular” working relationship.

Rodriguez, in turn, used her first state of the union address Thursday to promote oil industry reforms that would drawn in foreign investment, which is in line with the Trump administration’s goals. She also criticized the Washington officials and said there was a “stain on our relations” but said she was open to strengthening the relationship.

“Let us not be afraid of diplomacy,” with the U.S., Rodriguez said in Venezuela.

Reporting from Sacramento — Legislation to cap interest rates on high-cost small loans in California cleared a major hurdle Wednesday in the state Senate despite strong opposition from deep-pocketed lenders.

The Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee approved Assembly Bill 539, which would set an annual interest rate cap of 36% plus a 2.5% federal funds rate on loans of $2,500 to $10,000, with a 6-0 bipartisan vote.

After years of failed attempts to set limits that would prevent triple-digit interest rates on small loans, legislators moved the bill forward and bucked lenders who have poured millions of dollars in recent years into lobbying efforts and campaign contributions — including $39,000 to state senators in the last month.

California has lagged behind the rest of the country in its efforts to regulate small loans. In a 2018 report, the National Consumer Law Center said 39 other states have implemented caps on five-year, $10,000 loans.

The state limits interest rates on loans under $2,500 to between 12% and 30% a year. With no monetary limit on loans valued between $2,500 and $10,000, some lenders have set rates over 200% on high-risk borrowers.

California trails in regulating short-term lenders. This bill could finally rein them in >>

More than one-third of California borrowers who take out loans with interest rates at 100% or more end up in default, according to the state’s business oversight department. Advocates say such loans are designed to fail.

“I cannot think of another product that fails so often without government stepping in to intervene,” said Assemblywoman Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara), who introduced the bill.

Nearly 20 lenders, who offer auto title loans, personal loans and other installment loans, have spent about $3.5 million lobbying at the state Capitol since 2017. More than a dozen gave an additional $3.2 million to lawmakers, political parties and campaign committees over the last decade.

Opponents of the bill argue that the rate cap will push many lenders out of the California market, making it more difficult for subprime borrowers with bad or no credit to obtain loans.

“With this bill passing, we feel like you’re taking another option away from us and it’s very concerning,” said Maria Bello, a Rancho Cordova resident who testified against the bill. “We need our options open.”

Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) abstained from voting and said he agreed that it would limit Californians’ access to loans.

“Usually the ones who advocate for these programs are not the people who use these programs,” Hueso said. “Telling people how to manage their finances, I don’t think it’s the government’s job to do that.”

Lenders opposing the legislation contributed campaign money to several state senators on the committee in recent weeks, including Hueso and Sens. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), Ling Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) and Brian Dahle (R-Bieber).

Several state senators questioned the morality of allowing lenders to offer loans with high interest rates.

Sen. Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) noted that some low-income borrowers are at high risk of defaulting, a reason that lenders offer loans with extremely high rates.

“The risk is higher, but imagine the risk when the percentage rate is so high,” she said.

Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) said the proposal requires the Legislature to weigh the cost of high interest rates against the possibility of limiting some borrowers’ access to capital.

“There are people who are victims of predators,” Portantino said. “There are people who need that last-minute loan to get through that week. How do you protect somebody on both ends of this conversation?”

More stories from Taryn Luna »

taryn.luna@latimes.com

Follow @tarynluna on Twitter.

Dear Minneapolis:

We are sorry for what you are going through. We get it.

One day you’re living in a vibrant, multicultural city that, yeah, has its problems but is also pretty great. The next day, the president is calling you terrorists and insurrectionists and threatening to turn the U.S. military on you and your kids.

Been there.

First off, thanks for standing up for Lady Liberty. The old gal had a rough year in 2025, and 2026 isn’t promising to be any better. She needs all the friends she can get, and the Twin Cities folks are true blue. And I’m not talking Democrat or Republican, because we’re past that.

It’s come down to deciding what kind of American you are. The kind who believes in the Constitution, rule of law and due process, or the kind who believes in strongmen, rule of the rich and armed authorities who will disappear you if you make them mad, citizen or not.

Minneapolitans have proven they’re on the righteous side of that divide.

But here’s the thing — you’ve got to keep these protests peaceful. Being the entertainment capital of the world, we won’t deny that it’s riveting to watch video after video of ICE officers slipping on, well, ice like some klutzy Keystone Kops short. And the passion with which protesters are turning out, risking their own safety to protect strangers, is inspiring.

But don’t take the bait. Don’t cross the line. Don’t use physical violence, whether it’s throwing a water bottle or something more. President Trump threatened on Thursday to invoke the Insurrection Act, just like he did in Los Angeles before sending in the National Guard using a lesser authority. Even that turned out to be legally problematic, but he did it anyway.

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche wrote on social media after Trump’s post. “It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey – I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.

Whatever means necessary.

This administration is salivating to invoke martial law. They bring it up every chance they get. Although the Insurrection Act has been used before — by President George H.W. Bush in Los Angeles in 1992 after the Rodney King beating — this is different.

Too many other guardrails of democracy have been demolished. Too much power has already been consolidated into the hands of one man.

If it happens, if the military is turned against citizens, a boundary will be broken that can’t be easily restored. We will likely then have military in streets of multiple American cities ahead of the November elections, which can only make this fragile turn at the ballot box more precarious.

Los Angeles in 2025 was the test case on how far Trump could go, and it seems it wasn’t far enough. Just like in Minneapolis, we had some folks who used violence — even though the vast majority of protesters were peaceful. Because Los Angeles is and has always been a city of activists — like Minneapolis — there were plenty of leaders willing and able to step forward and ensure that protesters policed themselves.

The result of that restraint was that at the end of the day, not even the so-called “journalists” of the right-wing propaganda machine could come up with enough shock-and-awe videos to convince the rest of America that the place was out of control.

Now the Trump machine is trying it with you, Minnesota. It’s not by chance that this trouble has landed on your doorstep. After the killing of George Floyd, Minneapolis showed it wasn’t afraid to show up for justice. No one ever doubted — Trump especially — that sending immigration full-force into your city would stir up trouble.

Gov. Tim Walz said it himself on Thursday in his own social media post.

“We can — we must — speak out loudly, urgently, but also peacefully. We cannot fan the flames of chaos. That’s what he wants,” he wrote.

But also, please keep filming, please keep fighting. Thursday was also Martin Luther King Jr.’s actual birthday. In 1959, King made a little-known appearance on Minneapolis TV.

“I’m of the opinion that it is possible for one to stand firmly and courageously against an evil system, and yet not use violence to stand up against it,” he said then.
“It is possible to love the individual who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does.”

Someone described Minneapolis the other day has having the inclusivity and quirkiness of San Francisco, but with the attitude of the Bronx — a fearsome combination.

Don’t let Trump exploit it.

In solidarity,
California

It was planned as a peaceful day of mourning for a Watts neighborhood matriarch many knew simply as “Mama Curtis.”

Instead, attendees said, a memorial in Watts over the weekend for 94-year-old Earlene Curtis descended into chaos when Los Angeles police officers swarmed the block where the gathering took place. Cellphone video showed the officers wielding batons and shoving people down before hauling someone away on what the LAPD later said was a felony arrest warrant.

The LAPD response has drawn outrage from Curtis’ family, Watts residents and the local city council member’s office, who said the overwhelming show of force was unwarranted on a night when mourners had gathered to remember and grieve.

An LAPD spokesman said two separate internal reviews of the incident are underway.

For much of the day Saturday, people had been stopping by at Curtis’ home to pay their respects, according to her granddaughter, Erica Dantzler.

Dantzler said her grandmother — who died the night before at a hospital — was a fixture in the area for decades, known for doting on the neighborhood’s children as though they were her own. She was also an advocate for peace in her community, serving for years on the Watts gang task force, a volunteer group of residents, police officers and faith leaders who meet regularly to discuss solutions to the neighborhood’s problems.

An only child herself, Curtis had had six children and at least 90 grandchildren and great-grandchildren, according to Dantzler. Expecting a lot of mourners and family members, Dantzler said she shared details about the memorial with Councilmember Tim McOsker’s office, which alerted the LAPD to what was going on.

So it came as a shock, she said, when police showed up at the event.

She said she tried to approach some of the officers for an explanation, but was ignored. Instead, she said, they gathered on the sidewalk outside the Curtis home and began pushing people back.

They “isolated us off [and] put up yellow tape like it was a crime scene,” she said, adding: “They kept like antagonizing on us.”

As time went on, the crowd got more and more restless, she said, and some people began confronting officers. Videos of the standoff circulating online showed officers, some in riot helmets or holding Tasers, facing off with memorial-goers, some yelling angrily in the officers’ faces. In one recording, a tow truck is seen leaving the scene with someone’s car.

“We were met with improper searches, detainment without cause, and a complete lack of communication or basic dignity. Our pain was ignored. Our safety was threatened,” according to one person’s Facebook post about the incident.

In a statement to The Times, police spokesman Capt. Michael Bland said officers from nearby Southeast Area station responded to the 10400 block of Juniper Avenue — a narrow one-way street near the Jordan Downs housing development. Bland said several cars that were double-parked outside the home, which were “obstructing safe passage for emergency responders, as well as residents.”

In their “efforts to address the situation” at the scene about 9 p.m. on Saturday, officers arrested someone on suspicion of illegally possessing a firearm, he said.

Bland said the department had opened an internal investigation after receiving a complaint from a community member, and separately has initiated a review of the officers’ use of force. “Both personnel matters will be investigated thoroughly and reviewed comprehensively, in adherence to our commitment to maintain accountability and transparency,” Bland said.

In an attempt to ensure that “community voices are heard,” Bland said, department officials reached out to “community members and key stakeholders to address concerns related to this incident, as well as foster dialogue.”

McOsker, the councilmember who represents the area, said he was troubled that the LAPD responded with such force in the area near the Jordan Downs development.

Among the city’s oldest housing projects and long one of its most troubled, the area was one of the founding sites of the LAPD’s heralded Community Safety Partnership, or CSP, program, which prioritizes collaboration between police officers and community members over making arrests in neighborhoods hit by violence.

“The fact that Southeast patrol officers didn’t lead with a CSP-type of quality is really disappointing,” McOsker said.

He attended a meeting Tuesday afternoon at Morning Star Baptist Church, where Curtis was a member, with LAPD officials, Curtis’ family and other community members.

“It’s a miss on LAPD’s part,” he said. “When you have a 94-year-old woman who’s a mother to the community and who is loved by a lot of folks, people will show up.”

The only explanation he’s received from the LAPD so far about what happened was that there had been an “internal breakdown in communication,” he said.

He said he also wants the department to create clearer protocols for grieving families to report the planning of a memorial event or funeral to avoid a similar situation.

At the same time, he said, he was heartened by the willingness of LAPD Cmdr. Ryan Whiteman, to publicly apologize to Curtis’ family Monday for the police response without getting defensive.

“While it’s a terrible disappointment that it happened, that was the part of the meeting that I was satisfied… and looked the community in the eye and said, we’re sorry,” McOsker said.

Tanya Dorsey, who runs a nonprofit outreach group next to the nearby Nickerson Gardens projects, said she didn’t know Curtis, but understood her family’s frustration after watching a video of the LAPD’s response on Instagram.

It’s no secret that police routinely monitor funerals and repass gatherings where they suspect gang members could be present, partly in an effort to ward off violence.

According to Dorsey, in Nickerson Gardens, officers are known to show up to harass and arrest people for probation violations, drinking in public and other low-level offenses — encounters she said can escalate as emotions are running high.

“They know that [when] people pass away in the ‘hood, they already know that there’s going to be a candlelight vigil and they know there’s gonna be a repass,” she said.

Jorja Leap, a UCLA professor who has studied Watts extensively, said that the latest encounter underscores the tenuousness of the gains made in recent years by the LAPD.

“Watts wants to trust, but it can’t forget past history,” she said. “These relationships can’t be taken for granted for that, and Mama Curtis is a reminder of that.”

A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower-court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.

“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”

The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.

It was not clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.

Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.

In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil said the appeals ruling was “deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve.”

He added: “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”

Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s lawyers, said the ruling was “contrary to rulings of other federal courts.” He noted the panel’s finding concerned a “hypertechnical jurisdictional matter,” rather than the legality of the Trump administration’s policy.

“Our legal options are by no means concluded, and we will fight with every available avenue,” he added, saying Khalil would remain free pending the full resolution of all appeals, which could take months or longer.

The ACLU said the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which won’t happen while he can still immediately appeal.

Khalil has multiple options to appeal

Khalil’s lawyers can request the active judges on the 3rd Circuit hear an appeal, or they can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested on March 8, 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his firstborn.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They have also accused Khalil, 30, of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

The government has justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests.

In June, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

Dissenting judge says Khalil has right to fight detention

Judge Arianna Freeman dissented Thursday, writing that her colleagues were holding Khalil to the wrong legal standard. Khalil, she wrote, is raising “now-or-never claims” that can be handled at the district court level. He does not have a final order of removal, which would permit a challenge in an appellate court, she wrote.

Both judges who ruled against Khalil, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, were Republican appointees. President George W. Bush appointed Hardiman to the 3rd Circuit, while Trump appointed Bibas. President Biden, a Democrat, appointed Freeman.

The majority opinion noted Freeman worried the ruling would leave Khalil with no remedy for unconstitutional immigration detention, even if he later can appeal.

“But our legal system routinely forces petitioners — even those with meritorious claims — to wait to raise their arguments,” the judges wrote. “To be sure, the immigration judge’s order of removal is not yet final; the Board has not affirmed her ruling and has held the parties’ briefing deadlines in abeyance pending this opinion. But if the Board ultimately affirms, Khalil can get meaningful review.”

The decision comes as an appeals board in the immigration court system weighs a previous order that found Khalil could be deported. His attorneys have argued that the federal order should take precedence.

That judge has suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family.

His attorneys have said he faces mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

Offenhartz and Sisak write for the Associated Press. AP writer Larry Neumeister contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday announced the outlines of a health care plan he wants Congress to take up as Republicans have faced increasing pressure to address rising health costs and a jump in insurance premiums after lawmakers let subsidies expire.

The White House said Trump’s plan would codify his efforts to lower drug prices by tying prices to the lowest price paid by other countries.

The cornerstone is his proposal to send money directly to Americans for health savings accounts so they can bypass the federal government and handle insurance on their own. Democrats have rejected the idea as a paltry substitute for covering the high costs of health care.

“The government is going to pay the money directly to you,” Trump said in a taped video the White House released to announce the plan. “It goes to you and then you take the money and buy your own health care.”

It was not immediately clear if any lawmakers in Congress were working to introduce the Republican president’s plan.

The idea mirrors one floated among Republican senators last year. Democrats have largely rejected this idea, saying the accounts would not be enough to cover costs for most consumers.

Enhanced tax credits that helped reduce the cost of insurance for the vast majority of Affordable Care Act enrollees expired at the end of 2025 even though Democrats had forced a 43-day government shutdown over the issue.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has been leading a bipartisan group of 12 senators trying to devise a compromise that would extend those subsidies for two years while adding new limits on who can receive them. That proposal would create the option, in the second year, of a health savings account that Trump and Republicans prefer.

Trump said his plan will seek to bring down premiums by fully funding cost-sharing reductions, or CSRs, a type of financial help that insurers give to low-income “Obamacare” enrollees on silver-level, or mid-tier plans.

From 2014 until 2017, the federal government reimbursed insurance companies for CSRs. In 2017, the first Trump administration stopped making those payments. To make up for the lost money, insurance companies raised premiums for silver-level plans. That ended up increasing the financial assistance many enrollees got to help them pay for premiums.

As a result, health analysts say that while restoring money for CSRs would likely bring down silver-level premiums, as Trump says, it could have the unwelcome ripple effect of increasing many people’s net premiums on bronze and gold plans.

Price and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

MINNEAPOLIS — President Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy troops to quell persistent protests against the federal officers sent to Minneapolis to enforce his administration’s massive immigration crackdown.

The president’s threat comes a day after a federal immigration officer shot and wounded a Minneapolis man who had attacked the officer with a shovel and broom handle. That shooting further heightened the fear and anger radiating across the Minnesota city since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot a Renee Good in the head.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the rarely used federal law to deploy the U.S. military or federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement, over the objections of state governors.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump said in social media post.

The Associated Press has reached out to the offices of Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for comment.

The Department of Homeland Security says it has made more than 2,000 arrests in the state since early December and is vowing to not back down. ICE is a DHS agency.

Protests, tear gas and another shooting

In Minneapolis, smoke filled the streets Wednesday night near the site of the latest shooting as federal officers wearing gas masks and helmets fired tear gas into a small crowd. Protesters responded by throwing rocks and shooting fireworks.

Police Chief Brian O’Hara said during a news conference that the gathering was an unlawful assembly and “people need to leave.”

Things later quietened down and by early Thursday only a few demonstrators and law enforcement officers remained at the scene.

Demonstrations have become common on the streets of Minneapolis since the ICE agent fatally shot 37-year-old Good on Jan. 7. Agents have yanked people from their cars and homes, and have been confronted by angry bystanders demanding that the officers pack up and leave.

“This is an impossible situation that our city is presently being put in and at the same time we are trying to find a way forward to keep people safe, to protect our neighbors, to maintain order,” Frey, the mayor, said.

Frey said the federal force — five times the size of the city’s 600-officer police force — has “invaded” Minneapolis, scaring and angering residents.

Shooting followed a chase

In a statement describing the events that led to Wednesday’s shooting, Homeland Security said federal law enforcement officers stopped a driver from Venezuela who is in the U.S. illegally. The person drove away and crashed into a parked car before taking off on foot, DHS said.

After officers reached the person, two other people arrived from a nearby apartment and all three started attacking the officer, according to DHS.

“Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life,” DHS said.

The two people who came out of the apartment are in custody, it said.

O’Hara said the man shot was in the hospital with a non-life-threatening injury.

The shooting took place about 4.5 miles ( north of where Good was killed. O’Hara’s account of what happened largely echoed that of Homeland Security.

During a speech before the latest shooting, Walz described Minnesota as being in chaos, saying what’s happening in the state “defies belief.”

“Let’s be very, very clear, this long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement,” he said. “Instead, it’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government.”

An official says the agent who killed Good was injured

Jonathan Ross, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who killed Good, suffered internal bleeding to his torso during the encounter, a Homeland Security official told The Associated Press.

The official spoke to AP on condition of anonymity in order to discuss Ross’ medical condition. The official did not provide details about the severity of the injuries, and the agency did not respond to questions about the extent of the bleeding, exactly how he suffered the injury, when it was diagnosed or his medical treatment.

Good was killed after three ICE officers surrounded her SUV on a snowy street a few blocks from her home.

Bystander video shows one officer ordering Good to open the door and grabbing the handle. As the vehicle begins to move forward, Ross, standing in front, raises his weapon and fires at least three shots at close range. He steps back as the SUV advances and turns.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has said Ross was struck by the vehicle and that Good was using her SUV as a weapon — a self-defense claim that has been criticized by Minnesota officials.

Chris Madel, an attorney for Ross, declined to comment.

Good’s family has hired the same law firm that represented George Floyd’s family in a $27 million settlement with Minneapolis. Floyd, who was Black, died after a white police officer pinned his neck to the ground in the street in May 2020.

Karnowski, Richer, Golden and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Madhani reported from Washington. AP reporters Bill Barrow in Atlanta; Julie Watson in San Diego; Rebecca Santana in Washington; Ed White in Detroit and Giovanna Dell’Orto in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

BATON ROUGE, La. — While President Trump says he will take action on Greenland whether its people “ like it or not, “ his newly handpicked U.S. special envoy is setting off on his own approach.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, appointed in December, has said he is not interested in meeting diplomats. The Republican has not visited the Arctic island but plans to attend a dogsled race there in March. He has suggested Greenlanders would feel right at home in Louisiana, saying he heard they like to hunt, fish and “have a good time.”

As Trump threatens seizing control of Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, Landry has brought his thick Cajun accent and reputation for confrontational politics to the American effort to acquire the world’s largest island, elevating his national profile on a mission that has showcased his ties to the president and rattled partners in the military alliance.

Landry’s debut has not escaped Denmark’s attention. The Danish ambassador to the United States pushed back on Sunday when Landry posted on X that the U.S. had protected Greenland during World War II “when Denmark couldn’t.”

Landry’s “brand fits the political moment and fits neatly with this president’s goal,” said Mary-Patricia Wray, a Louisiana political consultant who has worked with Landry.

The assignment is a test for the first-term governor who climbed to power in Louisiana as a brash conservative but has no significant foreign diplomacy experience beyond economic development trips. Supporters say Landry’s charisma and negotiating chops are a boost to Trump’s aims. But the scope of Landry’s role as special envoy and extent of his early outreach are unclear as Trump revives his argument that to ensure its own security, the United States needs to control Greenland.

Landry declined an interview request and his office did not respond to questions about his actions so far as envoy. The White House said Landry’s experience as a governor makes him a strong asset.

“He understands that Greenland is essential to our national security, vital to deterring our adversaries, and that Greenlanders would be better served by U.S. protection in the region,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.

Others are less impressed.

“You don’t negotiate the future of a country on social media,” said Peter Bisgaard, a former Danish consular officer in New Orleans. “That’s asinine.”

A governor known for ruffling feathers

Greenland’s party leaders have firmly rejected U.S. overtures and Danish officials warn that an American takeover of Greenland would end the NATO alliance that has served as the backbone of European security since World War II.

The White House has not ruled out military action in pursuit of Greenland.

Landry, in an interview on the “Brian Kilmeade Show” on Fox News Radio this month, said he wants to provide Greenland’s roughly 56,000 residents opportunities to “improve the quality of life” in exchange for expanded U.S. military presence and rare-earth mineral mining access. Drawing on Louisiana’s famed cuisine, Landry described his approach to forging ties as “culinary diplomacy.”

During eight years as Louisiana’s attorney general, Landry was known for airing out disagreements on social media and for a combative style, defending the state’s abortion ban and rollbacks of LGBTQ rights. Since voters elected him governor in 2023, Landry has pushed Louisiana further right and animated critics who accuse him of limiting transparency and ramming through legislation with little public feedback.

Landry’s mentor Fred Mills, a retired Louisiana lawmaker, said they briefly discussed the governor’s envoy role.

“If you bring them some crawfish and you start talking Cajun to them, I don’t think they’ll give you the country, but they’re going to like you,” Mills recalled telling Landry. “I can see it elevating his worth on the national level, but I’m struggling to know what’s going to be success.”

Welcoming Trump’s agenda in Louisiana

Shortly after Trump announced his first presidential campaign in 2015, Landry interviewed him while guest-hosting a local radio show. Their ties have only grown closer.

Trump endorsed Landry’s run for governor and Landry has said he was on the president’s short list for attorney general. Landry said he did not want the job but has demonstrated an eagerness to implement Trump’s agenda on a Louisiana-sized scale.

He invited the National Guard to Louisiana to address crime, welcomed a Border Patrol deployment and expanded immigration detention facilities. Last year, Landry stood alongside Trump at the White House as South Korean carmaker Hyundai’s announced plans to open its first U.S. steel mill in Louisiana.

Retired Louisiana lawmaker Craig Romero said Landry, who once worked for him as an aide, has long understood the value of cultivating ties to those with power, even while serving in the Louisiana National Guard.

“He said ‘Everybody wants to be my friend in the Guard because I drive the general around’,” Romero recalled.

An envoy role still coming into focus

In response to public information requests for records surrounding Landry’s early work as envoy, his office said that “any work done by the Governor regarding this project is voluntary and not state business.”

In the interview with Fox News, Landry said he planned to attend a dogsledding event on the island in March after receiving an invite from “a Greenlander.” He did not say which event, but the possibility of Landry making an appearance rattled organizers of Greenland’s national dogsledding championship.

Mikkel Jeremiassen, chairman of the Greenland Dogsledding Association, said in a statement this week that Landry’s attendance would be “wholly inappropriate.”

Cline and Brook write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from New Orleans. AP writer Seung Min Kim in Washington contributed to this report.

California’s biggest rivers converge in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the waterways and wetlands forming an ecosystem where fresh water meets salt water from San Francisco Bay, and where native fish historically flourished.

Every few years, dozens of scientists examine the environmental health of the estuary in a report card that considers water flows, wildlife and habitat, as well as other factors. Their latest shows the bay is mostly in fair condition and stable, but the Delta is “mostly in poor condition and declining.”

According to the State of Our Estuary report, less fresh water has been flowing through the Delta in recent years, which creates “chronic artificial drought conditions” and harms fish.

To learn more about the findings, I called Christina Swanson, a biologist who for more than two decades has worked on the assessments. One reason the Delta’s health is declining, she said, is that giant state and federal pumps, as well as those of other entities, are taking more water out of rivers and the Delta, “degrading the environmental and ecological conditions that species need to survive and to thrive.”

“The amount of water that we’re taking out of the system, it’s too much,” Swanson said, and it has “been increasing for years, despite the fact that we know that it’s an environmental problem.”

The new report, the first since 2019, was prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, an independent environmental research organization, together with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. It was supported with federal funds that are funneled through the state for water initiatives.

California’s largest estuary provides vital habitat for fish including Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, longfin smelt and Delta smelt, but the numbers of many native fish have declined over the last few decades.

On the positive side, the researchers found that wet years such as 2023 still allow some fish to rebound, at least locally, especially near floodplains that people have worked to restore.

Wetlands restoration projects have increased the tidal marshes around San Francisco Bay to 57,800 acres, nearly twice the size of the city of San Francisco. The Delta’s tidal marshes have grown from 8,000 to 13,000 acres over the last five years. Two types of birds that live in tidal marshes — black rails and yellowthroats — are rebounding.

The researchers said large wetland restorations, such as a recent 3,400-acre project at Lookout Slough, are helping the Delta’s native fish.

Still, fish have been struggling to spawn and survive as the amount of water left in their habitats has decreased since the early 2000s, and as they have endured longer and more severe droughts, Swanson said.

She noted that during the last 50 years, a series of rules and regulations were adopted to protect the estuary’s ecosystem.

“And yet, during those same five decades, freshwater flow has continued to decline. Today, flow is poorer than it’s ever been,” she said. “That says to me that our efforts to establish protections have not been effective, and we need to do a better job and be better stewards.”

The report does not propose policy solutions, but the findings will be discussed as California water officials debate options for the Delta. The State Water Resources Control Board is now updating a Bay-Delta water plan that will determine how much water may be taken out, and how much should be allowed to flow through the Delta.

Efforts to protect the Delta environment are further complicated by climate change, which is driving more extreme droughts in the West and altering precipitation patterns, bringing less snow and more rain.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has adopted a controversial plan to pump more water from the Delta to Central Valley farmlands.

“The Trump administration’s attempt to take more water out,” Swanson said, “will do nothing but exacerbate the deteriorating condition of the system and the species that rely on it.”

More water news

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration is working on a plan to build a 45-mile water tunnel beneath the Delta, creating a second route to the aqueducts of the State Water Project. But as I reported for the L.A. Times last week, a state appeals court rejected the state’s financing plan for the project. The administration still has another case pending as it seeks to issue bonds.

For years, groundwater has been dropping beneath desert farmlands in Arizona, where the state has allowed landowners to pump unlimited amounts. Now, the state is finally imposing limits. Last month, I traveled to an area of Arizona called the Ranegras Plain, where the aquifer has been falling as a Saudi-owned dairy company irrigates vast alfalfa fields. This week, Gov. Katie Hobbs announced that Arizona is establishing a new “active management area” there to protect the groundwater.

I also wrote about a first-of-its-kind agreement between Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes and another of the state’s biggest farming businesses, which has agreed to leave some croplands dry and pay $11 million to help residents whose wells have gone dry.

The Trump administration has released an outline of new options for dealing with deepening water shortages along the Colorado River. As I reported for The Times, the federal government’s options could dramatically reduce the amount of water available for Southern California. The rules for dealing with shortages are set to expire at the end of this year, and representatives of seven Western states are holding difficult negotiations on how to share necessary cutbacks in the coming years.

More climate and environment news

My colleague Hayley Smith reported on one of President Trump’s latest moves to halt involvement in international climate efforts, as he pulled the U.S. out of dozens of international organizations and treaties, including the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

For months, federal disaster officials leading the Eaton fire cleanup claimed that soil testing was unnecessary, but as Tony Briscoe and Noah Haggerty report for The Times, the Environmental Protection Agency is now expected to announce that the government will pay to test the soil for lead at 100 homes destroyed in the fire.

An invasive beetle responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of oak trees in Southern California has now expanded into Ventura County. Lila Seidman reported for The Times that to prevent further spread, some experts are calling for regulations limiting the movement of firewood.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more water and climate news, follow Ian James @ianjames.bsky.social on Bluesky and @ByIanJames on X.

Who the hell appointed Elon Musk to be the loudest defender of white men?

From the moment the South Africa native took over what was once called Twitter in 2022, the wealthiest human being on Earth has let neo-Nazi accounts flourish while repeating their insistence that white men are an endangered species as the world grows more diverse and minorities assume positions of power.

In 2023, Musk accused South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa of “openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa” because political opponents sang an apartheid-era anti-Boer song during a rally. That same year, Musk posted, “You have said the actual truth,” to a user who claimed Jews supported unchecked migration in order to destroy Western — read, white — civilization.

The mogul ended up apologizing for that babble, calling it the “dumbest post I’ve ever done.” That didn’t stop him from getting dumber ever since.

Last year, X’s Grok feature pushed the white South African genocide claim to users on its own, then insisted the Freudian slip came from an “unauthorized modification” by a “rogue employee” that violated the chatbot’s “core values.” Who that could be, one can’t say for sure. But then Musk opined in September that “relentless propaganda portraying white men as the worst human beings” is what leads some of them to transition into becoming female.

All this garbage was prelude to this month, when Musk twice shared a post that stated nonwhite men “will be 1000x times more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over Whites.”

Say this about Musk: He knows trends. And right now, the idea that white men are the most persecuted group out there is the Labubu of American conservativism.

A widely read essay in the online magazine Compact labeled Gen Z white men “the lost generation,” adrift in a world where workplaces shun them in favor of minorities. The piece earned an endorsement by New York Times columnist Ross Douhat, who added that the “simple” way to not make young white men open to racial radicalization is by “just not discriminating against them” — whatever the hell that means.

White men have fretted about their place in a changing America ever since Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1784 that a divine “revolution of the wheel of fortune” was “probable” against white people for their embrace of slavery. Fear of the sunset of white men has fueled lynchings, legal segregation, laws against immigration legal and not, lawsuits against affirmative action and so much more.

Their supposed plight has been a major plank of Trump’s political career since his first term — but it has become an obsession of his second. His administration’s social media accounts have regularly pushed posts lauding the days of Daniel Boone and Manifest Destiny while using the Ma and Pa American artworks of Norman Rockwell and Thomas Kinkade to push its noxious agenda.

At the same time, as part of his deportation campaign, Trump has pushed the concept of forcing people who weren’t born in this country to go back to their birthplaces. But foreigners aren’t the only ones bringing down the white man, according to this regime.

In December, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas released a video encouraging white men — not white women, tellingly — who felt they were victims of workplace discrimination to file a claim with her agency. Vice President JD Vance shared Lucas’ request on social media along with the Compact essay, noting in the post sharing the latter that DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) is a “deliberate program of discrimination primarily against white men.”

Trump, for his part, told the New York Times this month that the Civil Rights Act — the 1964 law signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to help nonwhite American citizens fight decades of segregation and discrimination — “was a reverse discrimination” where “white people were very badly treated.”

As a nongringo, I’m as amused as I am sad about this industrial-scale pity party thrown by some of the most powerful men, white or otherwise, on the planet.

A poster showing the Trump Gold Card is seen as President Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on Sept. 19, 2025.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

When Trump and his allies claim to have the interest of white men in mind, they don’t really mean the sons of small-town Appalachia like Vance’s ancestors; they’re talking about white men like them: wealthy guys who want to get wealthier. They preach racial solidarity while gutting funding for SNAP benefits and healthcare, which will disproportionately affect poor people of all ethnicities.

The Pew Research Center found that 51% of white Republicans with no college degree voted for Trump in 2024 — a significant drop from the 63% who did the same in 2016. No wonder the president and his allies are doubling down on painting minorities as usurpers of the white American Dream. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket,” LBJ said. “Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Personally, I can assure all white men — but especially the blue-collar guys — that the children of Latino immigrants I know don’t plan to treat you all the way some of your grandparents treated our fathers when they migrated to this country in the 1960s and 1970s. Our parents didn’t come for us to turn into chillones — crybabies — seeking revenge for past sins.

In fact, many Latino men sadly did join their white counterparts in the grievance Olympics, as their drift toward Trump in the 2024 election proved.

Cousins and friends who should have known better spent most of 2024 railing to me against trans athletes, Kamala Harris, unchecked migration from Central and South America, and other Fox News talking points when they weren’t talking Dodgers and Raiders. None of them desired to be white, as wokosos insisted in postelection breakdowns of what happened; these rancho libertarians just wanted the fair shake that the colorblind policies would supposedly offer and thus cast their lot with Trump in a history-making decision.

(Insert “The Price Is Right” losing horn sound here.)

To see Trumpworld now limit male grievance to just whites threatens to destroy the Trump coalition in a year where they can’t afford to lose much more support.

Leave it to Grok to back me up on this. After Musk endorsed the post claiming nonwhite men will subjugate white men, a user asked the AI chatbot: “@grok is this true”?

This is how Grok replied, edited for length but not the thrust of what it said: “No, this claim aligns with the ‘white genocide’ conspiracy theory, which lacks evidence. … It is speculative fear, not fact.”

Musk. Trump. Vance. Powerful white men. Why so afraid?

It’s a measure of President Trump’s lack of self-awareness — a superpower, really, for authoritarian demagogues like him who otherwise would shrink from their worst impulses — that he apparently doesn’t see the evident contradiction in his simultaneous support for protesters in Iran and damnation of those in his own country.

For days, Trump has preened as the all-powerful protector of Iranian protesters against their nation’s repressive regime. (The supposedly “America First” president could strike their country at any moment, if he hasn’t already.) “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!” he posted Tuesday. “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

But what was on the way to Minneapolis, he’d posted just an hour earlier, was “RECKONING AND RETRIBUTION.” Its citizens — his citizens — were demonstrating in growing numbers against the paramilitary that Trump has created among Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, one of whom last week killed a woman there, Renee Nicole Good. Trump counterproductively increased the ICE deployment in the city, already more than triple the size of the Minneapolis police force.

On Sunday night, Trump had justified Good’s slaying this way: “The woman and her friend were highly disrespectful of law enforcement.” This from the man who watched on TV for three hours on Jan. 6, 2021, as demonstrators at the U.S. Capitol disrespected law enforcement with chemical sprays, poles, planks, fists and bike racks. And he did nothing. Because they were pro-Trump protesters. Once back in office, he pardoned nearly 1,600 of them.

On the fifth anniversary of that Trump-incited insurrection, last week, the White House website rewrote history to obscure what Americans saw in real time — a falsification that truly disrespected law enforcement. In Trump’s version, the heroic Capitol Police were the culprits for “aggressively” firing “tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions into crowds of peaceful protestors.” Funny, not funny: That actually describes what ICE agents have been doing, as photos and numerous Americans’ videos on social media document, and not just in Minneapolis but in Chicago, Portland, Ore., Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans.

The “No Kings” rallies last fall? Trump, ever the brander, led his sycophants choir in Congress in renaming those events as “Hate America rallies,” and the 7 million peaceful protesters nationwide who attended them as communists and Marxists.

But here’s what makes the shameless contradictions in Trump’s stance on the right to protest even more nauseating in 2026: This is the year that the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the United States’ foundational act of anti-government protest.

It’s Americans’ bad fortune that such a man as Trump, a wannabe king, is the presider in chief for the yearlong commemorations of the rebellion that ultimately threw off a real king who’d met protesters with force and retribution.

Trump is so eager to be the semiquincentennial’s impresario that he’s already had the U.S. Mint produce a $1 coin with his likeness for the occasion. As if Americans needed a reminder that to Trump it’s all about him.

But he should take the time to actually read the document that this celebration commemorates. If he were self-aware, he’d see that he resembles the king the founders were opposing, and that his actions parallel those the founders cited as grounds for breaking away.

Their list of indictments of King George III include: “The establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Think of Trump’s dispatch of federal agents and National Guard troops into blue states and cities, and his threats to send the military, over the objections of their governors and mayors, state legislators and members of Congress.

Then there’s this passage: The king has “sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people.” And this: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” More: He is “protecting them … from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”

Protecting officers from the consequences of alleged murders? In an all but unprecedented break with usual protocols after a law enforcement action as controversial as Good’s killing, Trump’s administration refuses to cooperate with Minnesota local and state officials in simply investigating the ICE officer who shot Good three times, and is denying them access to evidence. Trump’s Justice Department — and he’s made it his Justice Department — has ruled out the usual civil rights probe. Instead, the administration continues to blame the victim, Good, and is investigating her and her partner in the hope of finding some ties to activist groups.

Fortunately, there’s blowback, which truly does reflect the spirit of 1776.

On Tuesday, at least six federal prosecutors resigned in protest and others in Minnesota and Washington reportedly are expediting plans to quit. Lawyers nationwide condemned White House henchman Stephen Miller for his false, provocative claims that ICE agents have immunity for their acts. Polls show that by wide margins Americans believe Good’s shooting was unjustified. Support for ICE continues to decline; pluralities of Americans now oppose it.

But what has to worry Trump most of all: He’s lost Joe Rogan, uber-podcaster, especially to white males, and a past supporter. “You don’t want militarized people in the streets just roaming around, snatching people up — many of which turn out to actually be U.S. citizens that just don’t have their papers on them,” Rogan said on air this week. “Are we really gonna be the Gestapo, ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”

Yes, it is. But as a consequence, protests are sure to continue, and build. What better year for that to be so: it’s not only the semiquincentennial but a midterm election year. As Trump likes to tell those he’s targeted — in Venezuela, Greenland and Iran — they can come around the easy way, or the hard way. The American people are giving him the same choice. He keeps choosing the hard way.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

The final votes are in. The trial is over. The long night of anger, frustration and disappointment has ended. Regardless of where one stood on the issue of removing the president, a collective sigh of relief went up from the American people when the gavel went down for the last time.

The nation must now move on. But can it? The answer lies at the core of impeachment itself and whether it was an isolated event or a symptom of something worse in American politics.

If we view the trauma as a singular and tragic phenomenon, hopefully not to be repeated in our lifetimes, then it may really be over. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and William Jefferson Clinton were all historical accidents, their troubles the result of unique and terrible personal judgments, mistakes and politics. They were tied together by nothing more than their own unfortunate fate. Like a political Halley’s comet, the bitter trail of Clinton’s impeachment, with all of its recrimination and divisiveness, hopefully will fade into historical cosmic dust.

But what if this is not just a passing crisis? What if it is a reflection of some deeper political and institutional problems in this country that cannot be easily set aside? The answer to those questions will tell us a where the nation is headed, not just in the next two years but into the next century.

It is clear that the impeachment process has left behind a terrible trail of wounded democratic institutions. What the president did and how he lied to the American people has diminished the respect and moral leadership of the office of the presidency. Add to that the legal challenges that have hurt the ability of the Secret Service to protect the president and the ability of staff to provide honest advice to the president in confidence, and it is obvious that the presidency has been greatly weakened.

Congress, locked in partisan gridlock, has lost even more credibility. Although it fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, it will have a difficult time dealing with other issues without getting trapped by the same old politics as usual. Our judicial system, now unfortunately symbolized by the independent counsel law, is viewed by the public as just another arm of political vengeance. And the press is now seen as willing to stoop to any rumor, leak or innuendo to get the first headline.

So the wake left by the impeachment process is not pretty. But it is also not new. We have been through national traumas in our past, from unpopular wars to depressions to riots to impeachments, each leaving damage to our society and national spirit. And yet, we survive and become stronger with each challenge, because we have been blessed with the right leadership to bind the wounds and move on.

These words of renewal are being heard again. We all want to believe them. But the last 12 months did not inspire confidence in our leadership.

There were so many missed opportunities to bring this matter to closure: if only the president had been honest in January; if only Ken Starr had been fairer and more objective in his investigation; if only the House Judiciary Committee had been less partisan; if only the House of Representatives had been less partisan; if only the House of Representatives had been given the chance to vote on censure; if only the Senate had brought this trial to bipartisan closure with an agreed-upon censure resolution. Rather, we had to return to the genius of our forefathers and our Constitution to rescue this nation from all of the lost opportunities.

For impeachment to be really over, the national interest must prevail over the passion for political survival. For things to change, elected leaders must decide to compromise, to rise above the partisan message and to do what is right for the nation.

That is not going to be easy. Time and time again a serious constitutional process became part of an ugly pattern of political life in Washington consumed by sound bites, scandals, investigations, fund-raising and attack politics. Political power too often in recent years has been built on the ruins of institutions, careers and reputations. Impeachment, in a very real sense, was part of that dark side of politics that began with Watergate and continued to Iran-gate, Gary Hart, Justice Clarence Thomas, Speakers Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich, Speaker-elect Bob Livingston and, finally, this president. Does it now end? Everyone is saying the right words. But can they really change partisan trench warfare into bipartisan cooperation?

Perhaps the greatest hope for renewal comes not from their words, but from the great common sense of the American people. Despite the roller coaster ride in Washington, the people have remained steadfast. They did not like the personal failings of the president, but they also did not believe that they justified removal from office. They wanted the nation to move on. No matter how strident the arguments and the attacks, they maintained a sense of proportion in their beliefs.

The elected leaders would do well to listen more to the heartbeat of the nation than to their political consultants. The people, as the voters of Minnesota made clear, are tired of attack politics from both parties. More important, if the public believes that those they elect are putting the interests of the nation first, there is a better chance that we can repair our spirit and restore our trust in those who govern our democracy.

Impeachment may be over, but the jury is out on whether we can bind the wounds and finally move on.

President Biden wants more than $170 billion to turn the nation from a laggard in the electric vehicle market into a leader. He’s challenging Congress to OK billions more in spending to persuade Americans to part with their gas-powered cars and take public transit, and even to electrify a chunk of the nation’s yellow school bus fleets.

And he’s demanding the country get serious about removing some of the dirtiest diesel trucks from the road, a move aimed in part at improving air quality in neighborhoods choked by smog.

Biden’s $2.25-trillion proposal to overhaul the nation’s infrastructure is about much more than bridges and highways. It’s a blueprint for executing his ambitious goals of decarbonizing the country’s economy by 2050 and restoring America’s role as a leader on fighting climate change.

“Wrapped in what otherwise would be a traditional infrastructure bill is what I would call a light Green New Deal,” said Antonio Bento, a professor of public policy and economics at USC, referring to progressive Democrats’ grand plan for weaning the country off fossil fuels and creating clean energy jobs. “I think this is our best shot ever at reducing emissions.”

The proposal includes huge promises, some of which will be difficult to enact because they require the federal government to spend billions of dollars in coordination with states and the private sector.

Among them are pledges to spend $165 billion to boost the country’s aging public transit systems, address Amtrak’s repair backlog and replace thousands of miles of track. The proposal would provide funding to electrify 20% of school buses and build 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations across the United States by 2030.

The Biden plan would also speed the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, extending tax credits by 10 years for wind, solar and energy storage facilities.

It includes a proposal to spend $16 billion to put former fossil fuel industry employees to work plugging leaks from hundreds of thousands of orphaned oil and gas wells and abandoned mines. An additional $10 billion would be spent to create a Civilian Climate Corps to employ Americans in conservation efforts, including works to make Western forests less susceptible to massive wildfires.

Even the country’s beat-up mail trucks would get an upgrade: The plan calls for the government to “utilize the vast tools of federal procurement to electrify the federal fleet, including the United States Postal Service.”

All of this hinges on congressional approval, which is likely to be difficult, even though Democrats have a slim majority. And there’s no guarantee of strong support even from within the party.

As details of the proposal became public Tuesday morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted: “This is not nearly enough. The important context here is that it’s $2.25T spread out over 10 years.”

Other progressive lawmakers are likely to join her call for more spending and emphasize their own demands, such as setting a date to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles. The current proposal does not include anything along the lines of California’s requirement that all new cars sold be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

Meanwhile, some centrists within the party are unhappy at the prospect of being asked to approve another expensive spending package so soon after Biden’s sweeping $1.9-trillion stimulus bill. At least four House Democrats are insisting that the proposal should reverse limits that President Trump placed on the deduction of state and local taxes from federal income taxes.

Republican Party leaders and fossil fuel industry groups have come out against the package, objecting to its size and plans to pay for its proposals through increased taxes on corporations.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called it nothing more than a “Trojan horse” for tax hikes. Neil Bradley, U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief policy officer, said in a statement that “the proposal is dangerously misguided when it comes to how to pay for infrastructure.” And the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s largest trade group, criticized the plan for not including upgrades to pipelines.

Biden’s proposal comes the same day that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made public its plans to restore “scientific integrity” at the agency by removing the members of two important scientific advisory panels, many of them industry figures appointed by the Trump administration. Current members can apply for reinstatement.

There is no better example of the corrosive effect of money on American politics than the spending of the National Rifle Assn.

The gun rights organization spent a stupendous $54.4 million in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of it in “independent expenditures,” meaning spending for or against a candidate but not a direct contribution to a campaign. The money went almost entirely to Republicans to a degree that almost looks like a misprint (but isn’t): Of independent expenditures totaling $52.6 million, Democrats received $265. Yes, that’s 265 dollars.

If you’re looking for a reason that politicians are quick to declare that their “thoughts and prayers” are with the victims of the horrific slaughters that have become virtually routine in American life, but do nothing further to stop them, look no further.

The Center for Responsive Politics has compiled the baleful figures on the NRA’s election spending for its Open Secrets website. A spreadsheet showing totals spent on behalf of individual members of Congress through 2016 is here; the center is working to update the figures, and we will publish them once it does. The Washington Post has an interactive web page showing NRA contributions since 1998 to current members of Congress.

As the Center for Responsive Politics observes, the recipients of NRA largess almost always let their pocketbooks do the voting for them. The NRA endowed the 54 senators who voted in 2015 against a measure prohibiting people on the government’s terrorist watch list from buying guns with $37 million in support; only one Democrat voted against the measure — Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who has never received NRA support.

The NRA also gave $27 million in direct and indirect support to 50 senators who voted against a bill to require universal background checks for firearms purchases (with Heitkamp again the only Democrat voting no).

Here’s a sampling of NRA direct and indirect spending for a sample of political leaders, paired with their sanctimonious statements prompted by the Las Vegas massacre:

President Trump: “My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!” The NRA spent more than $30 million to help elect Trump, including more than $19 million attacking his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): “Cindy & I are praying for the victims of the terrible #LasVegasShooting & their families. We appreciate the bravery of all first responders.” NRA spending reached $7.7 million for McCain and against his Senate electoral opponents by 2016, placing him first among all members of Congress. McCain did vote in favor of the 2015 bill mandating universal background checks.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): “This is a moment for national mourning and for prayer.” NRA support by 2016: $1.3 million.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “My prayers are with all of the victims in Las Vegas and their loved ones affected by this senseless act of violence.” NRA financial support since 2014: $3.1 million.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “Saddened by the tragic loss of life in #LasVegas. My thoughts are with all of the families affected by this horrific attack.” NRA support by 2016: $4.6 million.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.): “Praying for all the victims & those impacted by the tragedy.” NRA support by 2016: $122,802.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Susan and I send our deepest condolences and prayers to the families of the victims of this horrific and senseless tragedy in Las Vegas.” NRA support by 2016: $5.5 million.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

Return to Michael Hiltzik’s blog.

In the old days, powerful lawyers and business tycoons pulled strings from their Spring Street offices and watched legislators in faraway Sacramento dance like marionettes.

A phone call from Spring Street to the state’s most famous lobbyist, Artie Samish, was all it took to pass a bill or kill one.

The old fixers are all gone from downtown Los Angeles, part of a distant past when Spring Street was Los Angeles’ financial and political heart. Even Samish’s massive frame is dust, forgotten except by us students of the shady side of California politics.

A half-century after that gaudy era, I went to an office building at 634 S. Spring St. Monday to cover a legislative issue that would have been totally incomprehensible to the departed influence peddlers.

My destination was the 11th floor, now the headquarters of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a national civil rights organization that has taken the lead in forcing adoption of redistricting plans to reflect the huge increase in California’s minority population.

That’s the part that would have surprised Spring Street’s old tenants–the idea of anyone wanting to expand a power base. It was always their goal to keep power to themselves, to create a body of law permitting them and their clients to make more money.

I was there to attend a press conference held by representatives of MALDEF and other civil rights organizations to remind the Legislature that the redistricting bills that soon will be unveiled in the Capitol must reflect the new demographic realities of California. “We don’t believe the Legislature will do its best . . . to create districts that reflect California’s diversity,” said Arturo Vargas, a MALDEF attorney.

A prime target for this message was America’s most powerful African-American state legislator, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

That made sense. While both Senate and Assembly districts will be transformed by redistricting, the 80 Assembly districts offer minorities more opportunity to get officials elected than the Senate’s 40. And the Assembly bill will be written, directed and produced by the Speaker.

You’d think that Brown, who came up the hard way from Texas’ poorest black neighborhoods, would welcome MALDEF’s message–that it might even be unnecessary for him to be reminded of the need for more minority Assembly members.

That would have been true of the Willie Brown I met in the 1960s.

I was a junior reporter without high-placed sources. He was a poor and powerless freshman legislator. We’d occasionally have a sandwich or coffee in the Capitol cafeteria, sharing complaints about the conduct of big shot senior reporters and politicians.

From those humble days, Brown rose to big shot senior status himself, from the cafeteria to the best table at Frank Fat’s, the Capitol’s power hangout, from an outsider to the immense authority of the Speakership. He won by weaving a complex web of alliances with lawmakers ranging from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans. Today, his allies include conservative Republican Cathie Wright of Simi Valley, and Democrats Richard Katz of Sylmar and Sally Tanner of Baldwin Park.

He’s got to take care of these supporters, assuring them that he’ll maintain district boundaries that will get them reelected.

That’s a problem when it comes to Katz and Tanner. Brown’s obligations to them conflict with the aims of MALDEF, the Asian-Pacific American Legal Center, the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and other civil rights organizations.

Katz’s San Fernando Valley district and Tanner’s San Gabriel Valley territory are becoming increasingly Latino. In addition, the Asian population in Tanner’s district is growing fast. Although Brown wants to protect Katz and Tanner, the federal Voting Rights Act mandates district boundaries that improve minorities’ chances of winning.

No problem, said Katz, a Brown ally who is confident of winning with new district lines. “We’re putting the Voting Rights Act above incumbents.” But the civil rights groups are unconvinced.

This is more complicated than anything that faced the old Spring Street lawyers and their man, Artie Samish. All they wanted was to kill beer, wine and liquor taxes and give breaks to the industries they represented.

Only insiders cared about redistricting in those days. That was even true in the ‘60s when Speaker Brown was first elected. California was not the racial stew that it is today.

The new Spring Street lawyers are engaged in an epic transformation of the Legislature. Brown must accommodate himself to that and, at the same time, preserve his political power.

There have been many transactions between Spring Street and Sacramento, but none quite like this one.

PORTLAND, Conn. — Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton on Tuesday pressed his charge that President Bush has mishandled the economy, using a manufacturing plant as his stage to lament the loss of blue-collar jobs and to flesh out a plan to resurrect the nation’s manufacturing base.

At the Standard-Knapp corporation here–and later at a rally outside an East Haven, Conn., restaurant–Clinton sought to place the blame squarely on the incumbent for the ebbing away of America’s once-stalwart manufacturing base.

“The percentage of our workers employed in the manufacturing sector has continued to decline,” despite productivity gains posted by many companies, Clinton told the Standard-Knapp workers, who assemble packaging machines.

He said, “Just in the last four years, we’ve lost 1.3 million manufacturing jobs.”

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed Tuesday that the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen by 1,388,000 since Bush took office in January, 1989, to 18,150,000. Total non-farm employment grew slightly over the same period, increasing 188,000 to a total of 108,517,000 as of last month, with most of the growth in government employment.

Clinton decried the lack of a coordinated national response to the manufacturing sector’s job decline.

“Unlike our competitors, this country has no national strategy, no comprehensive partnership between business and workers and education and government to create the kinds of high-wage, high-growth jobs in manufacturing that I think are critical to our future,” he said.

Clinton’s Tuesday campaign message was meant to build upon his Labor Day efforts to depict Bush as a man who has allied himself with the rich and powerful and has forgotten needy and working Americans.

As part of offering himself as an alternative, Clinton announced what he touted as a new manufacturing policy, which largely tied together proposals he has advanced throughout his presidential campaign.

One new element in the plan calls for establishment of 170 high-tech centers that would serve as incubators for new manufacturing ideas, which would then be shared with small- and medium-sized companies. The centers would be modeled after the agricultural extensions common in rural areas of the country.

Clinton said the centers would solve the “technological gaps” that plague smaller companies, as well as retrain the scientists and engineers previously employed in the dwindling defense industry.

“There are 200,000 unemployed defense workers, technicians, scientists and engineers in California alone today,” Clinton said. “And these people have all this incredible potential to add to our national wealth, but we don’t have a system for moving them from the defense sector into the non-defense sector. The extension centers will help to do this.”

Later, however, Clinton said only 25 of the centers would be “almost exclusively” dedicated to defense workers, and another 25 to the manufacturing industry. Also, it was unclear where they would be located.

In describing his plan, Clinton demonstrated the difficulty of trying to mount a campaign as a “new style” Democrat, who is focused on the technologies and jobs of the future, and still satisfy the desires of organized labor, which has come aboard his campaign vigorously and has provided a sizable portion of the crowds at many of his recent rallies.

For instance, Clinton suggested repeatedly Tuesday that the U.S. should mimic the approaches of its chief economic competitors.

“Everybody knows we’ve lost a lot of auto jobs in the last 10 years and we’ve lost a lot of steel jobs in the last 10 years,” Clinton said. “But if you look at the Germans and the Japanese . . . when they moved people out of automobiles, they moved into other manufacturing technologies with a future. When our people moved out of automobiles, they moved into the unemployment lines.”

At the same time, though, Clinton sought to show that he remains concerned about the plight of the more traditional businesses that organized labor is trying to salvage.

To that end, he scored Bush for staging a Labor Day campaign event that he suggested missed the point.

“Just yesterday, President Bush had a great photo (opportunity) walking across the bridge that connects Mackinac Island to the mainland of Michigan–a bridge that was built with steel from a mill that is closed in the last four years,” he said.

Ultimately, Clinton settled on mixing a stew of Republican and Democratic ideas for reviving the economy.

“We’ve got to get rid of regulations that don’t make sense,” said Clinton, echoing a line that has been standard in GOP rhetoric. Then he added a distinctly liberal element: “And we’ve got to permit our companies to join together . . . as long as it doesn’t affect their competitive pricing here at home.”

At the rally in East Haven, Clinton reiterated his belief that a combination of approaches is needed to solve the nation’s economic woes.

“A lot of the problems we face today don’t fall very neatly in categories of left and right and liberal and conservative and Republican and Democratic,” he said. “We are living in a post-Cold War world where we are fighting and competing for every dollar we get.”

In general, Clinton has pledged to use the U.S. tax code to benefit domestic businesses and has promised to transfer money saved in defense cutbacks to job-creating programs.

He argued Tuesday, as he has throughout the campaign, that existing tax codes propel many companies to set up operations outside the United States, stripping the nation of jobs as a consequence.

He won his only applause from the Standard-Knapp workers when he pledged to “copy our competitors” and put the heft of the government behind businesses.

“The tax system in America should work to benefit Americans without being protectionist,” Clinton said.

The Arkansas governor also promised to streamline export laws to help companies compete overseas and said he would bolster the export offices in U.S. embassies worldwide.

Overall, Clinton said, his plan would cost about $2 billion a year over five years, financed with money now spent on military research.

Today on the Trail . . .

Bill Clinton campaigns in Atlanta and Jacksonville, Fla.

President Bush campaigns in Norristown and Collegeville, Pa., and Middletown, N.J.

Vice President Dan Quayle attends a rally in San Diego and addresses a San Diego Rotary Club luncheon.

*

TELEVISION

Clinton is interviewed on WJXT’s “Florida talks to Clinton.” C-SPAN will air it live at 5 p.m. PDT.

Tennessee Sen. Al Gore is interviewed on CNN’s “Larry King Live” at 6 p.m. PDT.

WASHINGTON — More than half of U.S. adults believe President Trump has “gone too far” in using the U.S. military to intervene in other countries, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

The poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research was conducted Jan. 8-11, after Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s capture. It found that 56% of U.S. adults think Trump has overstepped on military interventions abroad, while majorities disapprove of how the Republican president is handling foreign policy in general and Venezuela in particular.

The findings largely cut against Trump’s aggressive foreign policy stance, which has recently included efforts to exert control over Venezuelan oil, calls for the U.S. to take over Greenland and warnings that the U.S. would provide aid to people protesting in Iran. Many did see the Trump administration’s recent intervention in Venezuela as a “good thing” for stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. and a benefit for the Venezuelan people, but fewer say it’s a positive for U.S. national security or the U.S. economy.

Republicans are mostly following Trump’s lead, despite the sharp contrast with the “America First” platform he ran on. But few Republicans want Trump to go further, underscoring the risks of a continued focus abroad.

Most Republicans say Trump’s actions have been ‘about right’

While the U.S. used its military power in Venezuela to capture Maduro, Trump has also made recent comments about seizing Greenland “the hard way” if Denmark’s leaders do not agree to a deal for the U.S. to take it over, and he has warned Iran that the U.S. will come to the “rescue” of peaceful protesters.

Democrats and independents are driving the belief that Trump has overstepped. About 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 6 in 10 independents say Trump has “gone too far” on military intervention, compared with about 2 in 10 Republicans.

The vast majority of Republicans, 71%, say Trump’s actions have been “about right,” and only about 1 in 10 want to see him go further.

About 6 in 10 Americans, 57%, disapprove of how Trump is handling the situation in Venezuela, which is slightly lower than the 61% who disapprove of his approach to foreign policy. Both measures are in line with his overall job approval, which has largely remained steady throughout his second term.

Many say the U.S. action in Venezuela will be good for halting drug trafficking

Many Americans see some benefits from U.S. intervention in Venezuela.

About half of Americans believe the U.S. intervening in Venezuela will be “mostly a good thing” for halting the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Close to 4 in 10, 44%, believe the U.S. actions will do more to benefit than harm the Venezuelan people, who lived under Maduro’s dictatorship for more than a decade. But U.S. adults are divided on whether intervention will be good or bad for U.S. economic and national security interests or if it simply won’t have an impact.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats and independents to see benefits to the U.S. action, particularly its effects on drug trafficking. About 8 in 10 Republicans say America’s intervention will be “mostly a good thing” for stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the country, but fewer Republicans, about 6 in 10, believe it will benefit the U.S. economy.

Democrats and independents drive desire for U.S. to take a ‘less active’ role

Most Americans don’t want greater U.S. involvement in world affairs, the poll found. Nearly half of Americans want the U.S. to take a “less active” role, and about one-third say its current role is “about right.”

Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say they want the country to be more involved globally, including about 1 in 10 Republicans.

At least half of Democrats and independents now want the U.S. to do less, a sharp shift from a few months ago.

Republicans, meanwhile, have grown more likely to indicate that Trump’s level of involvement is right. About 6 in 10 Republicans, 64%, say the country’s current role in world affairs is “about right,” which is up from 55% in September. About one-quarter of Republicans say the U.S. needs to take a “less active role” in solving problems around the globe, down from 34% a few months ago.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,203 adults was conducted Jan. 8-11 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

In a major victory for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party, a federal court in Los Angeles ruled Wednesday that California can use its newly configured congressional district boundaries for the 2026 midterm elections, increasing Democrats’ odds of winning five additional U.S. House seats and seizing control of the chamber.

Attorneys for the GOP had sought to temporarily block California’s new map, arguing that the redrawn districts, placed on the ballot by the Democratic-led state Legislature as Proposition 50 last November, were unconstitutional because they illegally favored Latino voters.

But two judges in the three-judge panel rejected Republican arguments. The maps, they found, were engineered by Democrats to favor their party’s candidates and counter similar partisan gerrymandering from Texas and other GOP-led states.

“The evidence presented reflects that Proposition 50 was exactly what it was billed as: a political gerrymander designed to flip five Republican-held seats to the Democrats,” District Judge Josephine L. Staton wrote in an opinion.

Whatever the intent of those who drew up the maps, Staton added, “the voters are the most relevant state actors and their intent is paramount.”

Staton, who was appointed by former President Obama, was joined by District Judge Wesley Hsu, an appointee of former President Biden. Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, an appointee of President Trump, dissented.

Lee argued that public comments made by Paul Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the new California map, showed race was a key factor.

“The Democratic supermajority in the California state legislature wanted to curry favor with Latino groups and voters — and to prevent Latino voters from drifting away from the party,” Lee wrote in his dissent.

The California Republican Party said it would seek an emergency injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The map drawer’s plain statements acknowledging that he racially gerrymandered the Proposition 50 maps, which he and the Legislature refused to explain or deny, in addition to our experts’ testimony, established that the courts should stop the implementation of the Prop. 50 map,” Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing this fight in the courts.”

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved the new district boundaries during a Nov. 4 special election. On Wednesday, the state’s Democratic leaders were quick to tout the judges’ decision as a victory for voters.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop. 50 — to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas — and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

“Today’s decision upholds the will of the people,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “It also means that, to date, every single challenge against Proposition 50 has failed.”

Newsom pitched the redistricting plan last summer as a way to boost Democrats’ prospects of flipping the House in the midterms after Trump pressed Texas to redraw its map to prop up the GOP’s narrow majority.

Using the new California map would not only give Democrats a better chance of shifting the balance of power in Congress and blocking Trump’s agenda during the second half of his term. It also could elevate Newsom’s status among Democrats as he weighs a 2028 White House run.

Legal experts say the odds are against Republicans getting the Supreme Court to block California’s new congressional districts. In December, the high court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its newly drawn congressional map, which could give Republicans up to five extra seats.

A federal court previously blocked Texas’ map, finding racial considerations probably made it unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court indicated it viewed the redrawing as motivated primarily by partisan politics, not race. In its ruling, the court explicitly drew a connection between Texas and California, noting that several states have redrawn their congressional maps “in ways that are predicted to favor the State’s dominant political party.”

As Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued in a concurrence: “The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California), was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, said he thought it unlikely that GOP attorneys could now get an injunction from the Supreme Court. The standard to get an injunction from the nation’s highest court if the lower court didn’t grant one, he noted, is supposed to be higher than the standard to get a stay if the court granted an injunction.

“The Supreme Court has already telegraphed something about what it thinks about California in that Texas ruling,” Hasen said. “Certainly, to have a majority of Republican-appointed justices side with the Republicans in both cases coming out the opposite way would not be a very good look for a Supreme Court that’s trying to say that it’s about politics.”

Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University, said that attorneys for the California GOP and the federal Department of Justice might posture about an appeal, but California would likely use the new maps this year.

“You might see a filing purporting to fight it out further, but I wouldn’t expect to go anywhere,” Levitt said. “I think that the outcome … is we have an election under the lines that were passed in Proposition 50. And that’s sort of the end of the line, practically speaking.”

Even before the Supreme Court’s Texas decision, legal experts said they thought Republicans faced an uphill battle in blocking California’s maps.

“This was a long shot of a claim from the beginning,” Levitt said. “It’s a claim that, under current law, just isn’t supported by the facts … and the Supreme Court just turned a dramatically uphill case into Everest.”

One of the quirks of the legal battle over gerrymandering in California and Texas is that it is not possible to challenge the new maps on the grounds that they are drawn to give one political party an advantage. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court. That left the GOP in California challenging the new maps on racial grounds.

As attorneys presented their closing arguments last month in a Los Angeles courtroom, Staton reminded prosecutors that the burden was on the map’s challengers to prove racial intent.

But legal experts note that thinking about race when drawing district lines is not, in itself, illegal.

“Under the law at present, what matters is not whether you think about race,” Levitt said. “What matters is whether you think about race so much that you subordinated every other criterion to race in deciding where to put people.”

The GOP’s legal team tried to demonstrate racial intent by bringing to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said the new 13th Congressional District in the San Joaquin Valley had an “appendage” that snaked northward into Stockton. Such contorted offshoots, he said, are “usually indicative of racial gerrymandering.”

Attorneys for the GOP also tried to prove racial intent by focusing on public comments made by Mitchell, the redistricting expert. Ahead of Nov. 4, they said, he told Hispanas Organized for Political Equality, a Latino advocacy group, that the “number-one thing” he started thinking about was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles.”

During December’s hearing, Staton suggested that GOP attorneys focused too much of their closing arguments on the intent of Mitchell and Democratic legislators and not of the voters who ultimately approved Proposition 50.

“Why would we not be looking at their intent?” Staton asked Michael Columbo, an attorney for California Republicans. “If the relative intent is the voters, you have nothing.”

Hsu took issue with the GOP attorneys’ narrow focus on the 13th Congressional District, arguing he engaged in a “strawman” attempt to pick out one district to make the case that there was a broader racially motivated effort to flip five seats Democratic.

Lee, however, reserved most of his criticism for the state’s legal team.

Lee questioned the idea, offered by an attorney for the state, that Mitchell’s statement about wanting to create a Latino district in Los Angeles was just “talking to interested groups” and “he did not communicate that intent to legislators.”

Lee also said Mitchell’s closeness to Democratic interest groups was an important factor. He questioned why Mitchell did not testify at the hearing and invoked legislative privilege dozens of times during a deposition ahead of the hearing.

In his dissent, Lee said Mitchell’s public statements “confirm that race was a predominant factor in devising Congressional District No. 13.”

“We should accept the state’s mapmaker’s own words at face value when he said that he wanted to bolster a majority Latino district in the Central Valley,” he argued.

While the judges’ decision is a win for Newsom, Christian Grose, a professor of political science at USC, said the major victory was the Proposition 50 vote.

“It is a win for the excellent team of lawyers with the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and the California DOJ versus an incoherent and hard-to-follow legal argument presented by the Trump Department of Justice and the California Republican Party,” Grose said.

Times staff writer Christopher Buchanan contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Top Danish diplomats met with White House officials on Wednesday to talk about President Trump’s repeated threats to take control of Greenland and left with the understanding that the United States and Denmark have a “fundamental disagreement” about the future of the Arctic territory.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, told reporters that the closed-door meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been “frank, but also constructive,” and that he was hopeful the allied governments would be able to find a “common way forward” in the near future.

“For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable,” Lokke Rasmussen said. “We, therefore, still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree.”

In the hours leading up to the meeting, Trump said in a social media post that the “United States needs Greenland” for national security purposes — and that “anything less than” acquiring the Danish territory would be “unacceptable.” Otherwise, the president has argued, China or Russia will annex the territory because he does not think Danish officials have done enough to protect the island.

As Vance and Rubio met with the Danish officials, the White House posted a cartoon on social media that depicted two dog sleds, with Greenland’s flag on the back, facing two pathways: a sunny day at the White House or a stormy scenario with Chinese and Russian flags. The image did not show a pathway with Denmark.

Vivian Motzfeldt, Greenland’s foreign minister, told reporters after the meeting that she wants to strengthen the island’s ties with the United States. But she asserted: “That doesn’t mean that we want to be owned by the United States.”

The meeting marked the first time top officials from the three governments met to discuss Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, and it came at the same time that Denmark and allied countries announced they were increasing their military presence in and around the Arctic territory.

After the meeting, Lokke Rasmussen said a high-level working group would be formed and meet within weeks to “explore if we can find a common way forward” on security with the request that the U.S. respect Greenland’s sovereignty.

“Whether that is doable, I don’t know, but I hope it could take down the temperature,” he said.

A few hours after the closed-door meeting, Trump told reporters that he had not been briefed yet on the discussions but reiterated that “we need Greenland for national security.”

The president has long talked about making Greenland part of the United States, but his threats have escalated in the days after the U.S. military’s operation in Venezuela that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. For instance, Trump warned last week that his administration was going to “do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not.”

“If we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” Trump said at a White House event Friday.

European and Danish leaders have repeatedly opposed the president’s plans to take over the semiautonomous territory, warning that such a move threatens to dismantle the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Trump said Wednesday that part of the reason he wants to acquire Greenland is to build a Golden Dome missile defense system. He said NATO would become “far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States.”

On Tuesday, Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, and Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen both came out in opposition of the president’s plans.

“If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Nielsen said at a news conference in Copenhagen.

Asked about Nielsen’s comments, Trump said: “I disagree with him. … That’s going to be a big problem for him.”

The president’s plans have also drawn opposition domestically.

In Washington, a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland — let alone pursue any military action against a U.S. ally without congressional approval.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Tuesday joined Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to push legislation that would bar the departments of Defense andState from using funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control” over the territory of any other NATO member state.

In practice, the proposal — titled the “NATO Unity Protection Act — would block Trump from taking over Greenland.

“This bipartisan legislation makes clear that U.S. taxpayer dollars cannot be used for actions that would fracture NATO and violate our own commitments to NATO,” Shaheen said in a statement.

Murkowski said it was “deeply troubling” to see the United States attempt to use its resources against allies, and said such actions “must be wholly rejected by Congress in statute.”

“Our NATO alliances are what set the United States apart from our adversaries,” Murkowski said. “We have friends and allies who are willing to stand firmly alongside us as the strongest line of defense to keep those who work to undermine peace and stability from making sweeping advances globally.”

A similar bipartisan proposal was introduced in the House on Wednesday that would block federal funds from being used to occupy a NATO ally.

“America is at our strongest when we honor our alliances and stand by our allies,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat co-sponsoring the House measure.

Beyond diplomatic concerns, the president’s plans to buy or seize Greenland are not popular among the electorate.

About 9 in 10 registered voters oppose the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force, while only 9% are in favor, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. Voters are also divided on the idea of buying the territory, with 55% of voters opposing and 37% in favor.