Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — It is no secret that a lack of job creation has emerged as a pivotal election issue. But a new Los Angeles Times Poll suggests that Americans’ pocketbook concerns extend well beyond the labor market, and the public thinks that Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry would better look out for their financial futures than would President Bush.

Asked to name the candidate who would be “best at protecting the financial security of the average American,” 47% named Kerry, while 34% picked Bush.

Among independents, a group that could play a crucial role in determining the winner of the presidential election in November, the gap was even wider: 49% for Kerry and 26% for Bush.

Those polled also view the Bush White House as much more aligned with business interests than the interests of ordinary workers, and they express widespread doubts about the integrity of corporate America.

A 63% majority said the president was more concerned about corporations, while 21% said he was more concerned about workers. The view that the president sides with big business over rank-and-file workers has become more prevalent over time. In an August 2002 Times Poll, 55% felt that way.

The results suggest that the economic battleground in the presidential election campaign is taking an untraditional shape that transcends meat-and-potatoes issues such as employment and price levels. These days, people are also concerned about corporate scandal and the integrity of the financial markets — and the way their leaders are dealing with these matters.

“This poll tells me that Bush’s economic troubles are of the new post-inflation, post-unemployment form,” said Samuel L. Popkin, a UC San Diego political scientist and a Democrat.

It further indicates that “Bush hasn’t been able to convert military security into financial security,” he added.

The Times Poll of 1,616 adults nationwide was conducted between March 27 and March 30. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In the survey, 69% of those earning less than $50,000 a year saw the president as more concerned with corporations. That figure dipped to 56% among those earning $50,000 or more.

Follow-up interviews with some of those surveyed underscore that Americans have mixed feelings about Bush’s approach to corporate America and the economy.

Greg Voorhees, a registered independent from Bradenton, Fla., feels the economy has changed for the worse, with corporations aiming only for the bottom line, deserting employees for cheap labor overseas and paying top executives “millions and millions while their workers barely get the minimum wage.”

The Bush administration, he is convinced, has been too quick to craft policies that benefit corporate interests at the expense of the public. Ordinary Americans, the 51-year-old said, are not informed of the real agenda on matters ranging from energy policy to drugs and Medicare: The White House, he said, is “hiding something.”

But others disagree. Curtis Blevins, a warehouse worker in northeast Ohio, said he believed the president was helping regular employees by responding to the needs of large corporations.

“Ordinary people work for big business,” said Blevins, 38. “If he doesn’t help big business, ordinary people are out on their duff…. I’m an ordinary person. I work for a big company. The more he helps the big companies, the more we get to hire. The easier our jobs become.”

The poll suggests, however, that many Americans harbor strikingly negative feelings about big companies and those who run them.

Revelations of phony bookkeeping at Enron Corp., WorldCom Inc. and other companies first grabbed public attention more than two years ago. Since then, news of financial scandal has remained highly visible — most recently centering on the trials of Tyco International Ltd. executives accused of looting their company and of Martha Stewart, who was convicted of lying to investigators about her stock dealings.

Half of those polled said they would describe corporate fraud as “a widespread problem” in a system that is failing; 40% said only “a few corrupt individuals” engaged in such behavior. Three out of four Americans said they could trust executives “only some of the time” or “hardly ever.” Slightly fewer than 1 in 4 said they could trust executives most of the time.

Revelations of fraud also have affected personal behavior. Thirty-seven percent said they were less willing to invest in the stock market in light of the corporate scandals, while 31% said the revelations had not affected their willingness to invest. Many of the rest said they did not own stock.

Almost half of those surveyed — 45% — ranked economic issues as the most important problem facing the nation, about the same percentage that put security concerns at the top.

Democrats contend that the ongoing attention to corporate scandal aggravates public worries about financial security, in part because the series of high-profile frauds rattled the stock market and eroded long-term savings accounts for college and retirement. The scandals also raise questions about whether a greedy business elite operates on a different ethical playing field from the rest of society.

“Every day there’s a new scandal on television that makes our point,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. “You want to have somebody looking out for the economy that makes sure that corporations play by the rules and stockholders are protected.”

But Republicans maintain that corporate corruption is not an issue that will harm Bush. They often point out that the president has supported Justice Department prosecutions of white-collar criminals and ultimately endorsed sweeping legislation for corporate reform.

“Voters don’t hold the commander in chief in a position of corporate leadership,” said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant. “It’s very difficult for Kerry in his campaign to tie this knot around Bush’s neck.”

Reed asserted that strong economic growth, combined with Bush’s “optimistic message of hope,” presents a winning case for the president when it comes to financial security.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Financial assessment

Q: ‘He would be the best at protecting the financial security of the average American’: Does this apply more to George W. Bush or more to John Kerry?

Neither 9%

Bush 34%

Kerry 47%

Both equal 2%

Don’t know 8%

Q: Do you think George W. Bush cares more about protecting the interests of ordinary working people, or more about protecting the interests of large business corporations?

Ordinary people 21%

Large corporations 63%

Both 8%

Don’t know 8%

Q: Have corporate scandals in this country made you more willing or less willing to invest in the stock market, or have corporate scandals not played a role in your investing in the stock market one way or the other?

Don’t invest 23%

More willing 6%

Less willing 37%

No role 31%

Don’t know 3%

*

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Times Poll contacted 1,616 adults nationwide by telephone March 27 through 30, 2004. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation and random digit dialing techniques were used to allow listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. The entire sample of adults was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

Source: Times Poll

They are the warrior class of politics. The consultants, the Bob Shrums and Paul Maslins and Roger Stones and Roger Aileses and Ray Strothers and the others–Washington masters in the dark arts of campaigns, mercenaries holding sway over our dreams and our dreads. Only a few outsiders recognize them by name. Mostly they are known, in the romanticized jargon of their trade, as simply the hired guns of democracy–gloried, feared and hated.

And they are on their way to do battle in California.

For better or worse.

Drawn by tales of incredible riches to be made, of trendy and prolific initiative campaigns, and also drawn by the looming possibility that California will become the presidential “Super Tuesday” of 1992, a gold rush of political consulting is under way. It is a westward-ho migration of professional campaign talent without precedent.

Looking to Expand

Some of the biggest names in the business have moved their homes here from Washington. Others are opening Western offices or looking to expand. Still others are scouting for opportunity. Some are willing to work on the cheap just to get a toehold.

And with this new wave of national consultants comes renewed debate and alarm over familiar concerns.

Are consultants growing too numerous and expensive? Do they swallow up so much of the campaign budget that they weaken the candidate or the cause that they were hired to promote? Is there enough work in the elections of 1990 and 1992 in California, or will consultants have to bird-dog more candidates and ballot initiatives to pay the bills? And the most stubborn riddle of all: To what extent are consultants at the root of the negative, cynical, blow-with-the-wind, overly technological campaign politics of today?

Low Voter Turnout

More than just questions, these are expressions of simmering frustration. Around the world democracy is grabbing big, inky headlines–in China, in Russia, in Poland. But domestically, the news is of record-low voter turnouts and declining voter registration. And anyone close to the process is a target for blame. Consultants, because of their win-at-any-cost bravado, are easy to locate in the cross-hairs.

“Don’t come!” snaps Pat Caddell by way of advice to his former colleagues in the consulting business. “Stay home!”

In the course of a career as pollster and strategist in five Democratic presidential campaigns, Caddell has been everything from the creative boy genius of politics to its temperamental Darth Vader. As much as anyone, he is responsible for the flamboyant gunslinger mystique of the celebrity consultant: the man and woman who can mix polling and advertising and sheer cunning into electoral victory, never mind the attributes of the candidate.

Now living in Los Angeles, Caddell has angrily turned his back on the business, forswearing politics-for-profit. He is now one of the most colorful and energetic critics of Washington political consultants.

“These people are not coming out here for the good of California,” Caddell growls.

“Sometimes politics is a clash of ideology and ideas. But that’s not what this is about. This is about coming out here and making money. And if the consulting corps does for California what it’s done to the nation’s politics, it will be an unmitigated disaster. . . .

“What voters here are going to get is going to horrify them. Campaigns in California aren’t particularly edifying anyway. And they’re going to get worse–the kind of smear, mud and sleaze that we’ve already seen is nothing compared to what’s coming.”

Caddell represents the most astringent view, to be sure.

But most everyone in the political community has something to say, or fret about, as he beholds the invasion of the consultants:

* Bob Shrum (speech writer for Edward M. Kennedy, and media consultant for Richard Gephardt for President, Alan Cranston reelection, Leo T. McCarthy for Senate, John K. Van de Kamp for governor) moves from Georgetown, where he is one of the most storied names in the Washington business, to Los Feliz.

* Paul Maslin (baby-boomer pollster for Gary Hart for President, Paul Simon for President, Michael S. Dukakis for President, Cranston, McCarthy, Van de Kamp) likewise moves from Washington to Venice, Calif.

* Roger Stone (George Bush political lieutenant) signs up at a nominal fee to assist GOP state treasurer candidate Angela Bay Buchanan.

* Roger Ailes (Bush national television advertising, George Deukmejian reelection) is courted by GOP Treasurer Thomas W. Hayes. One political pro believes that Ailes, probably the most celebrated Republican consultant in the nation right now, will be asked to handle up to six campaigns in California before 1990 is over.

* Ray Strother (who has moved from a specialist in Southern campaigns to be a national figure in Democratic politics) is opening a Beverly Hills office. Strother is willing to work at “negotiable,” reduced rates as he tries to work his way into the state’s political network. Sergio Bendixen (Bruce Babbitt for President) is spending an increasing share of his time in California and is actively looking for work. John Russonello (Babbitt, Cranston) is anxious for work here.

* A broad assortment of other, perhaps lesser-known consultants are joining in the gold rush. Philadelphia’s Campaign Group, headed by Doc Sweitzer (Al Gore for President), has opened a San Diego office under Bill Wachob. Pollsters Mark Mellman and Ed Lazarus of Washington (Gore and Ohio Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum and former California gubernatorial contender state Sen. John Garamendi) are actively shopping for work here. Pollster Alex Evans (former Caddell associate) has moved from Washington to San Francisco. Celinda Lake of Greenberg-Lake pollsters in Washington (Dukakis campaign in California and Texas) is working for state treasurer candidate Kathleen Brown and pushing for a statewide initiative on children’s issues. And so on.

“The only thing that surprises me is that it has taken this long for the migration to take place,” Los Angeles lawyer and political adviser Darry Sragow said.

“And if there is a silver lining, it’s that with all the national talent and attention, California is bound to benefit as an originator of political ideas and trends, much as it is now viewed in the consumer arena as where trends start.”

Two men are most responsible for the migration.

One is a home-grown product, Clinton Reilly of San Francisco.

Prop. 103 Battle

Reilly (now managing Democrat Dianne Feinstein for governor) was the full-service consultant–strategy, polling, advertising, the works–for insurance companies in their $63.8-million California ballot initiative campaign of last year.

Reilly lost. The initiative backed by his insurers was defeated, and the rival Ralph Nader-backed rate-rollback Proposition 103 passed. But as the most expensive single-state campaign in U.S. history, jaws of consultants everywhere went agape.

It is assumed that Reilly set a record for consulting fees. Estimates of his earnings range from $6 million to $9 million, and occasionally higher.

“You put those kind of millions around anything that people vote on and consultants will swarm all over it. They’ll flatten the Rockies to get out there,” said James Carville, a Washington-based strategist who is not working here, at least not yet.

Reilly will not discuss specifics about his earnings. But he calls the estimates inflated, and says it is unfair to publish guesses of fees without considering his full-time staff of 20 to 25 who must be paid in off-years the same as in the heat of battle.

Still, Reilly’s campaign stands as an important milepost in the brief history of professional politics, starting back in those days when campaign work came mostly from the heart. Those were the days when the individual made the choice–if he wanted to make money, he went elsewhere; if he believed in something or someone, he threw himself into politics.

Career Option

Now, consulting is a career option just the same as accounting or law. Wholly self-made, Reilly at age 42 bears the fruits of such labors with ownership of his own three-story office building in downtown San Francisco, a showcase home in tony Sea Cliff, a luxury car, fine suits and a cultivated palate.

“I am rich. I have made money. Sometimes when I look at my assets they surprise me. And other times, like (when being interviewed) now, they embarrass me. But I tell you, my motive has never been just money. I am more interested in the professionalization of this business.

“I wanted people to get a fair fee rather than what I saw. Which was a politician waiting until the last minute, hiring you and asking how little could he pay you. Then, expect you to work crazy hours, seven days a week. And then fire you the day the election is over.”

But Reilly is also among a growing number of consultants with a twinge of doubt about how they have altered American politics.

“All this increasing emphasis on political money seems to have been detrimental to the public interest, where interest groups who have the money to give have created a paralysis in the system,” Reilly says. “It’s a byproduct of this professionalism that I didn’t anticipate.”

Gilded Reputation

The second person who has stimulated the migration of fellow national consultants to California is Bob Shrum.

Former speech writer to Sen. Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy (D-Mass.), Shrum and his partner, strategy guru David Doak, built their gilded reputation on the strength of the campaign they designed for Cranston’s uphill reelection to the Senate from California in 1986.

Since then, they have become one of the dominant forces in California Democratic politics, producing the advertising and strategy for Lt. Gov. McCarthy’s 1988 run for the Senate, Atty. Gen. Van de Kamp’s 1990 gubernatorial campaign, and for Occidental Petroleum’s Los Angeles ballot proposition campaign in 1988 to drill for oil in Pacific Palisades. They also were on retainer for Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in his easy reelection this year.

As he spent more and more time on business in California, the unexpected happened.

“I fell in love and got married, that’s why I moved here,” he said. His wife is Times society columnist MaryLouise Oates, now on leave writing a book.

Cupid aside, Shrum proved a pathfinder among the national consulting corps. Not only is it possible for a Washington consultant to be successful, and quickly, in California, Shrum showed that a California homestead does not necessarily reduce one’s clout in the Capitol. And he showed that an Easterner can survive here without changing habits. Shrum refuses to learn to drive.

Target of Criticism

Because of his high profile and his strong, lingering connection to the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party, Shrum gets more than his share of criticism for work on behalf of non-Kennedyesque clients. In particular, he is criticized in some liberal circles for his campaign on behalf of Occidental’s proposal to drill in Pacific Palisades, which was venomously opposed by environmentalists.

In truth, though, political professionals long ago ceased being driven solely by their devotion to a cause. Increasingly like lawyers, they are willing to sell their skills to a greater range of clients even though they remain sensitive to the charge they are selling out.

“There are certain basic guidelines,” explains Shrum about his approach to the business. “No Republican campaigns. No campaigns for someone I disagree with on a fundamental issue. . . . Occidental was not a litmus test.”

In the face of this westward migration of consultants, California’s home-grown corps of political professionals is sounding a game note.

“Bring ‘em on!” says Richie Ross, a combative strategist who earned his stripes in Democratic legislative races and San Francisco municipal elections. He is now state manager of Van de Kamp’s 1990 Democratic gubernatorial effort.

He’s Not Impressed

“They’re the guys who swagger around doing stuff we’ve done 10 years ago. Now we get a chance to beat them. I’ve seen their stuff. They don’t know anything about direct mail or targeting. Their TV (advertising) is pedestrian. And none of their strategic thinking knocks me away,” Ross said.

“The field of national politics is rotating west. Now we get an opportunity for visibility. I want people to say, ‘Hmmm, who is this guy who beat Atwater.’ ” (In this case, Atwater being Republican National Chairman and former Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater.)

Many in the consulting community agree that Californians are ahead of the nation in the sophistication of computerized direct mail. In its simplest form, it is nothing more than identifying a narrow community of interest–say, Greek-American voters. Then, these voters are sent special appeals pointing out that one’s candidate is endorsed by some Greek religious leader or that one’s opponent once cast a vote supporting Turkey, Greece’s adversary.

One reason why California consultants are unruffled by the added competition here is that they are moving direct mail and other technologies eastward just as rapidly and eagerly as Washington consultants are galloping west.

One firm, Winner/Wagner/Mandabach Associates, is a California company that drifted away from direct lobbying and campaign consulting here. But it has become heavily involved in ballot proposition campaigns in other states.

Where It’s At

“The things you learn in California you can take elsewhere. . . . It’s not like California was first with the initiative. But there is no question this is the ground where the technology has been developed,” says the company’s Scott Fitz-Randolph.

Still, for the money and thrills, California’s biannual orgy of ballot initiatives is tops in the consulting world, both for the home-staters and the newcomers. Here is a chance to get rich and do battle over driving issues of the day–insurance, political reform, transportation–all without distraction of a candidate.

So refined have initiatives become, they are promoted in classic congressional “pork barrel” fashion. The cases in point are a 1988 park bond and a proposed 1990 rail bond issue sponsored by the environmentalist Planning and Conservation League. In both instances, sponsors of the huge bond issues solicited campaign funds and political support from those who would benefit from the measures.

GOP consultant Dick Dresner, who has been spreading himself between San Diego and New York for seven years, says some national consultants are in for a surprise.

“You may think this a vast, open place. But you’ll be disappointed. You’ll find that whatever you do, there is somebody just as good already doing it here,” Dresner says.

Instant Credibility

On the other hand, there is an undeniable Washington cachet about these big-name consultants.

Candidates seek them out. Just by hiring one, a candidate can gain credibility with the press. If the press takes one seriously, so do campaign contributors. And, quickly, they are on their way.

“That’s what we’re selling,” says consultant Strother.

Pat Caddell believes the cozy relationship between the political press and consultants has subtly shielded the consulting business from the probing scrutiny given politicians, lawyers and other groups that wield substantial influence in society.

“Nobody questions the money, nobody questions the win-loss records, or what they will do to win. Nobody questions anything,” he grumps.

Aside from money, power is a sure draw on consultants. And there is an emerging view that the West, no longer the South, will be the site of the decisive presidential power play in upcoming elections. The political arithmetic of 1988 seems unchanged for 1992 and beyond: A Democrat will have tremendous trouble reaching the White House without California.

That is in the general election. In the primaries, California political leaders of both parties seem determined to move up the June primary, and some consultants figure an early vote here will become the “Super Tuesday” of 1992.

Taking Inventory

Given that, many consultants are taking inventory of their knowledge and contacts here. And they are worried. Looking back on 1988, there is considerable evidence that national consultants of both parties were weak in their understanding of the state.

Both Republican Bush and Democrat Dukakis often seemed slightly uncertain where to go or what to say. Dukakis finally showed how little his campaign understood the state when he decided to make his famous I-am-a-liberal-and-proud-of-it statement in the San Joaquin Valley, an act of geographic silliness not unlike a candidate going to San Diego and announcing his plan to mothball the Navy.

“National consultants know there is a need to get out here and become familiar with California if they’re really going to be effective,” says Kam Kuwata, a Santa Monica consultant of rising stature.

There is something else drawing consultants out of Washington. Call it the need for fresh perspective.

“I felt that to stay clearheaded, I needed to get out of Washington,” says pollster Maslin. “Money? Sure, that’s a factor. And it’s a growing part of the national dynamic. But I needed a chance to recharge outside of Washington.

“After 11 years in the cockpit of national politics, if you will, I needed to get my feet back on some ground. Even if that ground is the San Andreas Fault.”

WASHINGTON — The paint is peeling from the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool after the renovation ordered by President Trump, and he is now alleging, without substantiation, that someone damaged it intentionally.

“We’ve had some real problems with Vandalism at the beautiful Reflecting Pool,” he posted on his social media site Friday night. “Just like three days ago, they destroyed the grass outside of the Pool, they’ve also done everything possible to hurt the inside surface that was just installed.” He offered no details to substantiate his claim.

Agencies responsible for law enforcement and upkeep on the National Mall — the U.S. Park Police, National Park Service and Department of the Interior — did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Washington Post reported that Park Police officers arrested someone Friday who they said was peeling paint from the pool, an act that would not explain the clouds of algae in green water and swaths of loose blue paint detached from the bottom.

Trump insisted something nefarious was going on. “No different than the chemicals that were used on the National Mall, they used something similar in the Reflecting Pool to try to destroy and demean our beautiful work,” he posted.

That was a reference to the discovery of large numbers etched in discolored grass on the National Mall the week before: “86 47,” apparently advocating to “86” — get rid of, in restaurant lingo — the 47th president.

Authorities claimed the numbers may be a threat against Trump, and they are investigating. Trump’s Department of Justice has tried — unsuccessfully so far — to prosecute Trump foe and former FBI Director James B. Comey for posting a photo of seashells arranged in the numerals “86 47.”

Trump’s claims of vandalism came after days of negative attention to the state of the Reflecting Pool, which has raised concerns about the no-bid contract of more than $14 million to refurbish. The president has said the pool rehab was needed as the nation’s 250th anniversary celebrations ramp up.

The pool was swiftly beset by an algae bloom that returned its waters to the greenish color that Trump had tried to replace by having the bottom painted “American flag blue.”

Federal workers treated the pool with hydrogen peroxide to kill the algae. Now, chunks of the blue paint are gone, exposing its rocky bottom.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Noah Goldberg and Melissa Gomez, giving you the latest on city and county government.

It’s long been the Holy Grail for the reform crowd that tracks L.A. city government: expanding the size of the City Council.

The idea of giving L.A. more council members was endorsed by the city’s redistricting commission in 2021. Two years later, the concept was debated at length by a council committee focused on reform. After that panel failed to reach a decision, the idea was assigned to the city’s Charter Reform Commission, which endorsed the change, saying the council should have 25 members, up from 15.

Yet even after that five-year journey, the council voted Wednesday to push a proposed ballot measure on that topic off to the future, sending the idea to a new reform committee for more deliberations.

So what happened this time around?

For one thing, the 13-member citizens commission that recommended the idea didn’t offer a lot of specifics on how the change would work.

The commission recommended 10 additional council members, a move that would cause each district to shed more than 100,000 residents, leaving each member with about 159,000 constituents.

But it never explained whether that decrease should be accompanied by a similar reduction in a council member’s salary, now nearly $245,000 a year.

“That’s one of the reasons why [council expansion] is slated for further study,” Councilmember Bob Blumenfield said in an interview. “While the commission might have had a nice discussion and a negotiation among themselves, what we need to have in front of us to vote responsibly is context and information.”

A councilmember’s pay could be a major sticking point for voters during a campaign over council expansion — especially if an opposition campaign arose to defeat it.

Blumenfield said the commission failed to vet other issues, including the number of council aides needed for each district if a district is smaller.

Councilmember Tim McOsker expressed a similar view.

“I think there were gaps in what the commission proposed — substantive gaps,” he said.

Backers of council expansion have argued that an increase in the number of districts would make the council more responsive and more diverse. Opponents said bigger does not necessarily mean better representation.

Raymond Meza, who chaired the Charter Reform Commission, acknowledged that pay, staffing and the cost of each council office didn’t come up during his panel’s deliberations. Those questions should have fallen to the council, which reviews and approves the city budget each year, he said.

“They would need to figure this out through the budget process, like they figure out most other things in the city,” he said.

Meza said he believes that, in the end, council members didn’t want to dilute their own power. Former City Councilmember Mike Bonin offered a similar take, saying elected officials generally don’t want to risk changing the system that got them into office.

“They are in power because of the way the system is structured,” said Bonin, who now runs the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State LA.

Before sidelining the expansion proposal, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said a larger council would shift the balance of power at City Hall, giving the mayor greater authority and the council less of it.

In the end, none of these delays may end up mattering. No one at City Hall expected council expansion to happen until 2032 anyway, since the change would require a new round of redistricting — the process of drawing new boundaries for each council district. Redistricting won’t happen until after the release of results from the 2030 U.S. Census.

In other words, there’s still time for voters to act.

What happened to the City Hall misconduct measure?

Here’s another proposal that got shunted to the sidelines during the council’s eight-hour marathon meeting: what to do about city elected officials who are charged with serious crimes.

Charter reform was, in part, a reaction to a string of corruption scandals. Among them: three sitting council members who were charged with felonies between 2020 and 2023.

In each case, council members had to decide whether to use their power, spelled out in the City Charter, to suspend colleagues accused of wrongdoing — stripping away their duties until their criminal cases were resolved.

The council moved swiftly to suspend then-Councilmember Jose Huizar in 2020, taking action the day he was arrested, before he even pleaded “not guilty” to racketeering and other charges. The council suspended then-Councilmember Mark Ridley-Thomas in 2021 after a lengthy floor debate, with some saying he was being denied his due process rights. (Ridley-Thomas, who was found guilty of seven felonies, is fighting his conviction.)

A few years later, the council decided not to suspend Councilmember Curren Price, allowing him to step off of his council committees but preserving his other council duties as he contests charges of embezzlement, perjury and conflict-of-interest violations.

Although the case is still ongoing, Price is back on various city committees.

Each of those cases put the council in a bind. Voting in favor of suspension can mean depriving a council member’s constituents of representation. It also runs counter to the idea that a colleague is innocent until proven guilty.

Voting against suspension has its own set of dangers, such as undermining trust in city government. It could also allow an elected official accused of wrongdoing to continue taking part in decisions about contracts, real estate development and other matters where the potential for corruption exists.

Under the current system, a council member can be suspended with just eight votes. Harris-Dawson, who supported the suspension of Huizar but opposed it for Ridley-Thomas, said early on that he wanted the Charter Reform Commission to look at the process for disciplining elected officials accused of wrongdoing.

The Charter Reform Commission offered its answer two months ago, recommending that the council retain the power to suspend, but only with a three-fourths vote — 12 out of 15. That safeguard was meant to guard against potential abuses of power, said Meza, the former commission chair.

The council declined to put that idea on the ballot, saying it needs more study.

Asked about that decision, Harris-Dawson said he has long had serious problems with the idea that “one set of elected officials could suspend another set of elected officials.” He suggested that a third party in another branch of government — not the council — determine whether a member merits suspension.

Under that arrangement, the council could initiate the process but leave it to a judge or other party to make the final call, he said.

“I personally think that we have checks and balances in government that should be respected,” Harris-Dawson said.

A last-minute union threat

One ballot proposal that did survive this week’s gauntlet of votes was a plan to increase, not decrease, the council’s power. That proposal, backed by Councilmember Hugo Soto–Martínez, would give the council the authority to set policy at the Los Angeles Police Department.

But even that proposal may be in danger, thanks to a dispute that has erupted between the city’s labor negotiators and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers.

Union leadership said this week that the league was not formally asked by management to meet and confer over various charter proposals dealing with the LAPD, including the one focused on policy. That step is legally required before such measures can be sent to voters, the union said.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, the city’s chief labor negotiator, told council members on Monday that his office sent three emails to various employee units asking if they wanted to confer over the charter changes. He said his office received no response from the police union.

A day later, after learning of Szabo’s remarks, the league fired back.

In a letter to council members, the union said it only received emails about charter reform that had nothing to do with policing. Those emails did not constitute a formal invitation to meet and confer about potential changes at the LAPD, the union said.

The city “did not follow the law and did not formally contact us,” union President Ricky Mendoza said in a statement.

The council voted to draft the change in LAPD policy making, pending a confidential report from the city attorney on whether the city first has to bargain with the police union. Council members cast that vote even after the union demanded that they suspend any further consideration of the proposal for the Nov. 3 ballot.

If the city attorney concludes that the LAPD ballot proposal does not require further talks, the Police Protective League will file a lawsuit to protect its members’ legal rights, union officials said.

On Wednesday, Szabo said the proposal to give the council power over LAPD policy decisions doesn’t require collective bargaining.

The proposal to give council say over policy at the LAPD wasn’t the only one focused on that department. Another measure discussed by the council would have given the police chief power to terminate alleged problem officers.

The council sent it to a committee for more study. The union said that proposal also would have required a meet and confer process.

State of play

— CITY CHARTER GRAB BAG: As noted earlier, the council voted to draft an assortment of charter amendments for the Nov. 3 ballot, including one to allow the council to give noncitizen residents the right to vote in local elections. The council also ordered up a measure doubling the amount of money allocated for the Department of Recreation and Parks, discarding an alternative plan that would have increased it by 50%. Other measures would switch the city to a two-year budget process and require a five-year plan for maintaining and upgrading city infrastructure.

— KNOWING ME, KNOWING ULA: Looking to boost apartment construction, the council backed a surprise plan to rewrite Measure ULA, the tax on high-end property sales passed by voters in 2022 and sometimes called the mansion tax. The council voted 9-5 to instruct the city’s lawyers to draft a measure exempting apartment buildings sold within 10 years of construction from having to pay the tax. Another vote will be needed to get it on the ballot.

— ZOO STORY: Membership at the Los Angeles Zoo has fallen by 23% over the past year, dropping from 36,914 in April 2025 to 28,440 in February, according to a report issued by the Los Angeles County civil grand jury. That report urged the city to create a new public-private partnership to run the facility, saying such a move will be critical for the zoo’s long-term survival.

— SHERIFF SUBPOENAS: L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission is suing the Sheriff’s Department, asking a judge to order the release of records on three use-of-force incidents involving its deputies. The commission issued three subpoenas to the agency in February 2025, but according to the suit, the department has declined to fully comply.

— UNION DUES AND DON’TS: A former high-level officer with L.A.’s firefighter union has been accused of stealing more than $82,000 from a charity for injured firefighters to pay for his online gambling, his mortgage and other personal expenses. Adam Walker, former secretary of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, was charged with one count each of grand theft and forgery, prosecutors announced Wednesday.

— DOG DISASTER: The Los Angeles Police Department is facing a public outcry after its officers shot and killed the dog of a woman celebrating the New York Knicks’ NBA championship in Canoga Park. Video on social media showed the dog’s owner sobbing and hugging her dog, who was wearing a Knicks T-shirt, as several LAPD officers stood nearby.

— BASS WEIGHS IN: The Canoga Park incident prompted Mayor Karen Bass to issue a statement promising a thorough and transparent investigation into the death of Jameson, the dog killed by the LAPD. “Every life lost to violence is a tragedy, and we know that the devastating loss of Jameson will be felt by his family forever,” she said. “I have spoken directly to the Chief to ensure a full investigation and accountability for any wrongdoing.”

— OFFICE FIRE: A fire broke out at a building in Pacific Palisades where former mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt maintained an office for his crystals company. Pratt, whose home burned in the 2025 Palisades fire, called the latest blaze “very suspicious.” The fire department said it’s investigating.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to a stretch of Silver Lake Boulevard that passes under the 101 Freeway. That area is represented by Soto-Martínez.
• On the docket next week: The council meets Wednesday to take up the massive 4th & Central project, which calls for offices, retail space and nearly 1,600 units of housing on a 7.6-acre site in downtown.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Just past noon, a young man appeared on the north side of San Vicente Boulevard, a block west of Hauser, and eyeballed the flow of westbound traffic.

When he saw an opening, he slid across to the median strip, where he waited for eastbound traffic to let up before crossing over to the south side of San Vicente to pick up some takeout food. And then he retraced his steps across the 150-foot wide thoroughfare that knifes through the heart of the city along what once was the Red Car line of the Pacific Electric Railway.

He should have used the nearby crosswalk, but there aren’t enough of those on the boulevard, so pedestrians routinely skitter and scoot across the street like they’re in a game of Frogger.

I watched this drama the other day from Dam Good Coffee, where I met with two guys who live in the neighborhood and, in their spare time, have been doing a lot of thinking. They’re fine-tuning a pitch to reengineer the boulevard, reduce traffic, improve access to two new transit lines and transform the Mid-City portion of San Vicente Boulevard — from the Beverly Center on the west to just past La Brea on the east — into a 3-mile, 30-acre linear park.

Ambitious. Outlandish. Insane.

From left, Catherine Geanacouras, Oren Hadar and Michael Wacht of the San Vicente Park Foundation have a plan to turn a stretch of San Vicente Boulevard into a greenway.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

It’s all of that and a longshot undertaking, given the countless obstacles that can derail their dream. But Oren Hadar, a sound engineer, and Michael Wacht, an architect, are serious, along with a small coalition of neighborhood believers.

“One of the things I always say is L.A. needs to get back into the business of taking big swings,” Hadar said. He is motivated in part by the fact that his two young kids don’t have a nearby park to play in.

The big swing comes at a time when Los Angeles has just fallen from 90th to 93rd in terms of park acreage, investment and accessibility in the annual Trust for Public Lands ranking of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. You’d think a city with great weather and thousands of apartment dwellers with little or no outdoor space would fight its way into the top 10 rather than settle for sinking to the bottom of the heap.

“What if L.A.’s next great park was already here, hiding in plain sight?” a narrator asks in a video that appears on the group’s San Vicente Park website.

Local resident Jo and her dog Elle carefully cross San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 17, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Sun-baked asphalt would give way to turf. Pedestrians and cyclists would have more breathing room. There’d be far less traffic.

“You can put in micro forests,” Wacht said. “You can do farmers markets. You can do growing areas. You can do fountains. Playgrounds.”

Catherine Geanuracos, a CicLAvia board member who was an advocate for turning the Silver Lake Reservoir into an aquatic park, joined our conversation and called the idea “eminently feasible.”

“I think this is what makes L.A. great,” Geanuracos said. She’s lived in New York City and San Francisco and thinks there’s greater opportunity here for engaged residents to advance their civic improvement ideas.

The advocates said they’d gotten some encouragement from Councilmembers Heather Hutt and Katy Yaroslavsky, whose districts include the area of the proposed park. Hutt’s office sent me a statement saying she supports “effrorts to create more walkable, green communities.” She said she has encouraged the group to keep exploring the vision, and she looks forward to hearing input from various other neighborhood groups.

Hadar writes a blog called The Future Is L.A., which is part love letter to Los Angeles and part lament on unmet potential.

“Just about every other major American city has a policy and research think tank dedicated to pursuing ideas that could make the city better,” Hadar recently wrote, calling for L.A. to have its own.

I don’t want to say the park idea’s chances are slim, but let’s look at a few hurdles.

Traffic passes through the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and La Brea in Los Angeles on.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

L.A. city government has trouble managing existing parks and even the open spaces around City Hall, so how can it build and care for another 30 acres of greenery?

The cost would be in the millions, and the cup does not runneth over.

And then there’s the biggest pothole of all on the road to pastoral wonder:

Creating the park would mean squeezing off one or two lanes of traffic in each direction of San Vicente. That would dump more cars onto surrounding streets and set up another road diet clash that pits car culture against growing demand for a city that is safer and more inviting for those who walk, bike and use transit.

All of this would be examined in a feasibility study the advocates are raising money for. But the supporters claim San Vicente is lightly traveled compared to Wilshire, Pico and Olympic, so stealing traffic lanes wouldn’t be catastrophic.

I mentioned that I’d think twice about sending kids to play in a median strip park. But the supporters said San Vicente would become more of a neighborhood service street than a thruway, with safer crossings into the new park, which by the way already has plenty of full-grown trees.

When I took a walk and polled people on the park idea, I got mixed reactions.

“That’s a bad idea,” said a man who was walking along the median strip. He said he thought that after the addition of bike lanes a few years ago squeezed vehicular traffic, San Vicente became more dangerous, and the idea of a park between lanes of traffic sounded disastrous to him.

Miguel Lopez looked like he was trying to bring the park vision to life. He sat on the median strip reading a book and smiled when he was shown a rendering of San Vicente Park.

Blanca Vanburian practices tai chi in her yard along San Vicente Boulevard on Wednesday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Blanca Vanburian, who was doing a variation of Tai Chi on the lawn outside her apartment building, had several good questions, including one about whether the city could be trusted to maintain a new park. She said a lot of residents would be concerned about new traffic flows through side streets, and she wondered if the park would attract more homeless people.

Hadar told her the feasibility study would probe all of that, and the more she heard, the more Vanburian came around to the idea of the park.

“It’s up to us how we use public space,” Wacht said, looking out on a particularly unattractive stretch of roadway that generates so much exhaust and serves as a barrier, dividing two neighborhoods. “I get disappointed when I see so much of it devoted to this, and it’s keeping us from being more of a cohesive neighborhood.”

Margaret Free walks three basset hounds, named Bob, Doris and Ruth, along San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Margaret Free was walking three Basset hounds — Bob, Doris and Ruth. She said she and the dogs could be counted as four votes in favor of the park.

A woman named Jo safely managed a Frogger crossing with her dog, Elle. Jo said she was absolutely in favor of a park and doesn’t think losing lanes of vehicle traffic is a bad thing, but she feared backlash from drivers who disagree and asked me to withhold her last name.

Joshua Mock, owner of Dam Good Coffee, said everyone would benefit from the park, especially neighborhood children. “It’d be dope,” he said, “and good for business.”

For all the doubters, the advocates point to several projects around the country where public spaces were repurposed, including the New York City High Line. And they note that several local projects are in the design or construction phase, including the L.A. River master plan, the Broadway-Manchester streetscape project and the park under the Sixth Street bridge.

If you have ideas for remaking your neighborhood, send them my way.

And take big swings.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

After Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week that the U.S. Department of Justice may be investigating his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, media and pundits pounced on millions in charity payments he has solicited for nonprofits, including ones she is involved in.

Those donations, known as “behested payments,” aren’t illegal in California, but, long before Newsom started asking for them, many have found them unsavory — with good cause. A behest, after all, is by definition a command or at least a strong suggestion.

Anytime a politician is commanding money, regardless of the purpose, there is at least the appearance that the giver — Meta, Google, Blue Shield for example — may expect something in return.

It may seem absurd that the Trump administration could be investigating Newsom for questionable ethics, when Trump has hawked everything from crypto-coins to sneakers from the Oval Office. But the problem Newsom now faces is that behested payments are actually skeevy, and legal or not, they make an excellent target for pummeling the presidential contender. Especially because some of the charities are tied to his wife.

“The Newsom case has blown it wide open, but this has been an issue for years,” Sean McMorris told me. He’s the transparency, ethics and accountability program manager at Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization that has been raising alarms over behested payments for more than a decade.

McMorris said that while these payments don’t violate any laws, they are “ripe for abuse” because companies and people likely aren’t ponying up cash just to be good citizens. If you or I called up PG&E and asked them to give a few million to our favorite cause, I doubt we’d have much luck, even if it involved kittens, puppies or small children in need.

The entire system, McMorris points out, “doesn’t really work unless you’re shaking down people who you know need things from you as a politician.”

Jerry Brown used behested payments to get millions for charter schools he supported. Lesser luminaries such as mayors (including Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti and Karen Bass, just to name the last three in L.A.) have used them for all kinds of stuff from jobs programs to fixing up official residences.

And it’s far from a Democratic thing. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used them to pay for travel and after-school programs. Republican James Gallagher, who recently won a congressional seat, used them to fund computers for schools while he was in the state Legislature. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones has raised millions, including helping to get $800,000 in donations to fund a replica of a historic ship for the maritime museum in his San Diego district.

Trump himself could be considered king of behested payments, with his corporate-paid ballroom and birthday bash.

Literally, folks, find me a politician with an itty-bitty bit of clout, and I’ll show you a trail of behested payments stretching through their pet projects. For that reason alone, it’s unlikely that California legislators will take any action to curb them, especially now when doing so would appear as a criticism to Newsom and Democrats in general.

And, to be fair, behested payments can do a lot of good. Newsom supercharged behested payments during the pandemic, raising hundreds of millions for programs to get Californians through that social disaster.

For that reason and others, not all experts find them terribly troubling. Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor with an expertise in election and governance issues, points out that money in politics is nothing new and at least behested payments are (mostly) required to be acknowledged. Anything over $5,000 and the politician has to report it to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which keeps a public database.

That makes behested payments far more transparent than, say, dark money donations to a mysterious political action committee. And at least the money is going to a good cause, be it historical ships or computers for kids.

“I actually don’t think that they’re the evil mechanism that other people do,” Levinson said. “I mean, my feeling is like, let’s live in reality, right? People are going to want to give as much money to or close to powerful people as possible, and I think that we have a choice between money going to independent expenditure groups or political committees or going to nonprofits.”

So behested payments in and of themselves might not be much of a headache for Newsom. But some of the payments Newsom solicited went to nonprofits Siebel Newsom is involved with, and which have paid her a salary. That proximity is uncomfortable for many of us. There is no distinction for a behest given to a charity with direct ties to the politician, but maybe there should be.

Still, salaries being paid by behested payments also aren’t illegal, and it’s been done before, even by Newsom. Villaraigosa was paid through behested funds for his work as the state “infrastructure czar” back in 2022. Bass considered paying former L.A. Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff through behested-funded nonprofits for his work after the recent fires before public scrutiny pushed him to forgo the funds.

None of that is to say the Newsoms are off the hook in a federal investigation. Newsom’s office said that along with the FBI, agents from the IRS have been knocking on doors and asking questions. All of us — probably the Newsoms included — will just have to wait to see if the fine-tooth combs of the feds pick up any dirt.

If there is any lesson to be learned at this point, it’s about ambition and hubris. Behested payments are easy money for California politicians and business as usual — everyone does it. But maybe they shouldn’t. It’s not black or white.

Newsom is learning quickly what it means to have a powerful enemy like Trump, one who has shown he will use the full power of the American government for his own purposes. One who can tip the scales and slide white to gray and gray to felony.

Federal investigators do not like to come up empty-handed, and the wink-wink nature of behested payments creates just that kind of ambiguity that provides reasonable cause for investigation — a self-inflicted vulnerability that surely has every California politician nervous.

Just days after the Trump administration completed millions of dollars in renovations on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to make it American flag-blue, residents and online users noted it had turned a phosphorescent green.

Here’s why:

The calm, still waters of the Reflecting Pool make it an ideal nursery for algae growth. Algae need nitrogen and phosphorus to grow, and the Reflecting Pool is primarily fed by the Potomac River, which gets heavy doses of those nutrients from nearby urban and agricultural lands.

The Potomac also absorbed one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history earlier this year when a pipe burst five miles upstream of Washington, although that event probably happened too long ago to contribute to the algal bloom today.

Untreated sewage is high in nitrogen and phosphorus. When nutrient levels are high, feasting algae can quickly reproduce.

The Department of the Interior said when the algae first appeared that it was “residual,” from the supply lines to the pool.

Experts also speculate that the darker blue color may be helping the Reflecting Pool absorb more heat. The higher temperatures promote algae growth by allowing their metabolisms to shift into overdrive.

Summer temperatures in D.C. aren’t helping. This week, temperatures are as high as 95 degrees in the city, prompting a heat alert.

The combination probably explains the excessive growth, turning the water surface an opaque green and preventing onlookers from seeing the new blue hue of the concrete basin.

Algae are important and beneficial organisms when the ecosystem is in balance. They’re the base of the aquatic food chain, fed on by herbivores of all shapes and sizes, including shrimp and juvenile fish, which in turn feed organisms higher up the food chain. The single-celled organisms use the power of the sun to produce energy through photosynthesis, similar to houseplants on your balcony.

In an effort combat the algae in the Reflecting Pool, employees of the National Park Service were seen pouring in gallons of hydrogen peroxide, a chemical commonly used in pool maintenance.

The Department of the Interior also is employing a “high-tech nanobubble ozone technology” to destroy the cells of the algae.

Ozone — yes, the same irritant that is in smog — is a gas composed of three oxygen molecules, and the small size of the bubbles allow the most gas transfer into the water, where it can damage algal cells, similar to how it irritates our lungs.

This only treats the symptoms, however. Generally, ozone nanobubbling is effective as a temporary solution for algae blooms. Longer-term fixes would have to address what makes the Reflecting Pool so ideal for algae, such as its depth, darker color and inflow of nitrogen and phosphorus.

In California, ozone nanobubbles also have been used in a project to improve water quality in the Tijuana River. The 120-mile river that runs near the border in northern Mexico and Southern California was the site of a pilot study in 2025. The U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission reported that the nanobubbling reduced “odors and bacteria,” but the project concluded prematurely after a flood swept some of the instrumentation into the river.

JOINT BASE ANDREWS, Md. — President Trump on Friday showed off the new Air Force One, a formerly Qatari-owned — and much debated — jumbo jet that has been converted into the official U.S. presidential aircraft.

The new plane — gifted from the Qatari government, raising a host of legal, ethical and security questions — will take on a new look, eschewing the Kennedy-era robin’s egg blue exterior in favor of white on the top half, its underbelly navy blue with a red stripe above it.

“This plane was transformed into a flying White House at a level of luxury that nobody has ever seen before,” Trump said from inside the massive Joint Base Andrews hangar, as a couple of hundred assembled Air Force personnel looked on. He spoke after stepping off the new plane in a dramatic flourish, as his signature tune “God Bless the USA” played.

He confirmed that he would be taking the new jet to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Ankara, Turkey, next month and indicated that he would be returning to China “at some point,” presumably a reference to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit that China is hosting in November. His return from the Group of 7 summit in France this week was the last planned trip aboard the old Air Force One, he said.

“Now, when we land at airports in London and in Germany and different places, nobody tops this one, and that’s the way we have to have it for our country,” Trump said, noting that the colors and the design were to “my taste, I will say.”

He added that the new Air Force One will do a flyover during the July 4 celebrations next month.

The gift from Qatar is serving as a so-called bridge aircraft to carry the president until new planes ordered directly from Boeing arrive. That is currently slated for 2028.

The administration formally accepted a luxury Boeing 747 jet from Qatar last year to be used as the presidential airplane, despite questions about security and the ethics and legality of accepting such an expensive gift from a foreign government. Trump has claimed in the past that he would not fly around in the Qatari jet once he leaves office and said it would instead be donated to a future presidential library.

Trump on Friday said the U.S. was in a “little bit of a logjam” as it awaited the delivery of the new jets directly from Boeing, which had originally been scheduled for 2024 but have been delayed. He recalled asking the emir of Qatar for the use of one of their planes.

“See, a normal president wouldn’t do this. A normal president wants to stay away from aircraft,” Trump said Friday. “But our country has to be represented properly.”

Members of Congress and others have questioned the cost and effort that would be needed to make security modifications to an aircraft from a foreign government.

The Air Force said in a news release Friday that any plane deemed Air Force One “must meet rigorous security requirements” and that the Qatari plane “was modified under a disciplined engineering approach that prioritized these exact core capabilities above all else.” The Air Force also said “much of the previous head of state interior layout” of the plane was kept intact.

The Air Force has said in the past that security modifications to the jet would cost less than $400 million.

Trump’s efforts to reimagine the presidential airplane date back to his first administration, when he directed that an incoming fleet of new jets would adopt a color scheme that was nearly identical to that of his personal airplane. Then-President Biden reversed the decision in March 2023 as an Air Force review suggested that the darker colors could increase costs and delay delivery of the new jets, but once Trump returned to office, he returned to his desired colors for the plane.

Other government jets that carry other top administration officials will use a similar red, white and navy color scheme, the Air Force said earlier this year.

An Air Force spokesperson, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive plans, told the Associated Press that the two current planes, known as VC-25As, will not be retiring. Instead, they will remain in the fleet until the new Boeing planes, referred to as VC-25Bs, come into service, the spokesperson said.

It is unclear how the older jets will be used but the spokesperson said that both the Qatari jet as well as the VC-25As will be available for use and “the Presidential Airlift Group will select the appropriate aircraft for each mission based on operational requirements.”

Kim and Ceneta write for the Associated Press. Kim reported from Washington. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report from Washington.

WASHINGTON — More than $350 million from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has been quietly directed to White House security, an allotment that Democrats warn appears to be helping fund his new ballroom project — despite the president’s insistence that no taxpayer dollars would be used.

The apportionment of funds, which the White House’s Office of Management and Budget made late Friday, comes from two accounts that were intended to provide the U.S. Secret Service with extra money for hiring and training in the aftermath of last year’s assassination attempts on the president, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The shift was made days after Congress rejected a $1-billion request for the White House in a Homeland Security bill that Trump signed into law and as the ballroom project is tangled in legal challenges.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel initially drafted the security funding, said Thursday he was unaware of the allocations.

“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley (R-Iowa). “And that’s what the country expects.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, charged that Trump’s actions are potentially illegal.

“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.

“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley said. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”

Ballroom project hits setbacks

Trump has faced setbacks in his attempts to build the ballroom on the White House grounds, where he ordered the demolition of the storied East Wing to make way for it.

Touring the construction site last month, Trump called the development a “gift” to the American people. He has repeatedly said that it is being paid for by donations — which has also run into ethics questions from watchdogs concerned about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

Congress refused the Trump administration’s request for $1 billion for the ballroom last month. The administration wanted the money as part of a Homeland Security bill, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers rejected efforts to tack it on. It became politically toxic at a time when Americans are reeling from inflationary high costs of living.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the price tag for the project has ballooned to $600 million, according to a project summary prepared by the contractor, with more than half of that funding coming from taxpayers. Roll Call first reported on the apportionment of new funds for White House security.

At its core, arguments are swirling over how much of the White House project is to bolster security underground, with bomb shelters and a medical facility, and how much of the costs are related to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom on top.

White House says Trump and donors are paying for the ballroom

A spokesman for the White House said that Trump and donors are funding some $400 million for the ballroom development, and that the coordination with the Secret Service had been noted in the initial announcement of the project.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” said White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle in a statement.

He said the events over the past weekend, including an alleged attack plan targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, proves why the project is needed.

“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.

Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones and missiles.

The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the White House’s $1-billion request would go to harden the ballroom addition, with bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other systems.

The rest of the money would go for other security improvements, according to a document provided to Senate Republicans, including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” White House visitors screening facility.

Congress holds power of the purse

The shifting funds are certain to ignite growing concerns in Congress over the separation of powers, and the president’s use of federal funds allocated by lawmakers.

The money comes from Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that the president signed into law last summer. It provided more than $1 billion for Secret Service resources, including “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”

The provision was uncontested at the time, even as Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats said they did not challenge this section or try to strip it out from the package.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the specific authority to allocate funds across the federal government, including the executive and judicial branch operations.

While the president holds the power to sign — or veto — those appropriation bills, once the funding becomes law, it largely must stand.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge on Friday rejected former President Biden’s attempt to block the Trump administration from releasing to a conservative group the recordings that Biden made with a ghostwriter.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich found that the public interest in the material outweighed whatever privacy rights Biden had.

The recordings were obtained by special counsel Robert Hur in the course of his investigation into whether Biden improperly retained classified documents while a senator and vice president. Republicans in Congress demanded them after Hur declined to file charges against the then-president.

Biden’s Democratic administration refused to turn over the 2017 recordings and transcripts, leading congressional Republicans to hold his attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt.

President Trump’s Department of Justice authorized the release of the materials. That led Biden last month to sue to seek to block the release to a staffer at the conservative Heritage Foundation who had formally requested the records.

Biden objected to the release as an invasion of privacy, saying the recordings included him discussing sensitive personal matters such as the death of his older son, Beau Biden. But Friedrich found that the administration redacted that material.

The judge wrote that the materials “contain no mention of highly sensitive topics like illness or death, nor do they mention any non-public persons, including members of Biden’s family.”

Representatives for Biden did not immediately comment but asked Friedrich to bar release of the material while they appeal her decision. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Friedrich was nominated by Trump, a Republican, in 2017.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — As Janeese Lewis George paves a path to the mayor’s office in Washington, D.C., she’s told voters they could have it all.

Her unapologetically expansive, left-wing agenda includes subsidized or even free childcare, increased down payment assistance for homebuyers and community resources to reduce crime, plus a promise to aggressively confront President Trump’s attempts to reshape the nation’s capital.

“People are tired of hearing what government can’t do. They want to hear what government can do,” Lewis George said in an interview before the city’s primary, where she defeated her Democratic opponents and positioned herself to win the general election in November in a city dominated by Democrats.

Lewis George’s victory signals a break with a quarter-century of centrist governance in Washington, and it puts her in the vanguard of democratic socialists who have ascended in urban politics over the last year. Zohran Mamdani toppled Andrew Cuomo, the scion of a political dynasty, on his way to becoming New York City mayor. Katie Wilson won an upset victory to lead Seattle last fall. And this month, Nithya Raman clinched a spot in the November runoff against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

All of them are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA. The political organization has seen its membership ranks swell from a few thousand to more than 100,000 nationwide over the last decade after an influx of younger Americans joined following the presidential bids of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also a self-described democratic socialist.

There’s little sign of national coordination among the candidates, and it’s unclear whether voters are gravitating toward their promises of improved government services, their vows to fight the Trump administration or their critiques of capitalism.

But from coast to coast, confrontational progressives are advancing in mayoral races. City leaders can draw outsized attention for their successes and failures, and democratic socialists will be under pressure from residents to deliver on their vows for a new kind of governance. Whether that translates to national politics is a next test for their movement.

“They are all channeling a displeasure with a status quo and a serious desire for economic populism that the establishment Democratic Party hasn’t been preaching,” said Eric Stern, a Democratic strategist with Fight Agency, a political consulting firm that strategized Mamdani’s mayoral campaign.

Stern added that Democratic voters appeared more willing to support the most progressive candidate in mayoral races rather than in contests for the U.S. House. Candidates like Mamdani and Raman, Stern said, are “daring voters to dream and fall in love not just with the individual candidates but also the political process as a whole.”

A rising left navigates America’s urban challenges

The trend of progressives surging in urban areas may have limits for its broader impact on Democratic politics. Democratic mayors in cities including Atlanta, Houston, Miami and San Francisco won on relatively moderate platforms in recent years.

Progressive have also faced noteworthy challenges. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson was endorsed by the city’s DSA chapter during his 2023 mayoral run but has since faced criticism from both moderate and liberal local leaders on issues such as immigration, the local budget and public safety. Recalls and public pressure ousted progressives elected to district attorney offices in multiple jurisdictions over the last five years, when criminal justice reform efforts ran into dissatisfaction over public disorder following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump’s hardline immigration and law enforcement tactics have also become a challenge for liberal cities. The president’s agenda poses an especially serious threat to Washington, D.C., because of its status as a federal territory.

“Maybe we take back Washington and run it on a federal basis,” Trump told reporters this month when asked about the potential election of a democratic socialist as the district’s mayor. “We won’t put up with it.”

But progressives hope the current wave of anti-Trump furor in deep blue cities across the country will help buoy the chances of those on the hard left.

“It’s not folks looking for the leftmost option so much as looking for a candidate who’s gonna be on their side,” said Ravi Mangla, speaking for the left-wing Working Families Party. The party often endorses the same candidates as the DSA and is readying to target more mayoral offices in the country’s biggest metropolises this fall and in 2028.

“It’s less about whether you are on the right or on the left so much as whether you are willing to punch up at the powerful,” he added.

Mamdani and Lewis George are both self-described “sewer socialists” who emphasize the need for responsive government services rather than critiques of market economics. The phrase recalls the socialist Gilded Age mayors whom critics derided as too preoccupied with managing public works projects.

The term’s revival is partly a strategic move to align leftist ideas with concerns over affordability and the economy, voters’ top concern in the midterm elections, and shift the public perception of democratic socialists from firebrands who support radical policies to independent-minded public servants.

“This is absolutely a change election and I’m excited to bring the change that people want, which is really putting people first in the city and having the moral clarity and courage to stand up to Trump,” Lewis George said.

For voters the ‘socialist’ label did not seem to matter

While conservatives have used the “socialist” label to attack Democrats as extreme or incompetent, some D.C. voters appeared ambivalent before Tuesday’s primary.

Several lifelong residents said they believed Lewis George was a “fighter” but didn’t think she’d have much of an impact on the local economy, given the city’s status as a federal district.

“I go back and forth on my own labels and whether I am supportive of that movement or not, but I am supportive of making D.C. more affordable,” Owen Fitzgerald, a University of Maryland graduate student, said of his support for democratic socialism.

Fitzgerald voted for Lewis George because she would stand up to Trump and said he’d first learned of her campaign from friends in his neighborhood. But he didn’t know she was a democratic socialist until he saw news reports describing her with the label.

“It sends a cultural message to this administration that the people who are surrounding them in the capital are opposed to their platform, opposed to their political agenda, and I think that it will send a message, both nationally and internationally,” Fitzgerald said.

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The relationship between President Trump and Senate Republicans neared a breaking point this week as he upended their efforts to speedily confirm one of his own nominees and said he would not sign the renewal of a key surveillance law unless they agree to new terms.

Trump’s overnight social media post Wednesday that he was delaying Jay Clayton’s nomination to become national intelligence director, just hours before the U.S. attorney’s confirmation hearing, further strained relations between the Senate and White House that have been worsening for weeks. Later that day, some Republican senators who have been hesitant to challenge the president directly on the Iran war were blunt in their criticism of his deal to end it.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on X.

The open tensions are an almost complete reversal from a year ago when Senate Republicans worked closely with Trump on a complicated effort to push through his massive package of spending and tax cuts.

At the time, criticism of the president was almost nonexistent among Republicans on Capitol Hill, and they planned to highlight passage of that bill in the midterms. But as the November election draws closer and Republicans are trying to defend their majorities, Trump is instead needling Congress with his demands and reversals, driving several Republican senators to disparage his actions publicly for the first time.

“I think somebody’s not dialing the president into the complexities of what he’s done here,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Wednesday after Clayton’s confirmation was postponed. “I mean, my God.”

The slow unraveling of what once seemed like an airtight alliance between the executive and legislative branches in a Republican-led Washington extends to their policy priorities.

Trump appears to have lost interest in most of the GOP agenda and has become almost singularly focused on his voting legislation to require proof of citizenship, which has almost no chance of passing. At the same time, he has asked members of Congress to fund parts of his White House ballroom project, allow a temporary intelligence director that none of them likes and cede their powers on the Iran war.

The growing rift has brought much of the Senate’s business to a halt and put Republicans who are up for reelection this year on the defensive. It has also put pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has been upfront with Trump about what he can and cannot do in the Senate.

Trump pressures Thune on voting bill

Trump has pressured Thune (R-S.D.) relentlessly to scrap the filibuster and pass the strict proof-of-citizenship legislation, called the SAVE America Act. Thune has told Trump publicly and privately that the votes are not there for either step. Still, Trump has kept up the push.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said he would be “the last Republican president” if the voting bill does not pass.

“Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and the Republican Senate, must not let this ‘carnage’ happen,” Trump said. “They will go down on the wrong side of History, as will all Republicans who just stood by and watched.”

Nonetheless, Trump has yet to go after the well-liked Republican leader on a personal basis, as he often did with Thune’s predecessor, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Trump once called McConnell a “ dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”

Trump and Thune talk frequently, even as Thune is sometimes giving the president news he does not want to hear. As Trump pushed for the voting bill, Thune scheduled weeks of floor time to consider it, an effort to make clear that the Senate was supportive, even if the votes are lacking.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, said he has never heard Trump say anything negative about Thune.

“It’s a difficult position,” Schmitt said of Thune’s role in the Senate. “I think they have a good working relationship.”

One of Thune’s closest allies, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, said the even-keeled leader is the “right person at the right time.”

“In the Capitol today, he is the stable force,” Rounds said. “In Washington, D.C., today, he is the stable force.”

No signs of revolt among Senate GOP

There were no signs of a revolt within the GOP conference, for now, despite Trump’s pressure.

Thune “has managed it better than anyone else could manage it,” said Cassidy, who has become a more frequent Trump critic since a primary loss to a Trump-backed challenger.

Criticism of Trump has at times surfaced even among his closest Senate allies, especially with his proposed $1.776-billion settlement fund for his political allies and his pick for acting intelligence director, Bill Pulte, who has no known intelligence experience.

But the rift with Trump has also stoked some new internal tensions.

Several Republican senators criticized Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who has waged an online campaign to eliminate the filibuster and pass the SAVE America Act, in a private conference lunch this week for stoking dissension within the party in an election year.

Unbowed, Lee has kept up his social media campaign, including a post Friday on X in which he said that giving up because Republicans lack the votes is a “recipe for failure.”

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, one of those who spoke out at the meeting, replied that it is Lee’s job to find the votes, “if you can.”

“Can’t just complain about others,” Cornyn posted. “Prove us wrong.”

Trump’s dwindling number of allies

Some Senate Republicans have made clear they have no plans to separate themselves from Trump.

As several of his colleagues criticized Trump’s agreement with Iran this week, first-term Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) aggressively defended it on social media.

“Let’s get the Nobel Peace Prize ready!” Moreno posted on X.

But Trump has far fewer of those Senate allies than he did when they narrowly passed the tax and spending cuts legislation a year ago. That is in part because he has picked off some of the most loyal Republican votes himself.

Cassidy and Cornyn lost in primaries last month after Trump endorsed their opponents. Tillis announced he was not running for reelection last year after Trump repeatedly criticized him on social media.

Now all three have become frequent critics.

Shortly after his election loss, Cornyn posted on social media a fable about a frog and a scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog to carry it across a river, according to the fable, and then stings the frog in the middle of the river, “dooming them both.”

“The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence,” Cornyn’s post read. “To which the scorpion replies: ‘I am sorry, but I couldn’t help myself. It’s my character.’ ”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

As Colombia comes down from the ecstasy-filled high of its recent win in their 2026 World Cup opener, a sadder, and much darker reality is beginning to set. On June 21^st, 2026, Colombians will vote in a historic runoff election that will not only hurt Colombia but will have serious effects on the future of Venezuela. 

No matter the outcome, Colombia will be worse off, as both Iván Cepeda and Abelardo De la Espriella are a study on how a democracy can offer voters a choice between two particular brands of terrible.

The first-round of the election provides a clear insight into the current state of Colombian civil society. Like many presidential systems, Colombia structures its presidential elections in a two-round system.  If no candidate surpasses 50% of the vote in the first round, as happened on May 31st, a second runoff election is called between the first and second placed candidates. That runoff is this Sunday, June 21^st. Moderate and moderate right-wing candidates Sergio Fajardo and Paloma Valencia achieved historic electoral lows for centrists with 4% and 6% of the vote respectively, whilst the radical extremes of the political scale rejoiced in victory. 

The biggest surprise was undoubtedly Abelardo de la Espriella´s first round victory, with the self-anointed “Tiger” garnering 43.7% of the vote to first round favourite Iván Cepeda´s 40.9%. With a mere 600,000 votes separating the candidates and about 3 million votes being contested, both can win the election. 

Cepeda, who is President Gustavo Petro’s hand-picked heir, initially questioned the results alongside the controversial president, and only accepted them on June 7^th, a week after the election. With his institutional backing, that delay matters. All in all, Colombians ran to the extremes, which provided a clear data-backed picture of just how polarized Colombian civil society is.

Whoever gets sworn in Bogotá on August 7^th2026, will have more operational influence over Venezuelan affairs than any other head of state in the hemisphere, apart from Trump.

Regardless of the result in the June 21^st runoff, the Colombian elections will have a lasting effect on the future of Venezuela and could be the catalyst for very different answers to the question of the country´s political future. 

First and foremost, Colombia is the country that has received the largest number of Venezuelan migrants, with approximately 3 million Venezuelans calling the country home. Since January 2025, Colombia has been hosting the diaspora without US funding and support. Furthermore, part of the the 2,219 kilometre-long border between both countries is controlled by the Colombian Guerrilla ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional), who lost key ally and facilitator Nicolás Maduro on January 3^rd and is currently massing on the Colombian side.

Bogotá’s diplomatic influence and posture is one of the few international players that can have significant effects on whether interim dictator Delcy Rodríguez will eventually push for elections in Venezuela. 

All in all, whoever gets sworn in Bogotá on August 7^th 2026, will have more operational influence over Venezuelan affairs than any other head of state in the hemisphere, apart from the self-proclaimed most popular man in Venezuela, Donald Trump.

Now, it’s time to get down to brass tacks, the who is who. Inside trash can number one we find Iván Cepeda. Cepeda’s personal arc is worryingly similar to that of the Rodríguez siblings in Venezuela. His father was a radical Left politician murdered by far Right paramilitary groups. That fuelled Cepeda’s deep hatred towards the Colombian political system and institutions. A career senator and politician, Cepeda is probably the smartest mind in Colombia’s hard Left. He is also an admirer of Hugo Chávez, and strong critic of former president and kingmaker Álvaro Úribe. Cepeda’s followers will frame him as a left-wing moderate, but he is not. He is Petro without the cocaine, prostitutes and charisma, running on continuing the Total Peace framework that has seen record numbers of cocaine production in the country, and bolstered the rearming of the ELN. His commitment to governmental continuity will no doubt hurt Colombia, starting with the fact that current policies have driven down Foreign Direct Investment in Colombia by 30% from a 2023 peak.

De la Espriella is a one-man band who won the first round through violent speeches, AI anthropomorphic videos of himself as a tiger, and evangelical networks.

Furthermore, his delay in recognizing the electoral results provides an interesting insight on how Cepeda could interact with institutions that he finds inconvenient. A man who questions clean elections certified by international observers has no business rewriting constitutions, a key pillar on his first-round electoral campaign, which he recently dropped in a pathetic attempt to attract centrists and moderates. Cepeda’s rhetoric and language is extremely divisive. He frames every political opponent as an oligarch, every private enterprise as an exploiter, every security operation as state violence whilst analysing the deep social gaps and concerns the country must navigate. Rather than seeking to solve them, Cepeda weaponizes them to further divide the Colombian population.

But Cepeda’s rottenness is not counterbalanced by a knight in shining armour, but by a different but equally foul-smelling individual. We find Abelardo “The Tiger” de la Espriella inside trash can number two. The part-time attorney, part-time rum maker, aspiring opera singer, fashionista with terrible taste is one of the most questionable figures in the Colombian public sphere. A criminal defence attorney, who became famous for being the lawyer and fixer for chavista allies like Alex Saab and paramilitary leaders, has found a new “passion project” in his expanding list of questionable side hustles: becoming the president of Colombia. De la Espriella comes in as a true outsider who has no congressional or political backing. He is a one-man band who won the first round through violent speeches, AI anthropomorphic videos of himself as a tiger, and evangelical networks.

Abelardo’s rhetoric only serves to perpetrate a never-ending cycle of violence. The anti-democratic claims that he will literally “gut leftists,” his active endorsements of states of exception and support for arbitrary concentrations of power within the presidency, his promise to open ten CECOT-style mega prisons, and his constant disregard and attacks against human rights are problematic. 

His “security agenda” is not offering any coherent security policy. On the contrary, he’s seeking to create a permission structure for state-sponsored political violence, dressed as law and order. His policy against the ELN of all-out war has no institutional backing, and risks triggering considerable escalation. Events like the April 25^th bombing can serve as a prelude of what an empowered ELN can look like. 

De la Espriella’s polarization is of a different flavour to Cepeda’s, but equally problematic. Instead of using social and class divides, the Tiger weaponizes the us-versus-them mentality along the lines of patriots and enemies. In a country with such a tragic and saddening history of political violence, that rhetoric has a body count attached to it.

Cepeda’s attitude will likely be lukewarm and soft on Venezuela, dragging his feet on any meaningful action such as Venezuelan migrants in Colombia or elections in our country.

At the end of the day, either candidate will face serious problems to govern, and will bring a myriad of conundrums for Colombia, but how do their stances translate into the Venezuelan question? On one hand, Iván Cepeda has constantly framed the operation to extract Nicolás Maduro as violation of sovereignty, a position which lacks any diplomatic nuance, and at the same time provides strong insights into how Cepeda will behave towards Venezuela and how much pressure he´ll exert on Venezuela to call for elections. The Total Peace Framework will provide the ELN with the political umbrella to consolidate in the border region, stacking an unpredictable situation on top of an already volatile powder-keg in Venezuela. Calling Cepeda a “friend” of Maduro or Delcy is not accurate, but he is the regime’s useful neighbour. His attitude will most likely be lukewarm and soft on Venezuela, dragging his feet on any meaningful action like his predecessor Gustavo Petro such as Venezuelan migrants in Colombia or elections in our country.

On the other hand, analysing Abelardo’s impact on Venezuela must begin with the fact that he was the leading defence attorney for Alex Saab between 2013 and 2018, the same years Saab ran Maduro’s sanction-busting operation. Although his divisive rhetoric claims forceful actions, his personal history and contacts in his rolodex prove that rather than full force, there is a clear entanglement with the chavista operation. De la Espriella also has no real plan for the domestic situation with refugees, and his ultra-nationalist stance could cause serious problems for foreign populations in Colombia. Furthermore, his full force campaign against the guerrillas can drive the ELN back over the Venezuelan border.

A small “silver lining” does exist. On one hand, Cepeda has stated that he will try to push for regularization mechanisms in Colombia. On the other, Abelardo’s ties to the International Right and Donald Trump can transform him into a key figure to push for a decisive presidential election and as a source of pressure on Delcy.

Colombia’s role as a key interlocutor with Venezuela is undeniably at risk regardless of who wins the presidency. Because the region and Venezuela needed a Colombian president that could be a genuine bridge between Washington and Caracas, between the Venezuelan diaspora and integration, between the ELN and disarmament, and for the ever-divided poles of the Colombian population. But rather, on June 21, the country was forced to choose between ideological blindness dressed in progressive language, and maximum pressure dressed over an obvious conflict of interest. Venezuela might again pay the price for someone else’s terrible choices.

PHILADELPHIA — The Trump administration can replace a slavery exhibit at George Washington’s home in Philadelphia, a federal appeals court panel said Thursday, striking down a lower court’s injunction that required the National Park Service to reinstall the interpretive panels.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge wrongly interpreted Philadelphia’s contract claims involving Independence National Historical Park, saying the city merely having standing to sue did not mean its arguments had merit. The panel also praised the plans for the replacement installation, writing that they were “full of historical context,” despite objections from historians and city officials that the content appears whitewashed.

The ruling comes a week after a Massachusetts federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore sites changed under an executive order calling for the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks to not display elements that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” The federal government has asked for a stay on that ruling while it appeals.

It was unclear how the Massachusetts ruling would affect the restoration or replacement of the panels at the President’s House Site. About half the large panels at the outdoor exhibit had been restored before a February pause in the work.

Messages to spokespeople for the Department of Interior and the National Park Service were not returned.

In a statement on Instagram late Thursday, Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker vowed to pursue legal avenues to reverse the decision.

“We cannot and WILL not rest until the full story of American history – including the existence of Slavery at the President’s House here in Philadelphia – is told, for our Nation and the World to see,” she wrote.

Dawn Chavous, a volunteer for Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, one of the advocacy groups that helped develop the site in the 2000s, said they are disappointed with the decision but are speaking to their attorneys and considering options.

“For decades, ATAC has worked to ensure that the stories of the enslaved African descendants who lived and labored at the President’s House are not erased, overlooked, or misrepresented,” the group said in an emailed statement. “That commitment remains unwavering. We believe that historical truth matters, and we will continue to advocate for the protection, preservation, and accurate interpretation of this important chapter of American history.”

The city of Philadelphia sued in January after the National Park Service, in response to President Trump’s executive order, removed the explanatory panels from the President’s House Site, where George and Martha Washington lived with nine of their slaves in the 1790s, when Philadelphia was briefly the nation’s capital.

The city had worked in tandem with the federal government, historians and private partners to create the exhibit in the early 2000s — as part of a longstanding cooperation agreement over the downtown historical park — and contributed $1.5 million toward its creation.

The city argued that the federal government must consult with the city before making changes to the President’s House Site. Justice Department lawyers argued the administration alone can decide what stories are told at National Park Service properties.

In its ruling Thursday, the appeals panel said the maintenance portion of the contract between the city and the federal government could not be interpreted to mean the site would remain as it was when it was completed.

“The duty to ‘maintain’ is better understood as a general management obligation that accompanies ownership, not a promise that the exhibits will forever remain in place regardless of the owner’s wishes,” the opinion said.

Casey and Lauer write for the Associated Press. Casey contributed to this report from Boston.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans continue to disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, while his overall presidential approval holds steady, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted as he suggested a deal with Iran had been reached.

The poll points to just how unpopular the war, which began Feb. 28, has been with Americans even as the Republican president turned abruptly from threatening Iran to reopening negotiations. Support for his handling of the war remains lopsidedly partisan. About two-thirds, 65%, of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran. But while the vast majority of Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only 28% of Republicans are unhappy.

Americans’ views on how the president is handling Iran are roughly in line with his overall job approval, which stands at 37%, unchanged from an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May.

The new survey was conducted June 11-17, just after Trump called off threats to escalate the war with Iran. The poll was fielded as Trump announced a deal with Iran and authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, concluding just before the deal was signed Wednesday.

Approval of Trump’s actions on Iran has been low over the past few months. But in interviews, some Republicans also weren’t pleased with the outcome of this week’s agreement, which gives Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again.

The deal also reopens the strait without tolls for two months, restarts talks between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program and calls for Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent in Fort Worth, Texas, “doesn’t have any love lost” for Iran, but he’s frustrated the agreement focused on the strait and didn’t deliver more on the country’s nuclear weapons program.

“Any agreement regarding the strait is hardly what I would consider a recognizable concession on the part of Iran,” Farrington said. “So, I consider that some fluff that attempts to make this agreement look better when it’s not.”

Trump’s approval on Iran remains flat

Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Iran in the new poll, in line with May.

Donald McBride, a 28-year-old independent in Plano, Texas, is frustrated that Trump has not maintained his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. McBride voted for Trump but he opposed going to war with Iran.

“I would like the war to end,” he said. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”

The poll suggests most Americans want action in Iran to wrap up. Even with an agreement on the horizon, 53% of U.S. adults said American military action against Iran had “gone too far,” only a slight decline from 59% in March.

About 4 in 10 Republicans, though, said in the latest poll that action has been “about right,” and 37% said it had not gone far enough.

Joan Jones, a 64-year-old independent in northwest Florida, believes the United States’ actions in Iran have been necessary to address the threat Iran posed.

“Those attacks are ultimately to protect us from nuclear attacks,” Jones said. “I think we have to go through that … and eliminate that worry so we don’t have that hovering over us.”

Few approve of Trump’s approach on Israel

About one-third, 34%, of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Israel.

Tensions have been rising between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump as the president criticizes recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which jeopardized negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

James Huffman, a 69-year-old Republican in Medway, Ohio, thinks Trump is taking the wrong strategy when it comes to Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu is not going to do everything Trump wants. He’s going to do what he wants,” Huffman said. “I just don’t think it’s effective.”

Only about one-third approve on the economy

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to the economy. That’s in line with last month, and continues a challenging stretch for Trump on the issue.

Jones, the Florida independent, is more optimistic than most. She said she can hardly leave the house some hours without getting stuck in the traffic of tourists headed to the beach on vacation. She also spots lines around the block for Starbucks, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A in her community — all signs to her that the economy is doing well overall.

“I think President Trump’s policies are contributing to a better economy,” Jones said.

Other Republicans are more skeptical, a troubling sign for a president who prides himself on his business acumen. Only 69% of Republicans approve of how he’s handling the economy, slightly lower than the 78% who approve of how he’s handling the presidency overall.

Patricia Bailey, a 42-year-old Republican in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sees an economy where prices have gotten out of control. “I just said the other night, ordering pizza is for rich people,” she said. Bailey voted for Trump but added, “He’s kind of let me down a little bit.”

Even if high prices preceded Trump, Bailey doesn’t think he’s lived up to his pledge to improve the economy.

“I think he got so distracted with the war that he forgot some old promises,” she said.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

The AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults was conducted June 11-17 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 2.8 percentage points.

California’s political watchdog commission on Thursday finalized a $31,500 fine against Gov. Gavin Newsom, alleging that the Democratic leader failed to report three dozen behested payments totaling $5.5 million mostly to support wildfire recovery by the deadline under state law.

The Political Reform Act requires elected officials to disclose payments of $5,000 or more that they solicit or direct others to give to a charitable, legislative or governmental purpose within 30 days.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said 34 of the violations were for failing to report on time that Newsom and his staff directed outreach from companies and foundations that wanted to help after the Los Angeles wildfires to the California Fire Foundation. The nonprofit was started in 1987 by the California Professional Firefighters to support the families of fallen firefighters and communities impacted by fire.

The donations include $1 million from the Chuck Lorre Foundation and $500,000 apiece from Lockheed Martin, the Anthem Blue Cross Foundation and BlackRock, among others gifts.

The governor also failed in 2024 to report on time two behested payments, totaling $100,000 from the Schmidt Family Foundation and Schwab Charitable Funds to the Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit within the League of California Cities.

The commission said the governor reported all of the payments “prior to public discovery” or contact from its enforcement division, which it considered a mitigating factor. Newsom also signed the stipulation and agreed to the fine.

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, said the issue involved late paperwork at a time when the governor’s staff was focused on emergency response and supporting survivors. She also underscored the fact that the reports were filed before he was contact by the FPPC.

Gallegos said the fine is unrelated to an alleged investigation into the governor and his wife by the Department of Justice, which Newsom announced this week.

Newsom alleged Monday that Trump is using the government as political weapon to target him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Newsom announced the investigation after he learned that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service asked his associates questions about nonprofits and businesses related to the couple.

The governor’s office characterized the investigation as a fishing expedition. The Trump administration declined to comment.

A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C., but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.

The FPPC violations mark the second time Newsom has reported payments late, which increased his penalty for the new infractions. The commission fined Newsom in 2024 for failing to timely report 18 payments totaling $14.4 million.

WASHINGTON — Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.

The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber’s schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’ ”

Daschle’s account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, did not call for a vote authorizing the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm election. But the vote paving the way for the second war with Iraq came in mid-October of 2002 — at the height of an election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security.

Few candidates sparred over the war resolution itself. But Republicans in states including Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota and Georgia strafed Democratic senators seeking reelection who had supported military spending cutbacks in the 1990s, accepted money from a liberal arms-control group, opposed Bush’s preferred approach for organizing the new Department of Homeland Security, and voted in 1991 against the Persian Gulf War.

With national security then such a flashpoint in so many campaigns, many Democrats believe, the vote’s timing enormously increased pressure on their party’s wavering senators to back the president, whose approval rating approached 70% at the time.

“There was a sense I had from the very beginning that this was in part politically motivated, and they were going to maximize the timing to affect those who were having some doubt about this right before the election,” Daschle said.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that charge, saying the vote’s timing represented a desire to increase pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Democrats.

“The president, during the run-up to the war, went out of his way not to make it political,” Bartlett said.

Whatever the motivation for the vote’s timing, the effect was to produce a clear contrast between the Democratic senators who sought reelection that November and those who did not.

The Democrats not on the ballot split almost evenly, with 19 supporting the war resolution and 17 opposing it. Among those facing the voters, 10 voted for the resolution while only four opposed it. And of those four, only one — Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash a few weeks after the resolution vote — was in a seriously competitive race.

“The political currents were extraordinarily strong for everybody involved,” said Jim Jordan, then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “I’m certainly not implying that Democrats had their finger to the wind and didn’t make votes of conscience, but it was a piece of the puzzle, clearly.”

It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.

Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, “given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration.”

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.

“There was a stampede to vote on this,” Kennedy said. “A lot of our people got caught up in it.”

Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt “like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn’t speak very well of them, because the facts didn’t change in the course of one month.”

Democrats themselves were divided over the vote’s timing. Kennedy, Wellstone and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) were among those who passionately urged Daschle to defer the vote until after the election, said several sources who requested anonymity when discussing the party’s internal debate.

The sources said that other Democratic senators supported Bush’s push, in part because the senators believed an early vote might help the party shift attention to domestic issues it wanted to spotlight before election day. Democrats also felt more pressure to act because they recognized that the GOP-controlled House would agree to Bush’s request on the vote’s timing.

Against this backdrop, Republicans across the country were escalating attacks on their Democratic opponents on defense issues.

Starting in mid-September, for instance, then-Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued statements and organized news conferences by veterans to criticize Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson for voting against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

On Oct. 4, one week before the Senate vote, Thune released an ad that used images of Hussein and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden to criticize Johnson for voting against missile defense systems.

In Minnesota beginning in mid-September, Republican Norm Coleman organized retired military officials to hold news conferences charging that Wellstone “didn’t just vote to devastate our defense; he voted to dismantle it.” In late September, the National Republican Senatorial Committee ran ads attacking Wellstone over votes to reduce military spending.

The committee ran similar ads against Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) one week before the vote.

Although he did not criticize Democrats over Iraq, Bush stoked the overall security debate during a series of appearances between Sept. 23 and Oct. 4. He criticized Senate Democrats who were blocking the administration’s preferred version of legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security because, they said, it gave the president too much freedom to suspend workers’ civil service protections.

“The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people,” Bush said in New Jersey.

Bush’s comments reverberated most powerfully in the Senate race in Georgia, where Saxby Chambliss, then a Republican House member, began criticizing incumbent Democrat Max Cleland over the Homeland Security issue.

Less than a day after the Senate authorized the use of force in Iraq, Chambliss aired what became the most talked-about ad of the 2002 election: a sharply worded jab that used pictures of Hussein and Bin Laden to accuse Cleland of voting “against the president’s vital Homeland Security efforts.”

Cleland, Johnson and Harkin were among the Democrats who voted for the war resolution; Wellstone voted no.

Less than a month later, Johnson and Harkin were reelected, Cleland was defeated and Coleman beat former Vice President Walter F. Mondale for Wellstone’s seat after the senator’s death. Overall, Republicans widened their majority in the House and swept back into control of the Senate.

WASHINGTON — The 101st Congress convened its second session today, facing an agenda suddenly expanded by the emergence of democracy in Eastern Europe and a plan to cut Social Security taxes at home.

Lingering issues also abound, including child care, capital-gains taxes and deficit reduction.

Not waiting for President Bush to send up his own budget and legislative proposals, the Senate almost immediately began debating a far-reaching plan for cleaning up the air–a bill that is more costly and more sweeping than the President wants. Opposition is based more on geography and competing regional interests than on party lines.

The first day of the session was marked by friendly reunions. Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) told colleagues he’d nearly died of a pancreas ailment during the long break, and he accepted hugs and applause on the House floor.

Outside, a half dozen House members arrived on bicycles after a two-block trip from a congressional office building to call attention to plans for Earth Day in the spring.

On a more substantive matter, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) formally introduced a bill to reduce Social Security taxes–an idea that prompted a full-scale White House attack when he proposed it last month. Moynihan says workers are being deceived because their Social Security taxes are being used to make the federal deficit appear far smaller than it is.

“These are insurance contributions, they are premiums paid,” Moynihan told a news conference. “They do not belong to the government. If we are not going to save them, we should return them.”

His bill, which has drawn widespread interest but few sponsors, would roll back the tax increase that took effect Jan. 1 and reduce another scheduled for next year. That would save a worker with income over $51,300 about $600 and leave the Social Security system with just enough money to pay retirees’ checks, Moynihan said.

The Bush Administration says such cuts would lead to reductions in benefits or to efforts to raise other taxes.

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), a member of the Budget Committee, did what is seldom done in Congress these days: He introduced a bill proposing a tax increase. He recommended a 5% national sales tax that would exempt food, health care and housing.

WASHINGTON — The White House pushed back Thursday against growing bipartisan criticism of a negotiated settlement to the war with Iran, arguing its concessions to the Islamic Republic were contingent on its conduct and essential to securing peace.

The administration’s defensive posture came as details of the framework agreement, known as a memorandum of understanding, were finally shared with the public, revealing a raft of compromises with Tehran long opposed by Republicans.

Vice President JD Vance, who helped negotiate the deal, told reporters Thursday that the deal was structured to reward Iran for good behavior. But the text of the agreement suggests otherwise.

The Trump administration agreed to release billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were frozen and restricted by the United States “upon the implementation” of the memorandum — before any further actions are taken or additional negotiations begin. The president will issue sanctions waivers on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of policy. And to facilitate that trade, boosting Tehran’s revenues, Trump agreed to immediately end a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Still more concessions were offered to the Iranians, including a commitment by the U.S. administration to establish a fund of “at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic” — in effect providing reparations for the war Trump started.

“All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America,” the memorandum reads.

Taken together, the document reads as a stunning reversal of U.S. policy toward Iran after decades of concern across administrations in Washington — including throughout Trump’s two terms — that the Islamic Republic represents the nation’s greatest security threats as the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Criticism from Republican senators, in particular, has been sharp and swift.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the $300-billion fund “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the Trump administration of giving Iran money it would use to kill Americans.

“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think, unfortunately, the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “I don’t want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah. And I hope that we don’t.”

The Obama-era deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, included structured sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for concrete and verifiable steps by Tehran to dismantle much of its nuclear program — a framework that Republicans broadly criticized at the time.

By contrast, Trump’s agreement commits the United States to pursuing economic relief for Iran while providing no clarity about the future of Iran’s nuclear program — the very issue Trump cited as the rationale for launching the war.

The memorandum includes a pledge by Iran to never purchase or construct nuclear weapons — a vow the Islamic Republic has made multiple times before, including by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a religious edict issued by the late supreme leader and in the Obama-era nuclear accord.

Vice President JD Vance speaks to reporters at the White House on June 18, 2026.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program — including whether Tehran could continue domestic uranium enrichment, at what level, and under what monitoring regime — were left for another day.

For more than a decade, the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran sought a threshold nuclear capability, securing the strategic advantages of a nuclear power without incurring the costs of openly pursuing a bomb.

The agreement does include a commitment by Iran to do its “best” to bring commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international waterway, back to prewar levels. But critics of the president said he had to make deep, historic concessions just to secure a status quo ante upended by the war he started. And in the document, Tehran agreed to refrain from imposing a toll on ships transiting the strait for only a 60-day period.

“Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one’s confident that Iran is going to do anything,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, told reporters this week.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, Kennedy’s Republican counterpart from Louisiana, called the deal “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades” that would have President Reagan “rolling over in his grave.”

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” Cassidy said.

“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive,” he added. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped.”

Despite mounting criticism, Trump put his signature to the memorandum on Wednesday night while attending a dinner with the French president in Versailles, a palace infamous for hosting a treaty signing that disgraced Germany at the end of the First World War.

He defended the agreement while in Europe and suggested further concessions might be forthcoming, including recognition of Iran’s claimed right to enrich uranium and a new willingness to tolerate its continued ballistic missile development — another program that Trump had vowed to eliminate as a central war aim.

“He took America to war — killing 13 soldiers, thousands of Iranian civilians and costing taxpayers $60 billion — to get rid of Iran’s missile program. And now that he’s lost the war, he pretends like it’s no big deal,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

“Just unforgivable,” he added. “What a charlatan.”

PHOENIX — Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes is dismissing a sprawling criminal case that alleged President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others tried to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in the state.

The decision, announced Thursday, marks the third such fake elector case filed by states to be dismissed, though the Democratic attorney general is vowing to bring it back to a grand jury in hopes of securing another indictment.

The legal maneuver is aimed at getting around a Friday deadline for starting new grand jury proceedings after Mayes lost an appeal earlier this month. The appeal was filed after defense attorneys argued successfully that the original grand jury hadn’t been shown the relevant parts of a law that governs how presidential contests are certified.

Courts have dismissed similar cases in Michigan and Georgia, and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Those cases ended after Trump defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Nevada and Wisconsin.

The Nevada charges were dismissed in 2024 after a judge concluded Clark County, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case. Later that year, though, the case was refiled in Carson City, Nevada’s capital.

The Arizona case had been stalled for well over a year while Mayes pursued the appeal.

In Arizona, defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed. Federal law was amended in 2022 to specify that any given state could put forward only one slate of electors and that state governors are responsible for signing off.

Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

The state attorney general has faced steep challenges in making her case.

It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and levels complicated conspiracy charges against the 18 defendants. A dozen dismissal requests filed by defense attorneys have slowed progress in court.

The first judge on the case recused himself in late 2024 after an email surfaced in which he told fellow judges to speak out against attacks on Harris’ campaign for the presidency. The next judge ordered the case to be sent back to a grand jury.

Of the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump aides, five were lawyers working for Trump and 11 were Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona.

Three defendants have resolved their cases, including one who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

The rest pleaded not guilty. Some said they signed the certificate in case Trump won court challenges and a new slate of electors was needed urgently before Congress’ Jan. 6 deadline to tally votes.

The case has factored into Arizona’s attorney general race, where both Republican challengers to Mayes have publicly said they will dismiss the charges if they were elected to the post.

Billeaud writes for The Associated Press.

A bitter battle that exposed deep divisions over the direction of America’s conservation movement reached culmination with the announcement Wednesday that Sierra Club members had overwhelmingly rejected a campaign by immigration control advocates to control the venerable environmental group.

In what was termed the largest voter turnout in the Sierra Club’s 112-year history, more than 22% of the group’s 757,000 members cast ballots to select its governing board. The votes, which were submitted by members in March and April, were tallied Wednesday. The members elected a slate backed by the club’s leaders and which received more than 110,000 votes apiece.

By contrast, a slate of candidates seeking to bring a strong immigration control agenda to the club garnered only minimal support — former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, the best known, received 13,090 votes.

“I never argue with the voters. My congratulations to the winners,” Lamm said in an e-mail shortly after the results were announced. He declined to be interviewed.

Five seats were up for grabs on the club’s 15-member governing board. The election took place via mail and the Internet starting in March.

The election was the second time in less than a decade that the Sierra Club, arguably the nation’s most influential environmental group, has publicly wrestled with the issue of restricting immigration. Members voted to remain neutral on the issue in 1998, following a campaign that featured accusations that conservationists were resorting to immigrant bashing, and counterclaims that political correctness was leading to environmental cowardice. The same accusations were raised this year.

Despite the 1998 vote, an increasingly vocal group of environmentalists continued to argue that the Sierra Club needed to aggressively support strict immigration controls, citing the destructive effect of unchecked U.S. population growth on the nation’s natural resources.

Three prominent immigration control advocates — UCLA astronomy professor Ben Zuckerman, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette, and Paul Watson, leader of the group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, already had won seats to the board in recent years, putting majority control within the grasp of the dissidents in this year’s election.

Sierra Club leaders said after the landslide vote that they hoped the rancorous dispute had finally been resolved.

“I thought the issue should have been laid to rest after 1998, and I certainly don’t see anything in these results to suggest [members] have had a change of heart,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

“We are delighted that the turnout was so strong. This may have been the largest election turnout ever for a nonprofit organization other than the NRA,” the National Rifle Assn.

However, it quickly became clear on Wednesday that the losing side considered the issue far from resolved. Rather than seeing the results as evidence that Sierra Club members did not support an immigration platform, critics called it proof that dirty tactics by the status quo to promote their favorites had unfairly tipped the scales.

Some dissidents said they were holding out hope that a lawsuit filed recently in San Francisco Superior Court would result in a new election. The suit alleges that Sierra Club leaders violated state laws governing nonprofits by using club funds to promote candidates they had endorsed.

Club officials called the claims groundless. A similar suit by Lamm was withdrawn when Pope and other club officials threatened a countersuit.

“The Sierra Club just elected the best new directors money can buy — but with a lawsuit pending over unfair election practices, justice and truth may yet prevail,” said a losing candidate, Karyn Strickler.

Strickler, who said she did not advocate curbing immigration and was running as an independent reformer, said all candidates who collected petitions to be on the ballot were damaged by an “urgent election notice” to Sierra Club members that accompanied the ballot and warned of “outside groups” seeking to influence the club’s agenda. Under Sierra Club bylaws, some candidates are automatically placed on the ballot by current leaders; others can collect signatures to run.

The ballot notice referred to racist and anti-immigrant websites that had posted stories urging their visitors to vote for immigration-control candidates in the Sierra Club elections, and made similar links to animal rights groups and hemp proponents. As a result of the notice, critics argued that voters were pressured to stick with the candidates endorsed by the current leadership.

During the dawn of the modern environmental movement four decades ago, conservationists widely embraced the goal of global population control. Books such as “The Population Bomb” by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich painted a dire portrait of a planet straining under man’s increasingly wide footprint.

Yet although many environmentalists still call for worldwide curbs on population, they are increasingly divided over the less-abstract issue of restricting the flood of newcomers to America. According to the U.S. census, the U.S. population, now more than 292 million, could surge by 50% over the next 50 years, largely because of immigrants and their children.

Former Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, one of the founders of Earth Day, sided with immigration control advocates, supporting Cornell University professor David Pimentel.

The two had been active in the Carrying Capacity Network, a population control organization that advocates strict curbs on immigration.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the founder of Waterkeeper Alliance, lent his name to the election campaign to defeat Pimentel and the other insurgents. Actor Robert Redford and MoveOn.Org, the liberal activist network known for helping propel former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean to prominence, also opposed the anti-immigration candidates.

“I think the agenda of those looking to bring immigration to our organization was soundly defeated,” said Sierra Club President Larry Fahn. “We should now focus on reuniting the membership and getting back to our core mission: to protect the planet. And this year, we should focus on the mission most of us consider most important this year: defeating President Bush and his horrendous environmental policies.”

Yet Fahn conceded that anti-immigration candidates were unlikely to give up their fight.

“The debate will continue,” he said. “Many of them feel so passionate that they will continue agitating and never be pacified.”

Former President Obama, joined by three former presidents, celebrated the opening of his presidential museum in Chicago in an extraordinary event Thursday that brought together world leaders, A-list celebrities, athletes and other internationally known figures.

Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Christina Aguilera and Bono were all slated to perform at the dedication ceremony.

Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters shared the stage with former Presidents Biden, George W. Bush and Clinton, along with former First Ladies Jill Biden, Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was also in attendance.

Obama and Michelle Obama are both expected to give remarks. The invite-only celebration was livestreamed and kicks off a weekend of events centered around the Obama Presidential Center, which opens to the general public on Friday, which is Juneteenth.

President Trump was not in attendance. He called the $850-million center a “total disaster” in a social media post in February.

Those at the event included California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate; civil rights leaders Andrew Young and Al Sharpton; Oprah Winfrey; comedians David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and Stephen Colbert; actor Tom Hanks; tennis legend Billie Jean King and Chicago Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts.

Former world leaders in attendance included former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Jennifer Hudson sang the national anthem. Other musicians slated to perform include Common, Eddie Vedder, Marc Anthony and the Roots, which was serving as the house band.

The Thursday celebration “will reflect a spirit of inspiration and joy, with a big boost from the performers who are sharing their talent with us,” said Valerie Jarrett, the Obama Foundation’s chief executive and former Obama top advisor. “We hope to inspire people everywhere to believe in their power to bring change home.”

General admission tickets for the center are sold out through the end of October. But tens of thousands of people have already been offered a sneak peek of the nearly 20-acre campus on Chicago’s South Side in Jackson Park.

The center, located near where Obama lived and began his political career, is expected to attract more than 1 million visitors annually. It is adjacent to the Griffin Museum of Science and Industry in the lakefront park, and not far from the University of Chicago.

The campus includes a towering museum that covers the political and personal realms of the nation’s first Black president and first lady, while public spaces include a branch of the Chicago Public Library, a playground and athletic center, basketball courts and a picnic area with grills.

The tower’s design is meant to depict four hands coming together in solidarity. Wrapped around one side are 5-foot tall concrete capital letters, an excerpt of Obama’s 2015 speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march. It begins, “You are America.”

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.